WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
 

On Nov 7, 11:16 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe

Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
be resisted, but is very predictable!

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****.

Gravity works - who 'da thunk it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly!

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:23:30 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe

Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
be resisted, but is very predictable!

It really wasn't worth my time to verify that figures don't lie, but
idiots can figure....

.... been there, done that, in the marathon "catenary" thread with the
master of Speedos....

That *was* one hell of a thread!

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
 

Isn't this easier? (See below)



Bob Ward wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:20:02 -0500, "JA" wrote:


sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g=NUTBAG!

wrote in message
groups.com...

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at



What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe


I'll never understand the complaining about "top posting." If people
posted to the top you would not have to scroll down through an article
you just read to see the reply.

See above.

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:20:34 -0500, "JA" wrote:


"Bob Ward" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:08:30 -0500, "JA" wrote:


What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe

GFY! HAPPY?

You learn quicker than some...


Nothing to learn. I have no concern for "top posting" when I'm not trying
to continue a discussion. I did not intend for the thread to go on.


Your lack of concern proves that you DO have a lot to learn about
Internet etiquette - but it's not worth my time to try to educate you
when I can solve the problem for myself with my killfile. Others will
follow suit, until no one but yourself is seeing your spew.