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: Michael Moroney on 10 Oct 2009 10:10 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com writes: >On Oct 8, 9:42=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. There are no silent explosives. >> >Liar. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw One boom? And what went boom? Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in the rubble? We don't know! I know the title claims the boom came from WTC7, but what's the proof of that being anything other than a kooktard's delusion? Regardless, since the people videoed didn't start screaming "OhmyGod! Building 7 is collapsing!!", we know that explosion isn't one that triggered Building 7's collapse, so it's just an explosion that doesn't prove anything. >And Thermate doesn't have to explode to cut through steel like butter. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M Thermate doesn't explode at all, kooktard! (And if thermate was used during 9/11, why didn't the towers light up like the sun?) >And even if there were not any videos/audio of explosions, >eyewitnesses saw and heard them. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU Nobody is going to dig through an hour of kooktardery to see your point. Sure there were plenty of loud noises that people will call explosions. But none like a real controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ . How come not a single kooktard is willing to address the question why no sounds like the ones in that video were recorded on any WTC collapse video? They can't, that's why!
From: knews4u2chew on 10 Oct 2009 12:16 On Oct 10, 7:10 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: > >On Oct 8, 9:42=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. There are no silent explosives.. > > >Liar. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw > > One boom? One recorded. How many were not recorded since they were clearing everyone away for blocks. Eyewitness described hearing many just before WTC 7 went down. >And what went boom? Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in > the rubble? Gas tanks don't explode. You watch too much TV. >We don't know! We know this. As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics) 1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution 3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction 4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph 6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found 9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front 10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples 14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed >I know the title claims the boom came from > WTC7, but what's the proof of that being anything other than a kooktard's > delusion? See above. Read what Architects say. Watch the videos and see what "Demolition Experts" say. www.ae911truth.org >Regardless, since the people videoed didn't start screaming > "OhmyGod! Building 7 is collapsing!!", But they did. >we know that explosion isn't one > that triggered Building 7's collapse, so it's just an explosion that > doesn't prove anything. > It proves huge explosions when the Spooks here say there were none. > >And Thermate doesn't have to explode to cut through steel like butter. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M > > Thermate doesn't explode at all, kooktard! > > (And if thermate was used during 9/11, why didn't the towers light up > like the sun?) > Why would you see anything inside the core, through the walls, and through the thick smoke and dust cloud? > >And even if there were not any videos/audio of explosions, > >eyewitnesses saw and heard them. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU > > Nobody is going to dig through an hour of kooktardery to see your > point. > The eat dirt. You got nothing. The proof is everywhere that you won't look just like the NIST Report. "If we ignore the evidence then it doesn't exist," Right? > Sure there were plenty of loud noises that people will call explosions. Yea, explosions that knocked them on the floor, blew out walls, and killed people. Just little firecrackers right? > But none like a real controlled demolition:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ. > "Standard" controlled demolitions you mean. Why would the engineers of the 9-11 hoax use standard methods. They barely got away with it using "Trick Methods." Too bad people still recognized that NO STEEL HIGH-RISE IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE. NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE OR SINCE. But we know our government has planned and used "False Flag" operations to fraud the people into war. > How come not a single kooktard is willing to address the question why > no sounds like the ones in that video were recorded on any WTC collapse > video? They can't, that's why! Why would there be noise like a "standard" controlled demolition if it wasn't a standard controlled demolition. You just said "Thermate doesn't explode." We know that. It cuts steel like "a knife through butter." It cuts and leaves it's telltale white smoke which is pouring off many of the steel beams seen flying off of the towers. And the proof is in the WTC dust. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM And how could we see the towers 'light up like a candle" if the Thermate was sprayed on to the joints inside the core where the 47 core columns were cut and miraculously were left in convenient 30 foot sections to be hauled away? How could we see any sparks or flares from the incendiaries through the walls and floors when there was smoke, tons of dust, and particles being blown out of the center of the building out of the windows? But wait, you can see many sparks and flashes. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# I guess that makes you a loser.
From: Al Dykes on 10 Oct 2009 12:30 In article <13d5b82b-3857-456a-958e-a4780724a265(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 10, 7:10=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: >> >On Oct 8, 9:42=3DA0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. =A0There are no silent explosives= >. >> >> >Liar. >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0YvrKfWkxdw >> >> One boom? =A0 > >One recorded. >How many were not recorded since they were clearing everyone away for >blocks. >Eyewitness described hearing many just before WTC 7 went down. > >>And what went boom? =A0Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in >> the rubble? =A0 > >Gas tanks don't explode. >You watch too much TV. > >>We don't know! =A0 > >We know this. > As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction >exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and >some non-standard characteristics) >1. All except the sound of the man-made explosives. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: knews4u2chew on 10 Oct 2009 13:50 On Oct 10, 9:30 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <13d5b82b-3857-456a-958e-a4780724a...(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups..com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Oct 10, 7:10=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: > >> >On Oct 8, 9:42=3DA0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >> >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. =A0There are no silent explosives= > >. > > >> >Liar. > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0YvrKfWkxdw > > >> One boom? =A0 > > >One recorded. > >How many were not recorded since they were clearing everyone away for > >blocks. > >Eyewitness described hearing many just before WTC 7 went down. > > >>And what went boom? =A0Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in > >> the rubble? =A0 > > >Gas tanks don't explode. > >You watch too much TV. > > >>We don't know! =A0 > > >We know this. > > As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction > >exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and > >some non-standard characteristics) > >1. > > All except the sound of the man-made explosives. > Liar. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+explosions&search_type=&aq=f > -- > Al Dykes (Spook)
From: knews4u2chew on 10 Oct 2009 14:08
On Oct 8, 12:35 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 10:23 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > Iarnrod wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > No video of the WTC shows anything remotely resembling a man-made > > > demolition. > > > We're not discussing the videos playing in your "mind", nut > > job. We're discussing the demolition videos of the towers and > > WTC7. > > How come you haven't posted any that show anything remotely like what > you claim, Fired Janitor? > > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > > the characteristics of controlled demolition, > > Nope, none of them does. Not a single characteristic exclusive to > controlled demolition is shown in any video -- starting with the total > absence of any explosions. Sorry, KKKooker Hankie. You'll have to find > something else to be wrong about now! <chuckle> Disinfo 101. Deny, deny, deny, deny, deny..... http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html |