| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: So much for your "all experts agree..." |
 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q
Ha ha ha.
Eat this and choke you apologist idiots.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I KNOW!!!
This guy is probably a reeeeeally BAD controlled demolition expert.
He's also a Illuminati tinfoil hatter, a jew hater, a Bush basher and he HATES science and physics.
Muueeerrrrrrrrrrr............. 
Seriously though, this guy is an expert in his field and he said STRAIGHT AWAY it was CD. Even AFTER discussing the various possibilities he maintained that it was definately CD.
He IS a CD expert. And he disagrees with your explanation of what happened to WTC7.
Now, are you going to swallow your pride and admit that us tinfoil hat morons actually DO have good reason to believe what we believe? How about you go one better; Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7.
No. I'm fooling myself. Your egos have already made your minds up for you.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps you should rephrase the question or something?
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7. |
If that's all you're asking, just keep your pants on. Further analysis--extensive and detailed--is exactly what NIST is up to these days. Their report is due out this winter (early next year, I believe.) No need to demand what is already forthcoming.
In the meantime, here's the interim report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20F inal.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7. |
If that's all you're asking, just keep your pants on. Further analysis--extensive and detailed--is exactly what NIST is up to these days. Their report is due out this winter (early next year, I believe.) No need to demand what is already forthcoming.
In the meantime, here's the interim report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20F inal.pdf |
That you trust NIST pretty much invalidates your opinion.
Think for a second; If WTC7 WAS taken down by pre-placed explosive devices, then the entire 911 story collapses. BL could not have had access to that building, and whoever did plant the devices had foreknowledge of the attacks.
The government and military intelligence would then become prime SUSPECTS in the destruction of the building.
Now ask yourself; if they DID have a hand in 911, will they use every means of their vast expanse of power to keep the truth from coming out?
Of course right? Groups like FEMA and NIST would be used to provide legitimacy to the governments position. It would be a natural defensive thing to do.
Believing that NIST, after their whitewash of the collapse of the TT and disregarding of evidence relating to it, are about to implicate the government or anyone other than BL when reporting on WTC7 is quite frankly a ludicrous position to hold.
Hold it if you want, i really dont care, but as i said, in my eyes it entirely invalidates your opinion.
I mean look at the NIST report for god sake. It only studied up untill collapse initiation for crying out loud.
They are a joke, and the official story is the worst punchline of all time.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No need to demand what is already forthcoming. |
Why of course not!! Those nice people will tell you all about it - when they get round to it. After all they have only had five years - they need a bit of time to consider matters. Just like they would have had an enquiry into 9/11 even if the bereaved families had not pressed for one for over a year and lobbied congressmen and appeared on the media demanding one. Trust your government!! They are on your side. Move along now - nothing to see here - you are feeling sleepy.... sleepy....durrrrrrrrr  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Seriously though, this guy is an expert in his field and he said STRAIGHT AWAY it was CD. Even AFTER discussing the various possibilities he maintained that it was definately CD.
He IS a CD expert. And he disagrees with your explanation of what happened to WTC7.
Now, are you going to swallow your pride and admit that us tinfoil hat morons actually DO have good reason to believe what we believe? How about you go one better; Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7.
No. I'm fooling myself. Your egos have already made your minds up for you. |
Unless I'm mistaken, he was shown the footage without being told where it was from. After he said it was a controlled demolition, he was told that this was on Sept. 11, and he looked surprised. Assuming this wasn't an act, it doesn't prove much. He said the building fell as if the columns were taken out deliberately, but since heavy damage to the base of the building, followed by fire, had the same effect, how could he tell if it were deliberate or not?
I would be more convinced if he were told up front that ten or twenty stories of the building had been heavily damaged and it had been on fire for hours. The most likely explanation is the one with the fewest assumptions, and the filmakers FORCED this expert to make assumptions when they showed him the clip without giving him any background.
Anyway, its all irrelevant. There was NO REASON to secretly demolish building 7. Buildings 3-6 were demolished out in the open; why not building 7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Seriously though, this guy is an expert in his field and he said STRAIGHT AWAY it was CD. Even AFTER discussing the various possibilities he maintained that it was definately CD.
