Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: knews4u2chew on 8 Jan 2010 14:02 On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 9:10 pm, knowsknoth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 6:33 pm, knowsknoth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum... > > > > From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of > > > your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!! > > > > <sips Victory Iced Tea> > > > All your lies wrapped into one. > > You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I have > said that is a lie; Liar. I pointed them out over an over and over and over. that would not be possible for obvious reasons. But not to you because you are blind to your own pathology. > You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively proved. > FACT. > You show nothing. You prove nothing. You spew. You lie. You deny. You "claim." > > Thanks for playing troll. > > And for winning!!! Yup you win the 2009-2010 Pathological Liar Award. Now explain why these buildings that were blown out at the bottom didn't experience "global collapse" like the WTC buildings. Why didn't they turn into huge dust clouds throwing beams hundreds of feet? Why did the building that toppled follow the Law of Conservation of motion but WTC 2 didn't? After all "their dynamic load" is released by the demolition explosions on the lower floors and they should fall to the ground and turn to dust just like the WTC towers did. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing-wrong-Chinese-demolition-men-accidentally-create-leaning-tower-Liuzhou.html I know you won't "explain" because you are blind so it's just another chance for the world to see more your spew, denial, and lies.
From: PV on 8 Jan 2010 17:53 Iarnrod <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> writes: >Again you are too stupid to realize the implications of your claims. >If those none-existent linear cutting charges had been used, the >thousands of housings would have been in the debris pile. >OOOOOPPPPSSSSS!!! Another EPIC FAIL for knowsknothing!! He proposes a >theory that something not present was present! Simple, they were made out of concrete, and got turned into monoatomic dust with all the rest of it. Snort. I kind of like the metal-eating nanoparasite idea. Expect it to show up on a troother site soon. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
From: PV on 8 Jan 2010 18:01 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com writes: >That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old building does >NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did without >even more help than the failed demolition shows. So let me get this straight, you claim that because some guys screwed up a demolition, that it proves that some other unrelated incident on the other side of the planet WAS a demolition? What the hell? I just threw myself at the ground flapping my arms and failed to take flight, that must mean that all birds are CIA surveilance devices. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
From: Iarnrod on 8 Jan 2010 19:51 On Jan 8, 1:08 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the > demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have > turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams. > And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING. WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie. You love videos so much, look at one for a change.
From: AllYou! on 9 Jan 2010 08:24
In news:71a5f425-4a11-4dbe-a074-84fa63909636(a)s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Jan 8, 11:48 am, Robert Higgins > <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> I don't understand exactly what the video is supposed to >> "prove". > > That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old > building does > NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did > without > even more help than the failed demolition shows. > >> This >> is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like >> 9/11. > > The point exactly. You're so comletely whacked that you're actually posting proof that the WTC buildings collapsd nothing like a controlled demonlition, and then claiming that they did. LOL! |