Collapse vs Demolition
in [Physics]
|
From: Curly Surmudgeon on 19 Jul 2010 09:47 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:20:33 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > Curly Surmudgeon wrote: >> (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>> More proof that you're a crazy dumbass. > >> Stand back and look at what you've just posted. If you're hoping to >> portray Henry as a wacko you just shot yourself in the foot. > > What's really quite telling, is that these folks can't seem to > see how foolish they look when they run and hide from any and all > challenges to address the evidence, defend their impossible conspiracy > theory, or show us where any of the 9-11 Truth research is misleading or > inaccurate. They behave like frustrated children who've just been told > the Santa isn't real. Actually, they're even worse, because in addition > to their baby fits, they spew very silly lies. At least the children > only throw baby fits... <g> I don't agree with every point you've made either but at least you've tried to engage in discussion and offered positions. I, too, have grave doubts to the veracity of the 9-11 commission report on issues quite different than yours. Earlier, *before* the WTC impact there were events which required not just a suspension of credulity but the participation of so far unnamed people high up in our own government. The one issue no one has ever explained adequately: it is impossible for a jet airliner to cruise for a half hour in the Washington-New York air corridor without being intercepted by fighter aircraft. Many years ago, in the 1960's in fact, Air Traffic Control (both tower and radar) were linked with NORAD for precisely this event. Notification is automatic and multiple air bases in, and around, that corridor have 24/7 fighter interceptors ready to launch. That system failed. Despite regular tests, despite multiple redundancies, not a single interceptor was launched for almost 45 minutes. That is an absolute impossibility without interference *within* the chain of command. Not unlike the Reichstag Fire or Operation Northwoods. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lest we forget: Scott McInnis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: * US on 19 Jul 2010 10:06 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:47:41 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:20:33 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Curly Surmudgeon wrote: >>> (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> More proof that you're a crazy dumbass. >>> Stand back and look at what you've just posted. If you're hoping to >>> portray Henry as a wacko you just shot yourself in the foot. >> >> What's really quite telling, is that these folks can't seem to >> see how foolish they look when they run and hide from any and all >> challenges to address the evidence, defend their impossible conspiracy >> theory, or show us where any of the 9-11 Truth research is misleading or >> inaccurate. They behave like frustrated children who've just been told >> the Santa isn't real. Actually, they're even worse, because in addition >> to their baby fits, they spew very silly lies. At least the children >> only throw baby fits... <g> > >I don't agree with every point you've made either but at least you've >tried to engage in discussion and offered positions. I, too, have grave >doubts to the veracity of the 9-11 commission report on issues quite >different than yours. > >Earlier, *before* the WTC impact there were events which required not >just a suspension of credulity but the participation of so far unnamed >people high up in our own government. The one issue no one has ever >explained adequately: it is impossible for a jet airliner to cruise for >a half hour in the Washington-New York air corridor without being >intercepted by fighter aircraft. > >Many years ago, in the 1960's in fact, Air Traffic Control (both tower >and radar) were linked with NORAD for precisely this event. Notification >is automatic and multiple air bases in, and around, that corridor have >24/7 fighter interceptors ready to launch. > >That system failed. > >Despite regular tests, despite multiple redundancies, not a single >interceptor was launched for almost 45 minutes. That is an absolute >impossibility without interference *within* the chain of command. > >Not unlike the Reichstag Fire or Operation Northwoods. Astute observations.
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Jul 2010 11:44 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: > >>> From the bleachers it appears that you and Ray are the wackos. >>> Henry sticks to the issues, you two engage in character assassination. > >> In one post he claimed that the building couldn't not collapse as fast >> as it did because stell columns were designed to support "several >> times [their] own weight". > > I said the steel frame was designed to support several times the >weight of the structure, and that's exactly correct. And you're too stupid to figure out how it could fall down, even though you refer to the melted beams in the wreakage. >> The her referred to the "melted and >> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. > > Right. That was the result of demolition. No demolition, kook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Jul 2010 11:45 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > Please explain how WTC7 could have dropped at the rate of free fall Easy. It didn't. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Jul 2010 11:49
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: > >> More proof that you're a crazy dumbass. > > You write something very stupid, claim that I wrote it, When you resort to outright lying we know that you really are insane. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |