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: Henry on 12 Oct 2009 08:57 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> Gunner Asch wrote: >>> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight to >>> "melts" Why is that? >> Because it did melt, and if it had gradually weakened, the >> buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. > 1) They did not explode, and as the debris field proves, they > certainly did not disintegrate. Your conspiracy kook lies and delusions certainly are stupid, blatant, and easily exposed. Why do you refuse to get informed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 12 Oct 2009 10:35 In article <hav96v$fue$15(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Gunner Asch wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which is the >>>> final refuge of the person who knows they have lost the debate. The >>>> obvious flaw in your comment is that you think steel has to heat to >>>> 2500 degrees before it weakens. > >>> No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, a > >> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight to "melts" > >> Why is that? > > Because it did melt, There are no first-hand eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are second-hand. There is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile. There is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks. Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 12 Oct 2009 10:45 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >>>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page >>> There is no video of an explosion immediately preceding collapse of a >>> WTC tower with a correctly tmes the BOOM on the sound track. It would >>> be just a few seconds long. >> All the videos show massive synchronized explosions at the start >> of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started 1000 >> feet above street level with multiple synchronized explosions is the >> reason you don't hear one "boom" before the building starts to explode. >> Apparently, you're unaware of the fact that sound waves travel *much* >> more slowly than light waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, >> given the level of your insanity and your other insane, reality defying >> beliefs, though.... > None of which have a correctly times BOOM on the sound track. Wow, even after the reason is explained to this psychotic nut job, he still can't understand it. Very "impressive"... <chuckle> >> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >> down onto its own footprint? >> Yes. Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they did it? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle> http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 12 Oct 2009 11:20 In article <havff4$pae$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. > >>>>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? > >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page > >>>> There is no video of an explosion immediately preceding collapse of a >>>> WTC tower with a correctly tmes the BOOM on the sound track. It would >>>> be just a few seconds long. > >>> All the videos show massive synchronized explosions at the start >>> of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started 1000 >>> feet above street level with multiple synchronized explosions is the >>> reason you don't hear one "boom" before the building starts to explode. >>> Apparently, you're unaware of the fact that sound waves travel *much* >>> more slowly than light waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, >>> given the level of your insanity and your other insane, reality defying >>> beliefs, though.... > >> None of which have a correctly times BOOM on the sound track. > > Wow, even after the reason is explained to this psychotic nut >job, he still can't understand it. Very "impressive"... <chuckle> > >>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >>> down onto its own footprint? > >>> Yes. > > Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >did it? I have no idea how this paragraph applies to WTC and 9/11. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 12 Oct 2009 13:19
Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >>>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >>>> down onto its own footprint? >>>> Yes. >> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >> did it? <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, truth, justice, and America hating extremists hide the truth and facts> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ > I have no idea how this paragraph applies to WTC and 9/11. Conspiracy theorists tried to claim that WTC7 suffered severe structural damage on one side. It was pointed out that if one side had been severely damaged, any collapse would have started on that side, and the building would have tilted towards the damage. You denied that fact, and I proved you wrong yet again. See how it applies now, or are you still confused? Also, do you still believe that if supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down onto its own footprint? If so, who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they did it? <vbg> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |