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 13 Oct 2009 13:48 In article <hb2bfu$q6a$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: > >> NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. > > Your kook lies and ignorance sure are blatant and easily >exposed. Are you mentally ill? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up... > > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 > > > NIST's Miracle > >Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been >pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling >object, at least virtually so. > >NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, it >denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse >"was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time >and was consistent with physical principles." > Which is not what your claimed. NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 13 Oct 2009 13:49 In article <f45a2fde-2305-4ccb-bd9f-7c12dda9f326(a)b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 13, 9:18=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <hb21ca$9b...(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, >> >> Henry =A0<9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >AllYou! wrote: >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >>> WTC 7 was gutted from inside and fell into itself in near perfect >> >>> symmetry at near free fall speed. >> >> >> It did fall rather symmetrically, but not only did it not fall at >> >> free-fall speed, >> >> > =A0Your conspiracy kook lies certainly are stupid, blatant, and >> >easily exposed. Thanks to the efforts of 9-11 Truth experts, >> >even NIST has finally been forced to admit that WTC7 did in >> >fact drop at free fall speed,. >> >> You've been lied to. >> >We know. >The "official" story is nothing but lies. >Buildings don't pulverize and fall at nearfree fall speed from "office >fires" not withstanding "planes and jet fuel" which did not do enough >damage negate the 47 core and 200 plus outer columns. > >> NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. =A0Not even close. >> >Liar. >But then again you are a Spook paid to lie. >> -- >> Al Dykes (Spook) > > >Are you going to explain how the top of WTC 2 righted itself and >disintigrated up while falling directly into the center core which has >the MOST resistance rather than following the Law of Conservation of >Momentum and toppling off to the weak side which ws damaged by the >"plane?" > Gravity and momentum acting on the center of mass.. No man-made explosives. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 13 Oct 2009 13:51 In article <hb2c3k$qjk$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Iarnrod wrote: > >>>> There is no force on planet Earth that could divert that 30-story >>>> upper block sideways that far. > > >>> Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South >>> Tower. >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html >>> >>> Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal >>> destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed >>> through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off >>> the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is >>> tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite >>> corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo >>> evidence. >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html >>> >>> As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, >>> fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are >>> being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building >>> was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly >>> reduced. >>> Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced >>> weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as >>> the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the >>> rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's >>> some information on the perimeter columns. > >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html > >> So what? > > So the block rotated. Iron head said it didn't. So what? Neither is consistent with 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 13 Oct 2009 13:58 On Oct 13, 7:36 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 8:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > Iarnrod wrote: > > > There is no force on planet Earth that could divert that 30-story > > > upper block sideways that far. > > > Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South > > Tower. > > I'd have to have some of the hallucinogens you use, So you didn't see the top of tower 2 break, start to fall to one side, then didappear into a dust cloud? Get your seeing eye dog to help you. >Self-Admitted > Fired Janitor, in order to see something that is not actually present. > <chuckle> > Janitors know a lot about buildings. Spooks on the other hand only know how to lie and spew. Why are you denying the reality right before your eyes? Is someone holding a gun to your head? > Let us know when you have something that actually supports any one of > your rightard fantasies, Hankie. How do 30 floors disintergate into dust in 3 seconds? How does toppling top section fall into the most resistant part of the structure while turning to dust from the bottom up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLe5mE5rR4I&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczTcrRp1bY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTutneLXup0 The Emperor wears no clothes and the Spooks say he does while diverting with name calling. Classic SpookSpeak(R)
From: knews4u2chew on 13 Oct 2009 14:08
On Oct 13, 7:59 am, Iarnrod (The Spook) <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 8:49 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > Iarnrod wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 8:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > > >> the characteristics of controlled demolition, > > >> Nope, none of them does. > > > <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, > > justice, truth, and America hating extremists or nut jobs > > hide the truth and facts> > > Link deleted because it does not show anything like your delusional > mind claims, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. > Spook Speak (R) rule #1. "If you delete and ignore the evidence it doesn't exist." > > So, in your "mind" the video on the right showing a known > > demolition doesn't display any of the characteristics of a > > demolition, eh? > > The WTC7 was a progressive structural collapse and had NONE of the > characteristics of a controlled demolition starting with the proven > fact that there were no controlled demolition charges, > "See the Emperor's new clothes?" www.ae911truth.org > > Ironhead, I'm really pleased that you and Dykes are here to > > *solidly* confirm the insanity of .... > > ,,, of you. > > > clueless parrots of the Bush > > regime's cartoon fairy tale. > > You are a Bush useful idiot, Hankie, by serving his interests and > being the delusional insane so-called "opposition" that being insane, > taints the true opposition to his criminal regime. > SpookSpeak (R) rule #2. Convolute every thread to destroy any semblance of logical debate. Turn every statement around to mean the opposite of what was stated. > > It's been clear for years that magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy > > theorists are very poorly informed, not very intelligent and > > extremely gullible, > > Projection. The official findings have been proven and are fully > supported by all physics, facts, evidence, witnesses, et al. OTOH, > none of your claims are actually supported by any evidence at all. SpookSpeak rule #3. Lie, lie, and lie gain and again. Make every sentence a lie or convolution in order to distract from the facts. Don't under any circumstances provide cites to back up your lies so you can change your lies later. Liar. And a paid liar at that. No one could tell such blatant lies for free. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html |