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 12 Jan 2010 20:59 On Jan 12, 5:46 pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <1e3c548e-d6e2-46db-835a-505fceadb...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups..com>, > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Jan 8, 4:51=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 1:08=A0pm, 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. > > >So were about 14 other buildings. > >Many had much more damage and fires than WTC 7. > > WTC1, 2, and 7 were unigue. All the others has effective fireproofing. > So all that asbestos that made the WTC Towers a "white elephant" is just imaginary? http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html It wasn't there for the NIST Report to lie about and say that "it was knocked loose by the jet impacts allowing the steel beams to melt." http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+asbestos&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Besides, lack of fireproofing doesn't make buildings collapse and turn into micron sized dust. Fire makes them deform asymetrically. www.ae911truth.org > -- > Al Dykes > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: DanB on 12 Jan 2010 21:21 Peter Webb wrote: > > "DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message > news:vs93n.17869$w21.16657(a)newsfe17.iad... >> Peter Webb wrote: >>> Perhaps you can outline your alternate theory of what happened on 9/11, >>> which explains all this? >>> >>> >> >> Why do you keep asking for this? >> > > Because I want to know what happened on 9/11. The truth. I was hoping > that a 9/11 "truther" would be able to explain the truth of what > actually happened on 9/11. However, they seem to want to keep this > secret, for reasons I don't understand. Its hard to believe in a theory > which nobody will explain to you. That is not the way you do science. You don't 'believe' in theories. You take a theory and see if it can be falsified. A 'supporting' theory is not required.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 21:40 "DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message news:07a3n.14379$Ef7.7709(a)newsfe07.iad... > Peter Webb wrote: >> >> "DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message >> news:vs93n.17869$w21.16657(a)newsfe17.iad... >>> Peter Webb wrote: >>>> Perhaps you can outline your alternate theory of what happened on 9/11, >>>> which explains all this? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Why do you keep asking for this? >>> >> >> Because I want to know what happened on 9/11. The truth. I was hoping >> that a 9/11 "truther" would be able to explain the truth of what >> actually happened on 9/11. However, they seem to want to keep this >> secret, for reasons I don't understand. Its hard to believe in a theory >> which nobody will explain to you. > > That is not the way you do science. You don't 'believe' in theories. You > take a theory and see if it can be falsified. > > A 'supporting' theory is not required. We aren't doing science. If you want to classify the subject as part of some formal discipline, "history" would be a better classification. Do you have a better explanation of the events of 9/11 than the official one? If not, and the official explanation is the best you have heard, it seems we agree. But if you do have a better explanation, I would love to hear it. So, do you have a better explanation of the events of 9/11 than the official one?
From: Iarnrod on 12 Jan 2010 22:09 On Jan 12, 5:50 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 8, 4:51 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jan 8, 1:08 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the > > > demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have > > > turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams. > > > And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING. > > > WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie. > > So were about 14 other buildings. > Many had much more damage and fires than WTC 7. Yes, they were completely destroyed, crushed even. Did you have a point? > > You love videos so much, look at one for a change. > > I do. Then why do you still lie?
From: DanB on 12 Jan 2010 22:18
Peter Webb wrote: > > "DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message > news:07a3n.14379$Ef7.7709(a)newsfe07.iad... >> Peter Webb wrote: >>> >>> "DanB" <abc(a)some.net> wrote in message >>> news:vs93n.17869$w21.16657(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>> Peter Webb wrote: >>>>> Perhaps you can outline your alternate theory of what happened on >>>>> 9/11, >>>>> which explains all this? >>>> >>>> Why do you keep asking for this? >>> >>> Because I want to know what happened on 9/11. The truth. I was hoping >>> that a 9/11 "truther" would be able to explain the truth of what >>> actually happened on 9/11. However, they seem to want to keep this >>> secret, for reasons I don't understand. Its hard to believe in a theory >>> which nobody will explain to you. >> >> That is not the way you do science. You don't 'believe' in theories. >> You take a theory and see if it can be falsified. >> >> A 'supporting' theory is not required. > > We aren't doing science... Do you have a mouse in your pocket? |