He IS a CD expert. And he disagrees with your explanation of what happened to WTC7.
Now, are you going to swallow your pride and admit that us tinfoil hat morons actually DO have good reason to believe what we believe? How about you go one better; Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7.
No. I'm fooling myself. Your egos have already made your minds up for you. |
Unless I'm mistaken, he was shown the footage without being told where it was from. After he said it was a controlled demolition, he was told that this was on Sept. 11, and he looked surprised. Assuming this wasn't an act, it doesn't prove much. He said the building fell as if the columns were taken out deliberately, but since heavy damage to the base of the building, followed by fire, had the same effect, how could he tell if it were deliberate or not?
I would be more convinced if he were told up front that ten or twenty stories of the building had been heavily damaged and it had been on fire for hours. The most likely explanation is the one with the fewest assumptions, and the filmakers FORCED this expert to make assumptions when they showed him the clip without giving him any background.
Anyway, its all irrelevant. There was NO REASON to secretly demolish building 7. Buildings 3-6 were demolished out in the open; why not building 7? |
so fire destroys steel structures in freefall speed? so how come none have fell due to fire before or after 9/11? and how does fire melt all the steel beams in the right places all at the same time to cause freefall speed? and what caused this fire to reach those tempretures? no jet fuel in this buliding remember. how do you know there was no reason to secretly demolish buliding 7? or is it an assumpsion(word used to describe our comments then you go and do it yourself). and the fact that he wasnt told in advanced was to get a fair opinion from an expert in the field of to see what he thought collapse looked like, and regardless of the facts he says the building came down as if it was a controled demolition. so are we still conspiracy nuts or is their evidence that says it looked and could of been a controlled demolition and if it could of been a demolition then that could make it a possibility, and a possibility isnt a theory. did the commission report mention that it could of been due to a demolition? i thought they had experts on the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| infact ill retract the could of been a controlled demolition , because he was 100% it was a controlled demoliton. meaning no theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Believing that NIST, after their whitewash of the collapse of the TT and disregarding of evidence relating to it, are about to implicate the government or anyone other than BL when reporting on WTC7 is quite frankly a ludicrous position to hold.
Hold it if you want, i really dont care, but as i said, in my eyes it entirely invalidates your opinion.
I mean look at the NIST report for god sake. It only studied up untill collapse initiation for crying out loud.
They are a joke, and the official story is the worst punchline of all time. |
Funny you tinfoil types completely invalidate NIST and all the world's demo specialists and structural engineers...but one guy comes out of the woodwork and CD is "no longer a theory " And that's only assuming that this guy is a real expert and that he has not since changed his mind on the matter after getting all the relevant background info on WTC7 which he was so obviously denied by the CTer filmmaker.
I highlighted your above comment regarding the evidence in the TT collapse because this is exactly what the various CTs do. They disregard the fact that prior to both collapses perimeter steel columns were observed to be bowing and sagging. Since when does a CD start a demolition from the top? Since when does a CD rely upon fire to weaken steel beams? Since when does a building under CD bow and sag? And since the collapse was observed beginning at the points of impact...how does one control a detonation of preset explosives that have been burning so long? (much less after the preset explosives have been impacted by an aircraft.
The WTC CD theory is simply nonsense. It's not possible at all. Not even remotely.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a vivid picture of WTC7 as it is being struck by tons of iron debris:
As we can easily see; the north face is pristine...pictures of the damage done to #7 were hard to take as you need to be south of the building looking north...which would put the cameraman in the debris field. Lack of photo evidence from that side is all your "looks like a CD" theory is based on. It's simply more nonsense.
I wonder if your poor ambushed expert were ever shown this? My guess is no. My prediction is that we'll soon see this guy retract his statement and the CTers will reject his retraction. After all...isn't that the pattern?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But even so here is a smoky pic showing what appears to be a huge perimeter column tree from the WTC debris sticking out of the massive hole in the south face of bldg 7:
Was the expert shown this? Of course not...
Why does your entire movement depend so much on initial assumptions and half-truths? Is there any aspect of any CT that actually stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny?
If so I've never seen it...
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Be decent human beings and agree with our demand for further analysis of WTC7. |
If that's all you're asking, just keep your pants on. Further analysis--extensive and detailed--is exactly what NIST is up to these days. Their report is due out this winter (early next year, I believe.) No need to demand what is already forthcoming.
In the meantime, here's the interim report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20F inal.pdf |
That you trust NIST pretty much invalidates your opinion.
Think for a second; If WTC7 WAS taken down by pre-placed explosive devices, then the entire 911 story collapses. BL could not have had access to that building, and whoever did plant the devices had foreknowledge of the attacks.
The government and military intelligence would then become prime SUSPECTS in the destruction of the building.
Now ask yourself; if they DID have a hand in 911, will they use every means of their vast expanse of power to keep the truth from coming out?
Of course right? Groups like FEMA and NIST would be used to provide legitimacy to the governments position. It would be a natural defensive thing to do.
Believing that NIST, after their whitewash of the collapse of the TT and disregarding of evidence relating to it, are about to implicate the government or anyone other than BL when reporting on WTC7 is quite frankly a ludicrous position to hold.
Hold it if you want, i really dont care, but as i said, in my eyes it entirely invalidates your opinion.
I mean look at the NIST report for god sake. It only studied up untill collapse initiation for crying out loud.
They are a joke, and the official story is the worst punchline of all time. |
You know, you're probably right. Instead of asking an organization with extensive experience and resources examining large structural failures, employing thousands of private-sector professionals whose careers depend on integrity and professional reputation, and tasked with making recommendations to making our buildings safer, we should get someone else to perform this further analysis.
I know! How about a physics professor from a small Mormon university who's never published any important work and who's been put on academic leave pending an ethical investigation? He'd be perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | But even so here is a smoky pic showing what appears to be a huge perimeter column tree from the WTC debris sticking out of the massive hole in the south face of bldg 7:
Was the expert shown this? Of course not...
Why does your entire movement depend so much on initial assumptions and half-truths? Is there any aspect of any CT that actually stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny?
If so I've never seen it...
-z |
just looks like a big hole to me
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha ha.
Got you guys worked up didnt I?
The fact is, there is no evidence that fire or otherwise destroyed WTC7. There was damage to the building, so what? There were limited fires, so what? What everyone saw with their own eyes was a controlled demolition.
You guys may not like it, but it is a FACT. Your thin explanations betray your intelligence.
"Durr. Cumishon wos rite. Al Koyda was dem wot dun it."
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Ha ha.
Got you guys worked up didnt I?
The fact is, there is no evidence that fire or otherwise destroyed WTC7. There was damage to the building, so what? There were limited fires, so what? What everyone saw with their own eyes was a controlled demolition.
You guys may not like it, but it is a FACT. Your thin explanations betray your intelligence.
"Durr. Cumishon wos rite. Al Koyda was dem wot dun it."
|
So how did they do the CD? Thermate?
Do tell...
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hah aha!!
Man you make me laugh.
You're trying to bate me in to the whole "Thermate doesnt make explosion sounds" rubbish.
Nice try, but....no.
Want to know what happened, then open your tiny little mind to alternative posibilities for a mo. I know you would find it desparately hard, given your absolute dedication to your benevolent government, but honestly, you really should give thinking a try.
BTW, how did your looking at girls go last night?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Hah aha!!
Man you make me laugh.
You're trying to bate me in to the whole "Thermate doesnt make explosion sounds" rubbish.
Nice try, but....no.
Want to know what happened, then open your tiny little mind to alternative posibilities for a mo. I know you would find it desparately hard, given your absolute dedication to your benevolent government, but honestly, you really should give thinking a try.
BTW, how did your looking at girls go last night? |
No actually I was going to ask you how thermate could slowly bow out the perimeter columns and displace floor trusses at exactly the impact levels and above...yet then act so much faster on the rest of the building where the plane did not cause damage.
Your theories are complete *. Only an idiot could believe them; but then seeing the level of discussion amongst troothers it appears that only idiots do believe them.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: |
No actually I was going to ask you how thermate could slowly bow out the perimeter columns and displace floor trusses at exactly the impact levels and above...yet then act so much faster on the rest of the building where the plane did not cause damage.
