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 14:40 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com writes: >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. There are no silent explosives. >> >> >Liar. >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0YvrKfWkxdw >> >> One boom? >One recorded. >How many were not recorded since they were clearing everyone away for >blocks. Since the whole event was recorded on various videotapes from shortly after the first impact, the answer would be "None". >Eyewitness described hearing many just before WTC 7 went down. So why aren't they heard on any of the WTC7 collapse videos? >>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. That was a BOOM of the type made from a low explosive of some sort, something like propane or gas catching on fire, not the sharp CRACK of a high explosive. >>We don't know! =A0 >1. >Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly >free-fall acceleration Wrong. >2. >Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Wrong (the word improbable). >3. >Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Where are the videos? >5. >Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph High explosives don't eject things, they shatter things. The ejection would be from downward force being diverted sideways and would happen regardless (well, in a real contolled demolition, they'd take steps to prevent this to prevent collateral damage) >6. >Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking >7. Where? >Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds >8. They were clouds of dust, and certainly weren't hot enough to be anywhere near "pyroclastic-like". >1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found A pile of debris, including the floors. >9. >Isolated explosive ejections 20 =96 40 stories below demolition front >10. You mean the puffs of dust from broken windows? >Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame >11. As would be expected. >Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises >12. None found. >Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples >13. Wrong. >Evidence of explosives found in dust samples >14. Wrong. >No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire Wrong. >And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. >1. >Slow onset with large visible deformations >2. It took 55 minutes for the south tower to collapse, with visible deformations of the exterior walls being pulled in at the start of the collapse. >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. Conservation of momentum and "path of least resistance" would mean they'd fall DOWN, which they did. >Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel >4. Check. >High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires >have never =93collapsed=94 Wrong. >>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. They almost all agree with the fires causing the collapses. >>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. Wasn't "huge". But it doesn't prove huge explosions right before collapse, necessary for a controlled demolition. So perhaps a pocket of natural gas caught fire. >> >And Thermate doesn't have to explode to cut through steel like butter. Show me a video of "thermate" cutting through a massive column like used in the towers "like butter". >> 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? The thermate has to be set off _before_ it can produce any smoke and dust to hide it. (Remember it would have to be below the crash floors?) It would be very visible. The outer columns, between all those windows, were structural and collapsed before the core. >> >And even if there were not any videos/audio of explosions, >> >eyewitnesses saw and heard them. >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPWgSaBT9hNU >> >> 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? Give a link to a short video with the alleged explosions. Or at least "20 seconds starting at 12:34" or something. I'm not wasting an hour watching previously disproved kooktardery. >> 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? Where? >> 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." So you mean they really _did_ use Wile E. Coyote Acme Silent, Invisible Explosives? Did they kidnap Bullwinkle to get the "Hushaboom" recipe? >> 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? =A0They can't, that's why! >Why would there be noise like a "standard" controlled demolition if it >wasn't a standard controlled demolition. Wile E. Coyote Silent, Invisible Explosives. >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 BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT. None seem. >And how could we see the towers 'light up like a candle" if the >Thermate was sprayed on to the joints inside the core Bzzt. The exterior columns were structural, and collapsed first, before the core did. > where the 47 >core columns were cut and miraculously were left in convenient 30 foot >sections to be hauled away? Stupid kooktard. Those columns were _manufactured_ in "convenient 30 foot sections" to be hauled _to_ the site during construction!
From: knews4u2chew on 10 Oct 2009 15:30 On Oct 10, 11:40 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: > >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. There are no silent explosives. > > >> >Liar. > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0YvrKfWkxdw > > >> One boom? > >One recorded. > >How many were not recorded since they were clearing everyone away for > >blocks. > > Since the whole event was recorded on various videotapes from shortly > after the first impact, the answer would be "None". > Liar. Sound travels better through water. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# <The rest of your lies and confabulations snipped> The massive amount of video speak for themselves. The building turns into a "mushroom." Just WHO started calling it "ground zero?" Hiding in plain sight again? And Thermite residue speak for themselves. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....." www.ae911truth.org 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 Cya Spook #4. One must really be trained to spew your lies and misdirections. The truth is right in plain sight. It is the Spook Media(R) that tries to tell us different. Anyone with eyes can see that those building collapse with ANYTHING BUT the characteristics of "fire." "Dust to dust." http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM Thanks for playing.
