Re: More Pig Flu Stuff
- From: Henry <9-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:59:48 -0400
On Apr 30, 6:47 am, Henry <9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:sleazy wrote:
I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum. Quit using the hand
sanitizers, let the kids play in the dirt, etc, and maybe, just maybe
this would be a non-event. My kids were raised like this and they are
very rarely sick. Not even the sniffles most years. I can't tell you
the last time one of us had the flu.
Yeah, taking simple precautions like washing your hands
and keeping your fingers away from your eyes, nose and mouth
would be a stupid waste of time during an influenza pandemic.
Good "thinking". Wow....
And just where did he say "quit washing hands"? I left his comments
and await your idiotic screed of a answer with little hope that you'll
say something intelligent and helpful.
Washing your hands is the most common method of sanitizing
them - in other words, a sanitizer. sleazy seems to "think"
that living among an afluenza pandemic is a good reason to
take no precautions - let kids play in filth, non issue, etc..
But coming from someone who "thinks" that people who question
the Bush regime's 9-11 conspiracy theory are deluded and psychotic,
his idiotic suggestions for dealing with a pandemic really comes
as no great surprise...
How about you answer a question about your conspiracy
theory for a change? So far, all the other Bush parrots
have avoided it. Be The Man, Rob. ;-)
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below,
and if so, what and why, exactly. The writer proves that
fires couldn't have caused WTC7's fall, and he uses a
clear, logical combination of evidence, basic physics,
and common sense to do it.
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
What a load of LIES and bullshit. Their assertations are prebiased and
just plain uninformed...
So, you're saying that heat doesn't weaken steel, there's no
such thing as gravity, there were no fires in WTC7, and that
WTC7 never collapsed? Your "mind" comes up with some interesting
- Prev by Date: Re: Wee-Strom Question
- Next by Date: Re: Wee-Strom Question
- Previous by thread: Re: More Pig Flu Stuff
- Next by thread: Re: More Pig Flu Stuff