Collapse vs Demolition
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Jul 2010 23:30 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> 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. > > You've again failed to comprehend clear English. I explained >and proved to you that the molten and vaporized steel was the >result of demolition. No demolition, kook. >>>> The her referred to the "melted and >>>> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. > >>> Right. That was the result of demolition. > >>> http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf > >>> Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded > >> No demolition, kook. > > So, what do you "think" caused this steel column to vaporize, > > http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf How about the obvious, lunatic? The fire? And if there was a demolition then why weren't there MANY steel beams that showed the effects of explosives? > Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. > > http://www.youtube.com You really are a crackpot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Jul 2010 23:35 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>>>>>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >>>>>> Why? > >>>>> You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >>>>> Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >>>>> evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. > >>>>> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >>>>> or object encounters no significant resistance. > >>>> "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. > >>> Well, technically, no resistance at all. Even air resistance will >>> reduce the rate of acceleration to less than free fall, but the >>> change can be so minor that it's difficult to observe. > >> Really?!? So you admit that you could be wrong? The rate of falling >> could be "difficult to observe"? > > WTC7's free fall was very easy to observe. So you're contradicting yourself yet again. > Neither NIST >nor 1000s of 9-11 Truth experts are wrong when they say that You have no credibility. Nothing less than actual quotes counts. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Henry on 21 Jul 2010 12:17 Ray Fischer wrote: > 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. You've again failed to comprehend clear English. I explained and proved to you that the molten and vaporized steel was the result of demolition. Are you just pretending to be this stupid? >>> The her referred to the "melted and >>> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. >> Right. That was the result of demolition. >> http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf >> Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded > No demolition, kook. So, what do you "think" caused this steel column to vaporize, nut job? http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded (this is where crazy Ray gets even more stupid and again runs away from a challenge to address the hard evidence and expert research) Thanks for proving my point again, ya helpless, pitiful, clueless, and deluded sheep... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Jul 2010 03:21 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> 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. > > You've again failed to comprehend clear English. I explained >and proved to you that the molten and vaporized steel was the >result of demolition. There was no demolition, kook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Jul 2010 03:22
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > > As predicted, Bob became very quiet when he was challenged >to demonstrate that his claims are true, rather than *simply* Crackpot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |