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: Al Dykes on 12 Oct 2009 16:11 In article <00c8e236-23e0-49cc-a558-28babca0b77f(a)q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 6, 1:20=A0pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:hag59i$cct$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >> > =A0All the videos show massive >> >> I'd ask you to quantify "massive" in this context, but mass is a >> property of matter, or relates to a body of matter. =A0An explosion is >> a physical process, and so cannot be massive in any respect. =A0But >> what the hell. =A0Please try to quantify "massive" as you've used it >> here. >> >> > synchronized explosions >> >> Excepting your fantasies about the WTC, please show me where using >> an explosion to cut thousands of structural steel members so >> precisely as to result in a so-called free fall of a sky scraper has >> ever resulted in pools of molten metal flowing like lava. >> >> > at the start >> > of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started >> > 1000 feet above street level with multiple synchronized >> > explosions >> >> That's a fantasy, not a fact. >> >> > is the reason you don't hear one "boom" before the >> > building starts to explode. >> >> So an explsion so massive as to cause the collapse of the WTC can't >> be heard 1,000 feet away? >> >How does one "dust" a building into micron sized particles? >Put a piece of concrete in the microwave. > >> > 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.... >> >>> 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. >> >> > =A0Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >> > tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >> > did it? >> >> So you claim that all tall buildings destroyed by controlled >> demoltions always fall sideways, > >No he didn't. >You are lame. >"The "Spook Conspiracy theorist's" claim "one side damaged by heavy >fire" caused the building to fall in perfect symmetry. > > >>but yet, you argue that the WTC >> towers did not. =A0Hmmmmm. =A0 > > >All three "guttings" were symmetrical. >Two were "explosive" dust balls. > >WTC 7 was gutted from inside and fell into itself in near perfect >symmetry at near free fall speed. >What causes so much steel and concrete to all fail at once? Gravity in conjunction with hours of fire with no water for firefighting. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: knews4u2chew on 12 Oct 2009 16:24 On Oct 6, 6:40 pm, The Spook Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 1:20 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > Al Dykes wrote: > > > Henry <9-11tr...(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. > > Really? How come no kkkooker has ever posted one? > > You be the first. Post one video that shows this, Hankie. Look at the first tower that turned to dust. Why didn't the top of WTC 2 just keep on toppling off the "weak" side where the jet clipped it? How did it right itself falling into the most resistant 47 columns of the core of WTC 2 and disintegrate? This violates the Law of Conservation of Motion. Go play somewhere else Spook.
From: AllYou! on 12 Oct 2009 16:26 In news:00c8e236-23e0-49cc-a558-28babca0b77f(a)q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 6, 1:20 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:hag59i$cct$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> So an explsion so massive as to cause the collapse of the WTC >> can't be heard 1,000 feet away? >> > How does one "dust" a building into micron sized particles? > Put a piece of concrete in the microwave. So now you're saying that some massive microwave machine blasted the WTC? Then what was the thermite for? > All three "guttings" were symmetrical. > Two were "explosive" dust balls. If they were dust balls, then what's all the stuff in the holes? If they were dust balls, how could there be any rivers of molten steel under all that imaginary stuff in the holes? > > WTC 7 was gutted from inside and fell into itself in near perfect > symmetry at near free fall speed. It did fall rather symmetrically, but not only did it not fall at free-fall speed, there were no sounds like you'd expect to hear if it would've been rigged to fall at free-fall speed. And if you mean to then claim that some silent thermite, then you're stuck with explaining how no one saw that thousands of bright flashes that thermite would've caused. You'd also have to explain how no one has never ever taken a really big wide-flange beam, stood it vertically, and melted it all the way through from side to side so as to cause it to fail using thermite, and to be able to do is at such an incredibly predictable rate that it could be used for precision demolition so as to mimic free-fall speed collapse. Can you do any of that? > What causes so much steel and concrete to all fail at once? Weakness > It's like it had every bone broken inside and out at once. Are you now claiming that the WTC was made of bones? The reason I ask is that whenver you've seen a quote that someone says that something looked 'like', or sounded 'like', you've used that as evidence that it was. So for you to say that it's like broken bones must mean that you think it was broken bones, right? > It literally turns to dust as well. Then was was all that stuff in the hole? Besides, does thermite melt steel, or does it turn steel, and concrete, to dust? Do you have an evidence to show that when a chuck of thermite is ignited against a piece of steel, the whole piece of steel, and any concrete surrounding it, will turn to dust? Or was there thermite all over the concrete too? Or are you back to your theory that a volcano destroyed the WTC? > Look at it. > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739# > >> Do the math on that logic train, > > Uhuh... LOL! > >> and see >> where it leads you. > > Do the "seeing is believing." Was that some sort of question? > Dust....hiding in plain site. It didn't hide. > Where did the cement go? In the hole. But if you don't think it did, then what turned it to dust? Thermite? > Where are the blocks of 1 acre squares from wtc 1 and 2? At the land fill. > There was over 100 of them 4 inches thick. At the land fill. > Drop a stack of cement blocks and steel decking 10, 100, 1000 > feet and see if 90 % of it turns into micro sized dust. It won't. > Show us. It's your fantasy, so you show me. >> Your logic has already shown that you believe >> that the towers fell do to volcanic reuptions within them. > > Funny you should mention that Spooky. > Are you hiding in plain site again? > The two tower's dust clouds look much like volcanic eruptions or > nuclear blasts. > Molecular disassociation So why was so much thermite used? > The dust clouds are best described as pyroclastic "like" flows. So now you're back to the volcano theory? > They are ground hugging waves of cauliflower like dust storms. True. > Are you denying that that is what we see? I have no idea what you see through that tin hat of yours, but I saw lots and lots of dust. I saw lots and lots of steel, and concrete, and all sorts of other stuff that'd normally be found in an occupied skyscrepper. > How would you describe the dust storm that went all the way into > the river? Big and Yucky. > You are the most convoluted Spook I ever met. But we've never met. > You are lost. I am? > Take your meds. I have. > You are either drunk or a Spook. Prove it.
From: AllYou! on 12 Oct 2009 16:33 In news:ec7054fe-896a-4c9c-b727-7fbb7addd67f(a)13g2000prl.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 6, 6:40 pm, The Spook Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 6, 1:20 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(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. >> >> Really? How come no kkkooker has ever posted one? >> >> You be the first. Post one video that shows this, Hankie. > > Look at the first tower that turned to dust. How dies thermite turn everything to dust? And so what was it that took months and months to remove from the holes? > Why didn't the top of WTC 2 just keep on toppling off the "weak" > side where the jet clipped it? Because the lateral supports which sagged from being weakened pulled laterally on very many columns on all sides of the towers, and so when some started to give way, they all did. > How did it right itself It didn't. >falling into the most resistant 47 > columns of the core of WTC 2 and disintegrate? A whole lot of sheet rock and other junk 'disintegrated', but not the steel columns. > This violates the Law of Conservation of Motion. In what way? Show us the math for that assertion. > Go play somewhere else Spook.
From: Michael Moroney on 12 Oct 2009 17:04
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> writes: > Wow, even after the reason is explained to this psychotic nut >job, he still can't understand it. Very "impressive"... <chuckle> You must be talking to ChewToy (or perhaps yourself) here. > I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are >embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle> It is you amd ChewToy who came up with a "theory" that requires Wile E. Coyote Acme Silent and Invisible explosives and thermite, not us. > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org |