-z |
One of the CT movies I watched yesterday showed news footage where the reporter said, "We're watching building 7, which is apparently about to collapse..." and there it went. How did they know it was about to collapse if it was a secret implosion?
Oh, I know. The media was in on it too, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: |
No actually I was going to ask you how thermate could slowly bow out the perimeter columns and displace floor trusses at exactly the impact levels and above...yet then act so much faster on the rest of the building where the plane did not cause damage.
Your theories are complete *. Only an idiot could believe them; but then seeing the level of discussion amongst troothers it appears that only idiots do believe them.
-z |
Nice!
Yeh, idiots like the expert in the video.
YOU SIR....ARE A TW&T!!!!!!!!!!!
Dont take it too badly though. I had an uncle who was a tw&t in the eighties. It left him with a limp and a funny smell but the rest of him is fine. He can type anyway, so thats you sorted.
Keep em comin Jay Lord.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: |
No actually I was going to ask you how thermate could slowly bow out the perimeter columns and displace floor trusses at exactly the impact levels and above...yet then act so much faster on the rest of the building where the plane did not cause damage.
Your theories are complete *. Only an idiot could believe them; but then seeing the level of discussion amongst troothers it appears that only idiots do believe them.
-z |
Nice!
Yeh, idiots like the expert in the video.
YOU SIR....ARE A TW&T!!!!!!!!!!!
Dont take it too badly though. I had an uncle who was a tw&t in the eighties. It left him with a limp and a funny smell but the rest of him is fine. He can type anyway, so thats you sorted.
Keep em comin Jay Lord. |
Your "expert".... what's his name?
-z
NOTE To d!ckhead....if you don't know his name then how do you know he's an expert? How do you know anything about him at all? If you do have his name it should take no time at all to contact him. I myself have access to an international phone network and can make international calls for free. I'll volunteer to look him up and place the call. So...do tell. Who is he?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
One of the CT movies I watched yesterday showed news footage where the reporter said, "We're watching building 7, which is apparently about to collapse..." and there it went. How did they know it was about to collapse if it was a secret implosion?
Oh, I know. The media was in on it too, right? |
I'm sorry Aggle-rithm but you definately are not at or near the top when guaging the smarts (what there is of them) of you critics.
How on earth did they know the building was going to collapse even if it was from a 'normal' collapse as you claim? Come to think of it, how did they know that tower two was going to collapse?
Peeeerrrrrhaps.....whoever was 'in on' the CD issued a warning that the building was about to collapse therefor not requiring the media to be 'in on it'.
Anyway, your question is irrelevent as it WAS controlled demolition.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | [
Anyway, your question is irrelevent as it WAS controlled demolition.
|
No it wasn't.
Alt theory #1: God clapped his hands and down came the tower.
NOTE: There is exactly the same amount of evidence for my alternative theory as there is for your CD theory.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | so fire destroys steel structures in freefall speed?
|
Do you mean "fire makes buildings fall at freefall speed"? Obviously, it depends on the building. In WTC7's case, it looks to have fallen pretty quickly once the collapse began, which is consistent with the lower part of the structure being damaged by debris and fire.
| Quote: | | so how come none have fell due to fire before or after 9/11? |
How many skyscrapers have been hit by airliners travelling at hundreds of miles per hour before or since 9/11? Yes, I know WTC7 wasn't actually hit by a plane, but the peripheral damage was more than enough.
| Quote: | | and how does fire melt all the steel beams in the right places all at the same time to cause freefall speed? |
Again, it depends on how the building is designed, and what damage occured in addition to the fire (I notice you keep ignoring that aspect of it, and pretending that the steel must melt before it can fail). Large buildings tend to fall straight down once they fail, because the potential energy released is far greater than the design tolerances -- this is especially true of modern skyscrapers, where advances in engineering allow builders to use no more structural support than necessary. That's why modern skyscrapers aren't the huge concrete blocks like the Empire State Building. They're still pretty heavy, though.
