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 14 Oct 2009 13:34 AllYou! wrote: > 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? There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used to destroy the towers and WTC7. How else do you explain the molten metal that flowed like lava, the iron rich microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? If you "think" a volcano played a role in demolishing the towers or WTC7, you're compleletly insane. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.... -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 15:49 In news:ef0ddbca-194a-4464-8298-79ea85f8580e(a)w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > 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. What other parts are there? > 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. There is no experiment ever performed that shows thermite being used to cut through inches upon inches thick steel, much less that it's ever been done on the horizontal position. There is no science as to how this could be done either. "Tiny iron steel spheres" were never found to have come from the WTC site, nor would their presence be any sort of proof of the presence of thermite. > The thermite use could even be a cover for something more > powerful. Yes or no.... Is it your position that someone who was smart enough to pull all of this off wasn't smart enough to cause the buildings to fall at less than free fall speed, and also wasn't smart enough than to use a cover story (thermite) that no one would believe in order to cover for yet something else for which there is no evidence whatsoever anyway? No why would anyone draw attention to the possibility of a conspiracy if their conspiracy is so flawless as to leave no evidence of it at all? >> Do you think it was a nuke? > > It's possible. No, it isn't. > They have been working on small nukes that are less radio active > for > decades. Small nukes are small by nuke standards, but as explosions go, still very, very big, and bright, and loud. And none of those were present in that magnitude to even be a remote possibility. >> Do you think it was a volcano? > > You are losing it. > The dust clouds resembled and were "pyroclastic like" flows. That's your spin. The actual quotes that YOU posted said that people saw stuff that looked to them just like molten lava, and YOU have said that the clouds were just like pyroclastic flows. If that's true, and we use your logic, then that would be hard evidence that a volcano caused the towers to fall. If you're abandoning that logic now, then any quotes where people say they saw stuff that looked 'like' molten metal, and that they heard stuff that sounded 'like' explosions doesn't mean that it was molten metal of explosions. It only meant that it looked like and sounded like those things, right? > These are also known to occur in the sea with turbidity currents. And when buildings fall, for any reason. > They are fast moving ground hugging storms of dust that look like > cauliflower. So vegtables caused the WTC to fall? > 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. Then they could come from any falling building, right?
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 16:02 In news:6f6a855c-f7d3-4e8c-be92-a7a5d5967d47(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > 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. So, by that logic, it could've been space aliens?. > There a known and possibly "non-public" ways it could have been > helped gut the buildings. Such as? > It is clear that those building did not fall from fire and > gravitational collapse. How is it clear that gravity had nothing to do with it when the path of the stuff that fell coincided perfectly with the direction of gravity? > It is clear that they were helped by something that removed ALL > INTERNAL RESISTANCE. Actually, the math a science has shown that they did not fall that way at all. > "Falling buildings" do not launch beams weighing TONS 600 feet > laterally. From the right height, they do. > Look at someone with a shot-put. > If they drop it off their shoulder it falls on their big toe. In that distance, and with that amount of lateral force, that's true. But with more lateral force, and from a much greater height, they actually fall quite far away. > The ONLY WAY IT TRAVELS LATERALLY IS BY FORCE. Like that produced by all of the kinetic energy of a falling building? > The primary heavy debris field for each Tower was about 1200 > feet in diameter. "Debris field" Not "steel field". You're making the same mistake you made when you substituted the word 'steel' for 'metal' > 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 That's far from the only way. > Now YOU ANSWER A QUESTION. Again? I've answered all of your already. > By what mechanism do thousands of tons of beam fly 600 feet > sideways? Show me where you have any evidence that any one beam weighing thousands of tons ever did that, and I'll show you how it happened. Mind you, just because some debris was found 600 feet away doesn't mean that it was a beam, much less one weighing thousands of tons. Show me where there was any one beam that weighed thousands of tons, much less one that was projected 600 feet laterally.
From: AllYou! on 14 Oct 2009 16:11 In news:hb5243$i4b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: > >> 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? > > There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used > to destroy the towers and WTC7. The only evidence you've posted is that there was some substance which is not only found in thermite, but in virtually thousands and thousands of other substances that are readily available, that someone said that they collected from some place in NY some time after 9/11. That's all you've ever shown. > How else do you explain > the molten metal that flowed like lava, Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could look 'like' lava as much as metal does. > the iron rich > microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? There are nothing but wild claims that any such spheres were found near the WTC, and it is only those claims which lead to the silly notion that it could've come from thermite. There in no evidence of any unreacted nanothermite. > If you "think" a volcano played a role in demolishing > the towers or WTC7, you're compleletly insane. In other > words, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.... You're the guy who claims to have evidence of protoplasmic clouds, and lava at the site. Not me.
From: Iarnrod on 14 Oct 2009 16:55
On Oct 14, 11:34 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > 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? > > There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used There is not even the scantest EVIDENCE of thermite and not only that, it is PROVEN FACT that thermite is physically incapable of producing the collaspes that were observed. Thermite doesn't do that, Hankie the Unemployed Failed Janitor. > How else do you explain > the molten metal that flowed like lava, There wasn't any. I explain it by pointing out that you are fuckin' insane from huffing the chemicals in the Cornell lab before you were fired from your janitor job. > the iron rich > microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? None and none. So much for your "theory." > If you "think" a volcano played a role in demolishing > the towers or WTC7, you're compleletly insane. Hey, that's YOUR SIDE'S theory, Hankie. |