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: Iarnrod on 14 Oct 2009 11:28 On Oct 14, 7:48 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:36ae6173-8f63-48c3-ae59-2e64042c7210(a)i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, > Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > 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, > > That's not true. WTC7 and all other controlled demoltions but > result is stuff falling to the gound somehow or other. So I guess > the whackos have THAT going for them. We're talking about things that are characteristic ONLY of controlled demolition. There are none.
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 11:40 In news:hb4r3j$4vs$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> The reason Bush parrots refuse to address the facts, evidence, >>> and expert research, and instead amuse their many betters by >>> resorting to moronic, fact free kook rants and childish lies, >>> is that all the evidence and research contradicts their insane >>> conspiracy thoery. > >> It's all been adressed over and over again > > We're not interested in your delusions. You've once again met your standard of whacko. > Address this: I have already addressed everything you've posted, but you've not even attempted to address anything I've asked of you. Again, by your standard, you've proven that you're a whacko. Here's the simple question..... What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC buildings?
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 12:06 In news:hb4rvo$6mg$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> I have already addressed everything you've posted > > But for some reason (you're a deluded nut case) you > can't seem to find that post right now - or ever... <chuckle> I've posted that answeres to your questions at least 2 dozen times now, but not only have you never answered even the simplest questions that I've asked of you, you also continually resort to snipping them in your deluded belief that if you do so, they cease to exist. And by snipping the very simple questions I've asked you, you've once again proven that you meet your own definition of a whacko. Here's what you snipped.... Here's the simple question..... What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC buildings?
From: knews4u2chew on 14 Oct 2009 12:53 On Oct 14, 7:53 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> Another Spook wrote: > Innews:hb4hsh$jre$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > Iarnrod The Spook 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? It played a part. The evidence is in the dust in the form of unreacted nano-thermite and the "tiny iron spheres" that are the result of themite used to cut steel. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM The thermite use could even be a cover for something more powerful. > Do you think it was a nuke? It's possible. They have been working on small nukes that are less radio active for decades. http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNWE_enUS307US307&q=wtc+tritium The age of minature technology is upon us in spades. > Do you think it was a volcano? You are losing it. The dust clouds resembled and were "pyroclastic like" flows. These are also known to occur in the sea with turbidity currents. They are fast moving ground hugging storms of dust that look like cauliflower. They don't have to be super heated like from a volcano. NO ONE ever said, except YOU, that pyroclastic "like" flows come only from volcanos. > Do you think it was something else? "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." There are other possibilities in directed energy devices. There are possibilities with resonant energy devices. And if you think it "couldn't be kept secret." How did they keep the A-Bomb secret until they used it? Well, the cat is out of the bag. Those buildings exibit every characteristic of controlled demolition except the huge debrise field of the Towers shows outward explosive force rather than implosion like WTC 7. www.ae911truth.org WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics) 1. Rapid onset of collapse 2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse 3. Symmetrical collapse through the path of greatest resistance at free-fall acceleration 4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint 5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses 7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. 8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional 10. Fore-knowledge of collapse by media, NYPD, FDNY 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, 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.
From: knews4u2chew on 14 Oct 2009 13:11
On Oct 14, 8:40 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:hb4r3j$4vs$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > AllYou! wrote: > >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > >>> The reason Bush parrots refuse to address the facts, evidence, > >>> and expert research, and instead amuse their many betters by > >>> resorting to moronic, fact free kook rants and childish lies, > >>> is that all the evidence and research contradicts their insane > >>> conspiracy thoery. > > >> It's all been adressed over and over again > > > We're not interested in your delusions. > > You've once again met your standard of whacko. > > > Address this: > > I have already addressed everything you've posted, but you've not > even attempted to address anything I've asked of you. Again, by > your standard, you've proven that you're a whacko. > > Here's the simple question..... > > What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., > thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC > buildings? It doesn't matter by what means he would "theorize" that the buildings were destroyed. There a known and possibly "non-public" ways it could have been helped gut the buildings. It is clear that those building did not fall from fire and gravitational collapse. It is clear that they were helped by something that removed ALL INTERNAL RESISTANCE. "Falling buildings" do not launch beams weighing TONS 600 feet laterally. Look at someone with a shot-put. If they drop it off their shoulder it falls on their big toe. The ONLY WAY IT TRAVELS LATERALLY IS BY FORCE. The primary heavy debris field for each Tower was about 1200 feet in diameter. The only way that should happen, in one direction, is if the building toppled and the top fell it's height away from the base Now YOU ANSWER A QUESTION. By what mechanism do thousands of tons of beam fly 600 feet sideways? |