| Quote: |
and what caused this fire to reach those tempretures? no jet fuel in this buliding remember.
|
The usual. Heat, fuel, and oxygen. In sufficient quantities, it can easily reach the 600-700 degree mark at which steel loses half its strength.
| Quote: | how do you know there was no reason to secretly demolish buliding 7? or is it an assumpsion(word used to describe our comments then you go and do it yourself).
|
You're making the claim that it was deliberately and secretly demolished, and that there was a secret reason for doing it that was somehow known about and prepared for before the attacks. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your claim is valid.
| Quote: | and the fact that he wasnt told in advanced was to get a fair opinion from an expert in the field of to see what he thought collapse looked like, and regardless of the facts he says the building came down as if it was a controled demolition.
|
It doesn't matter WHY they withheld the information, the fact is, the expert did not have all the facts when he gave his opinion. Based on his experience, which probably does NOT include analyzing accidental building collapses, he said what it looked like.
| Quote: | | so are we still conspiracy nuts or is their evidence that says it looked and could of been a controlled demolition |
The first one.
| Quote: | | and if it could of been a demolition then that could make it a possibility, and a possibility isnt a theory. did the commission report mention that it could of been due to a demolition? i thought they had experts on the case? |
I've used this analogy before, but: If a person is decapitated in an auto accident, does the medical examiner also do a blood test to see if he was poisoned? Shouldn't he go to the time and expense of such a blood test, since it IS a possibility?
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: |
NOTE To d!ckhead....if you don't know his name then how do you know he's an expert? How do you know anything about him at all? If you do have his name it should take no time at all to contact him. I myself have access to an international phone network and can make international calls for free. I'll volunteer to look him up and place the call. So...do tell. Who is he?
-z |
LOL
This is brilliant!! You guys are more predictable than Bush.
I was waiting for it. You hate what he says so you attack his credibility.
Man, this is fun. Critics corner at its best.
BTW, his name is Steve and he's from Barnsley.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
How on earth did they know the building was going to collapse even if it was from a 'normal' collapse as you claim?
|
Because it was visibly buckling. Probably also because the area around the building had been evacuated.
| Quote: | | Come to think of it, how did they know that tower two was going to collapse? |
They didn't. That's why so many people died.
| Quote: |
Peeeerrrrrhaps.....whoever was 'in on' the CD issued a warning that the building was about to collapse therefor not requiring the media to be 'in on it'.
|
That's a possibility, as I mentioned above. More likely, no one was "in on it", it's just that the firefighters, having already seen two building collapses that day, knew the warning signs when they saw them.
| Quote: |
Anyway, your question is irrelevent as it WAS controlled demolition.
|
You haven't convinced me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: |
No it wasn't.
Alt theory #1: God clapped his hands and down came the tower.
NOTE: There is exactly the same amount of evidence for my alternative theory as there is for your CD theory.
-z |
Thats excellent Jay Lord. Very well done. Top marks for effort.
Now, is it about time for your afternoon nap. Brush the crust of your A-Team pillow and brew a mug of Horlics.
Meanwhile, us people with intelligence will have a noraml discussion.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Meanwhile, us people with intelligence will have a noraml discussion. |
In the future, you may want to do a spell check on sentences where you talk about how intelligent you are.
Just to keep the irony meter from pegging, you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
Because it was visibly buckling. Probably also because the area around the building had been evacuated.
|
Er, spot the contradiction.
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
They didn't. That's why so many people died.
|
Er, no. Not according to Rudy Rudy lets-bomb-muslims.
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
That's a possibility, as I mentioned above. More likely, no one was "in on it", it's just that the firefighters, having already seen two building collapses that day, knew the warning signs when they saw them.
|
Good for them.
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
You haven't convinced me. |
Thats because you are a fantacist with no real idea of how to form an opinion based on reasoned critical thinking.
Nevermind. You and Jay Lord might make a nice couple.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Meanwhile, us people with intelligence will have a noraml discussion. |
In the future, you may want to do a spell check on sentences where you talk about how intelligent you are.
Just to keep the irony meter from pegging, you know. |
What, you've never heard of the word 'noraml'?
Its like 'normal', but...better.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
