911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Curly Surmudgeon on 20 Sep 2009 13:14 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:24:15 -0700, Iarnrod <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 10:44 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...(a)live.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:09 -0700,Iarnrod<iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is >> > proven false. That's just the way it is. >> >> It is precisely that attitude and response that submarines any argument >> you might make. > > How so? When someone says something that's been proven right, and points > that out, you somehow think that undermines the truth of it? That begs > for an explanation, and make it a good one! Then point out what you believe is "proven right" and cease with the ad hominems. Throwing insults is counter productive. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln Would Be Ashamed of Today's Republicans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Iarnrod on 20 Sep 2009 13:49 On Sep 20, 11:14 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...(a)live.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:24:15 -0700, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Sep 18, 10:44 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...(a)live.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:09 -0700,Iarnrod<iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is > >> > proven false. That's just the way it is. > > >> It is precisely that attitude and response that submarines any argument > >> you might make. > > > How so? When someone says something that's been proven right, and points > > that out, you somehow think that undermines the truth of it? That begs > > for an explanation, and make it a good one! > > Then point out what you believe is "proven right" The official findings. > and cease with the ad hominems. Cease with your LYING.. I have NEVER used an ad hominem argument. You are lying by stating such a claim. > Throwing insults is counter productive. No it isn't. It is sweet gloating after being proven correct,
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Sep 2009 16:36 On Sep 19, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 19, 11:09 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 9:27 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would > > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > >t Zionist > > > > > > controlled..... > > > > > > you're a loony > > > > > >http://www.911truth.com/ > > > > >http://www.bunking911.com/links.htmhttp://en.ciawikipedia.org/wiki/Se...... > > > > > And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail. > > > > NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire. > > > > The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits. > > > > Cite? And please use a credible one, and include the design specs. > > > Listen to the designer.http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/ > > But then he's not credible is he? > > How does the fact that he was proven wrong by events support you? > Turns out he was horribly wrong. > > By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 and > 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument approach > to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting the building, > not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. > BIG difference. Doesn't matter. "Multiple jet hits." Those building did no crumble to dust in perfect symmetry from fuel fires or even totally sheared core columns. WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint without help from more than "office fires." THREE steel structures do not collapse into dust and send "body fragments" and tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from "office fires." www.ae911thruth.org http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm http://journalof911studies.com
From: Iarnrod on 20 Sep 2009 17:34 On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 19, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 11:09 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Sep 19, 9:27 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would > > > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > >t Zionist > > > > > > > controlled..... > > > > > > > you're a loony > > > > > > >http://www.911truth.com/ > > > > > >http://www.bunking911.com/links.htmhttp://en.ciawikipedia.org/wiki/Se...... > > > > > > And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail. > > > > > NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire. > > > > > The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits. > > > > > Cite? And please use a credible one, and include the design specs. > > > > Listen to the designer.http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/ > > > But then he's not credible is he? > > > How does the fact that he was proven wrong by events support you? > > Turns out he was horribly wrong. > > > By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 and > > 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument approach > > to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting the building, > > not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. > > BIG difference. > > Doesn't matter. Ummm, of course it matters. You have heard of this thing we call "physics?" > "Multiple jet hits." Low speed low fuel approaches to LGA in fog. In addition, the fact is the designer was wrong, now isn't it! > Those building did no crumble to dust in perfect symmetry from fuel > fires.... Well, you're right about that... the buildings did not "crumble to dust in perfect symmetry" at all. Straw man. > or even totally sheared core columns. The collapsed due to imbalanced static loads that, when steel supports were weakened by fire and pulled inward on the perimeter columns, shifted the massive weights above into dynamic loads that, of course, could only crush everything beneath them. Simple. > WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint without help from more > than "office fires." WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint at all. Another straw man. Doesn't the irrefutable FACT that there were no explosives give you any pause in your physically impossible theory? > THREE steel structures do not collapse into dust and send "body > fragments" and tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from "office > fires."www.ae911thruth.orghttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htmhttp://journalof911studies.com None of which, of course, happened. "Dust" does not include multi-ton chunks of building debris, dearie. Learn what you're talking about before taking on your betters. There is **nothing** in the official findings that is not fully backed by the evidence. There is **nothing** in your kkkooker klaims that is backed even one bit by the evidence.
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Sep 2009 22:07
On Sep 20, 2:34 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 19, 11:09 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 9:27 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would > > > > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > >t Zionist > > > > > > > > controlled..... > > > > > > > > you're a loony > > > > > > > >http://www.911truth.com/ > > > > > > >http://www.bunking911.com/links.htmhttp://en.ciawikipedia.org/wiki/Se...... > > > > > > > And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail.. > > > > > > NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire. > > > > > > The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits. > > > > > > Cite? And please use a credible one, and include the design specs.. > > > > > Listen to the designer.http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/ > > > > But then he's not credible is he? > > > > How does the fact that he was proven wrong by events support you? > > > Turns out he was horribly wrong. > > > > By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 and > > > 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument approach > > > to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting the building, > > > not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. > > > BIG difference. > > > Doesn't matter. > > Ummm, of course it matters. You have heard of this thing we call > "physics?" > > > "Multiple jet hits." > > Low speed low fuel approaches to LGA in fog. > > In addition, the fact is the designer was wrong, now isn't it! > > > Those building did no crumble to dust in perfect symmetry from fuel > > fires.... > > Well, you're right about that... the buildings did not "crumble to > dust in perfect symmetry" at all. Straw man. > > > or even totally sheared core columns. > > The collapsed due to imbalanced static loads that, when steel supports > were weakened by fire and pulled inward on the perimeter columns, > shifted the massive weights above into dynamic loads that, of course, > could only crush everything beneath them. Simple. > > > WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint without help from more > > than "office fires." > > WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint at all. Another straw > man. > > Doesn't the irrefutable FACT that there were no explosives give you > any pause in your physically impossible theory? > > > THREE steel structures do not collapse into dust and send "body > > fragments" and tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from "office > > fires."www.ae911thruth.orghttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/... > > None of which, of course, happened. "Dust" does not include multi-ton > chunks of building debris, dearie. > > Learn what you're talking about before taking on your betters. There > is **nothing** in the official findings that is not fully backed by > the evidence. There is **nothing** in your kkkooker klaims that is > backed even one bit by the evidence. Buildings don't collapse from "office fires." In no model presented are the tower's cores compromised by the jet hits. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm WTC 7 fires were hardly enough. Show these guys they are wrong. Make them retract. 80 perimeter columns all collapsed at near fee fall speed. Never happened without help. |