From: Al Dykes on 10 Oct 2009 15:35 In article <6d3d7974-e51a-4588-874d-c0c29b8eab63(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 10, 9:30=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <13d5b82b-3857-456a-958e-a4780724a...(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups= >.com>, >> >> >> >> =A0<knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 10, 7:10=3DA0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney= >) >> >wrote: >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:42=3D3DA0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. =3DA0There are no silent explo= >sives=3D >> >. >> >> >> >Liar. >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D0YvrKfWkxdw >> >> >> One boom? =3DA0 >> >> >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? =3DA0Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in >> >> the rubble? =3DA0 >> >> >Gas tanks don't explode. >> >You watch too much TV. >> >> >>We don't know! =3DA0 >> >> >We know this. >> > As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction >> >exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: =A0(and >> >some non-standard characteristics) >> >1. >> >> All except the sound of the man-made explosives. >> > >Liar. >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6498070204870579516# Does this URL work for anyone? >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3Dwtc+explosions&search_type=3D= >&aq=3Df Why search? We know people heard explsoins. They just were not man-made. -- 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 17:36 On Oct 10, 12:35 pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <6d3d7974-e51a-4588-874d-c0c29b8ea...(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups..com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Oct 10, 9:30=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > >> In article <13d5b82b-3857-456a-958e-a4780724a...(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups= > >.com>, > > >> =A0<knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On Oct 10, 7:10=3DA0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney= > >) > >> >wrote: > >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: > >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:42=3D3DA0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >> >> >> There is no BOOM heard on any video. =3DA0There are no silent explo= > >sives=3D > >> >. > > >> >> >Liar. > >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D0YvrKfWkxdw > > >> >> One boom? =3DA0 > > >> >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? =3DA0Perhaps the gas tank of a car caught in > >> >> the rubble? =3DA0 > > >> >Gas tanks don't explode. > >> >You watch too much TV. > > >> >>We don't know! =3DA0 > > >> >We know this. > >> > As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction > >> >exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: =A0(and > >> >some non-standard characteristics) > >> >1. > > >> All except the sound of the man-made explosives. > > >Liar. > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6498070204870579516# > > Does this URL work for anyone? > > >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3Dwtc+explosions&search_t.... > >&aq=3Df > > Why search? We know people heard explsoins. They just were not > man-made. > Is Nono-ThermIte not "man made?" http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM And what "natural explosions" blew up in the basement? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0&feature=PlayList&p=DF27D6C2D3D7FE60&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18 This is the direct link to the above link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# Sorry, after the search and redirect my Firefox didn't change the url to the direct video....hmmmmm? But the above posted link still sends me right to the "Eyewitness Hoboken" video. It doesn't matter if you are going to deny the evidence anyways. > -- > Al Dykes (Spook)
From: Michael Moroney on 10 Oct 2009 18:10
adykes(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) writes: >In article <6d3d7974-e51a-4588-874d-c0c29b8eab63(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6498070204870579516# >Does this URL work for anyone? Your newsreader doesn't understand the quoted-pukable formatting that Google Groups always uses. Edit the URL to delete the "3D" after the equal sign, if you want to bother. I wouldn't bother, as it's an hour of kooktardery, and none of the kooktards are willing to either put up a shorter clip or even say "watch starting at 24:10 for 30 seconds". >Why search? We know people heard explsoins. They just were not >man-made. They don't want to give explicit references. They _can't_. Maybe that's why they won't post anything shorter than an hour of kooktardery to "prove" their explosions-on-video point. |