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 14 Oct 2009 09:53 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> writes: >Iarnrod wrote: >> Ummm, how many buildings have jets crashed into, douchebag? > How many jets do you "think" crashed into WTC7, psycho? <chuckle> How many buildings had tons and tons of steel beams dropped on them from 110 storeys high, leaving 10+ storey gashes in them?
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 10:04 In news:90b1c15d-b326-47ff-8f7e-ebf8240e2636(a)i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 6, 1:08 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:hag4m7$aig$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>> Al Dykes wrote: >> >>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >> >>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? >> >> The videos don't show your fantasy of what actually happened. >> They show what actually happened. I'll answer all of the following questions, but you won't even answer them wrt to how all of that could happen with thermite. > So how does the debrise from the "falling" building shoot up, > out, and throw steel beams 600 feet away? The steel beams never shot that far away, but as to the debris, kinetic energy from the falling buildings. > Why is the dust exploding upward and outward? Same > Is that how debrise "falls with gravity?" Sure, if the debris like pulverized sheet rock, and paper, and other stuff like that is imparted with the energy expended by a falling building. > Why are there no "pancakes?" Why should there be? > Where are the estimated 3000 file cabinets? In the ground. > Why didn't all the paper burn in the "inferno?" Lots of it did, and lots of it flew out in the debris cloud. > Why does the dusted building look like a mushroom cloud? What kind of mushroom? > Who named it "ground zero?" Me. > Hiding in plain sight? Who? > How is it that near every beam was left in a nice portable size > of 30-60 feet to haul away? It was cut by the clean up crew. > Why wasn't there sections of the building hundreds of feet long > from a building near a 1/4 mile tall? Should there be? > How did 47 core columns tied together with cross members turn > into "pick-up sticks?" They didn't. > How did all those welds and bolts fail at once? Define 'all'. > Where did the energy come from to break nearly all the cement > into micron sized dust? Never happened
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 10:06 In news:9446806a-8c55-46ed-8550-de22050b5eca(a)p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 13, 4:42 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:936658c6-b1b3-444b-946c-dbc9b347170a(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 12, 11:22 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:hav96v$fue$15(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>>>> Gunner Asch wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry >>>>>> <9-11tr...(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, and if it had gradually weakened, the >>>>> buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. >> >>>> Just some of the stupidity you spout: >> >>>> 1) You claim that the buildings exhibited all of the >>>> characteristics of a controlled demolition, and yet controlled >>>> demotions of buildings cause them to implode, not explode. >>>> You're reading from at least two different whacko sites, and >>>> getting confused. >> >>>> 2) Look up the word 'disintegrate' and then reconcile that >>>> with ground zero. >> >>>> 3) 'Gradually weakening' doesn't mean 'gradually fail'. Take a >>>> steel cable, put it under 99% load capacity, and then >>>> 'gradually' heat it up. Keep heating it. Does it fail just as >>>> gradually as >>>> it's heated, or does it fail catastrophically? >> >>>>> They would have shown gradual, isolated, and asymmetric >>>>> bending or sagging in the areas of extreme heat. >> >>>> 1) There's nothing about gradula heating that causes anything >>>> to be asymetric.] >> >>>> 2) How do you know that the trusses didn't sag to some degree >>>> before failing? If you do, prove it. >> >>>> 3) The sagging was isolated to the buildings. >> >>>> 4) Steel begins to weaken (and hence, sag) with every increase >>>> in temperature, no matter how small. >> >>>>> There a reason you >>>>> conspiracy theorists can't cite even *one* example of a steel >>>>> framed high rise that collapsed due to fire.... >> >>>> You kooks can't give one reason why all major building codes >>>> require the steel to be fireproofed. >> >>>>> Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and >>>>> fire resistant steel frame >> >>>> Why do you think its frame was fire resistant? >> >>>>> suddenly dropped at free fall speed? >> >>>> It didn't. >> >>>>> We >>>>> know >> >>>> You mistakenly believe. >> >>>>> that gradual weakening due to the gradual heating of a few >>>>> columns can't cause that. >> >>>> Sure it can. >> >>> Liar. >> >> Prove that I lied. >> >>> It wasn't a house of cards. >> >> It wasn't up there by magic, either. >> >>> 47 core columns. >> >> Which required latteral support. That's why they were there. >> >>> Hundreds of perimeter columns. >> >> That required latteral support, and each other. And many were >> missing. >> >>> Where are the pancakes? >> >> IHOP >> >>> How was it turned to mostly dust? >> >> It wasn't. The sheet rock was, but not the concrete. > > Liar. LOL! That's it? You asked for answers to a bunch a\of questions, I answer them all, and all you've got is that? Prove it. And while you're at it, explain all of those same questions wrt to how thermite could've done all of that.
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 10:53 In news:hb4hsh$jre$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: > >> You use a common trick of the disinfo agent, which you are, to >> deflect blame onto others. Classic! What gave you away was your >> insistence against all logic, science, physics, witnesses, >> evidence, et al., on you physically impossible "theories." This >> is what gives you away as the Bush/Cheeeeney counter-disinfo >> shill that you are. > > The reason Bush parrots refuse to address It's all been adressed over and over again, and you've not been able to refute even one aspect of it with any degree of credibility. The fact is that you are the one who has refused to answer even the simplest of questions, but somehow, you think that you've maintained your credibility. Do you think thermite was used to destroy all three buildings? Do you think it was a nuke? Do you think it was a volcano? Do you think it was something else?
From: Iarnrod on 14 Oct 2009 11:19
On Oct 14, 12:26 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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, Self-Admitted > > Fired Janitor, in order to see something that is not actually present. > > <chuckle> > > > Let us know when you have something that actually supports any one of > > your rightard fantasies, Hankie. > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# Thank you for posting more proof you are wrong and I am right. |