Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- From: "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:21:30 -0700
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147394227.638348.74580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
noahdove7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
You are wasting your time posting this stuff here. The vast majority
of
physicists believe and advocate the notion that a couple of hours of
fire damage can cause in-place freefalling buildings. They believe and
advocate this not because they examined the evidence, but because they
are ass-kissers and frauds and believe what they are told to believe
by
their peers. That's the way it is, that's what the evidence
overwhelmingly shows. One can't help but laugh.
Question: When the collapse was initiated and an upper floor impacted
the floor beneath, what was the speed of propagation of those forces
through the structure below?
Phil H
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- From: Schoenfeld
- Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- From: john
- Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- References:
- 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- From: noahdove7
- Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- From: Schoenfeld
- 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- Prev by Date: Re: NaI scintillation counter efficiency
- Next by Date: Re: This rock, this watery pearl, this pale blue dot.
- Previous by thread: Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- Next by thread: Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
