| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
ah ok now i get it, i need proof to say they could of edited it out but you can make up any trollop you like and make out he never mentioned basement bombs?
the fact is niether of us know and thats my point. you dont know if he mentioned them or not do you ? your just guessing and dismissing the possibility i posed.
there are two possibilities
1. he didnt mention them
2. he did mention them but they were edited out(carnt have the public hearing about basement bombs).
neither of us know which is true so how can you claim he didnt mention them when you dont have a clue if he did or not.
you may not of heard him in some or all of the reports you heard but that dosnt mean he didnt mention them, he dosnt control what is put onto your screen does he? he dosnt control which parts of his conversations you allowed to hear either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zabooka
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Why did the building collapse from the top?
Why would such a powerful bomb not kill everyone in the basement?
Why couldn't jet fuel make it to the basement?
Why do you repeat tired old nonsense that conspiracy theorists tell you to think? |
You have to hand it to this person. Real good comedian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | ah ok now i get it, i need proof to say they could of edited it out but you can make up any trollop you like and make out he never mentioned basement bombs?
the fact is niether of us know and thats my point. you dont know if he mentioned them or not do you ? your just guessing and dismissing the possibility i posed.
there are two possibilities
1. he didnt mention them
2. he did mention them but they were edited out(carnt have the public hearing about basement bombs).
neither of us know which is true so how can you claim he didnt mention them when you dont have a clue if he did or not.
you may not of heard him in some or all of the reports you heard but that dosnt mean he didnt mention them, he dosnt control what is put onto your screen does he? he dosnt control which parts of his conversations you allowed to hear either. |
So what you are saying is that if there is no evidence that he mentioned basement bombs, and he does not even claim that he did, he still might have done, so it is just as likely that he mentioned them as that he did not?
Gawd help us! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | ah ok now i get it, i need proof to say they could of edited it out but you can make up any trollop you like and make out he never mentioned basement bombs?
the fact is niether of us know and thats my point. you dont know if he mentioned them or not do you ? your just guessing and dismissing the possibility i posed.
there are two possibilities
1. he didnt mention them
2. he did mention them but they were edited out(carnt have the public hearing about basement bombs).
neither of us know which is true so how can you claim he didnt mention them when you dont have a clue if he did or not.
you may not of heard him in some or all of the reports you heard but that dosnt mean he didnt mention them, he dosnt control what is put onto your screen does he? he dosnt control which parts of his conversations you allowed to hear either. |
So what you are saying is that if there is no evidence that he mentioned basement bombs, and he does not even claim that he did, he still might have done, so it is just as likely that he mentioned them as that he did not?
Gawd help us! |
there is evidence he mentions basement bombs, he mentions it all the time, its just not shown on t.v.
if thats because it was edited out or he didnt say it niether of us know to beable to claim on way or another, unless your just picking up on something unprovable and molding to fit your case of 9/11 not being an inside job?
if you really think he didnt mention the basement bombs in any of the news reports prove it (remember news reports are edited together unless live, and written documents dont always cover everything that has been discussed and in the same way are edited, this usually ensure you get the best information and the most intresting, but can also be used to edit out what you dont want people to hear about because of the subject causing offense or you dont want people to hear fullstop).
i simply dont know one way or another if he did or not, but accept there are two possibilitys and not one, you on the other hand assume something you dont know and carnt prove then call others conspiracy theorists.
why do you dismiss the possibility what he said was edited out like it was with the commission report? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Right, I have found the CNN video, which shows that the transcript was accurate, and he never mentioned anything about explosions, he talked of a big rumble. Here it is, you can download it yourself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, I have found the CNN video, which shows that the transcript was accurate, and he never mentioned anything about explosions, he talked of a big rumble. Here it is, you can download it yourself |
no read the transcript and listen to the video again, he mentions two rumbles NOT a big rumble(as in one).
when on a tv programme like a news show your time is limited and you have to compress your story to fit the alloted time, so he dosnt mention where the two rumbles were coming from. everything i heard in the video file you gave is fully consistant with what ive heard him say on numerous occasions, the only thing that puzzles me a bit is the use of the word rumble which ive heard stated as a BOOM!
other than that its consistant and he didnt have much time to tell the whole story, it was compressed to fit the time allowed and he didnt even get to mention it all did he? he was stopped after mentioning the 65th floor was reported to of collapsed proving there wasnt even enough time to tell the story even though it was compressed.
the only thing that is a bit weird like i said is using the term rumble then changing it to a boom! i dont know the reasons for that but take it onboard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, I have found the CNN video, which shows that the transcript was accurate, and he never mentioned anything about explosions, he talked of a big rumble. Here it is, you can download it yourself |
no read the transcript and listen to the video again, he mentions two rumbles NOT a big rumble(as in one).
when on a tv programme like a news show your time is limited and you have to compress your story to fit the alloted time, so he dosnt mention where the two rumbles were coming from. everything i heard in the video file you gave is fully consistant with what ive heard him say on numerous occasions, the only thing that puzzles me a bit is the use of the word rumble which ive heard stated as a BOOM!
other than that its consistant and he didnt have much time to tell the whole story, it was compressed to fit the time allowed and he didnt even get to mention it all did he? he was stopped after mentioning the 65th floor was reported to of collapsed proving there wasnt even enough time to tell the story even though it was compressed.
the only thing that is a bit weird like i said is using the term rumble then changing it to a boom! i dont know the reasons for that but take it onboard. |
Right, I am glad you now accept that originally he said nothing about hearing an explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zabooka wrote: | | pepik wrote: | Why did the building collapse from the top?
Why would such a powerful bomb not kill everyone in the basement?
Why couldn't jet fuel make it to the basement?
Why do you repeat tired old nonsense that conspiracy theorists tell you to think? |
You have to hand it to this person. Real good comedian. |
Comical Pepik as he's known on here, modelled himself on comical Ali, he of the comical broadcasts during the american massacre and invasion of iraq.
I'm convinced he would have a bright future with NIST. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, I have found the CNN video, which shows that the transcript was accurate, and he never mentioned anything about explosions, he talked of a big rumble. Here it is, you can download it yourself |
no read the transcript and listen to the video again, he mentions two rumbles NOT a big rumble(as in one).
when on a tv programme like a news show your time is limited and you have to compress your story to fit the alloted time, so he dosnt mention where the two rumbles were coming from. everything i heard in the video file you gave is fully consistant with what ive heard him say on numerous occasions, the only thing that puzzles me a bit is the use of the word rumble which ive heard stated as a BOOM!
other than that its consistant and he didnt have much time to tell the whole story, it was compressed to fit the time allowed and he didnt even get to mention it all did he? he was stopped after mentioning the 65th floor was reported to of collapsed proving there wasnt even enough time to tell the story even though it was compressed.
the only thing that is a bit weird like i said is using the term rumble then changing it to a boom! i dont know the reasons for that but take it onboard. |
Right, I am glad you now accept that originally he said nothing about hearing an explosion. |
mmmm yes. his story could well be credible and he may well be telling the truth, but i have heard a few things recently and seen credible questions asked that are met with fury.
questioning this guy may well be to much for most as mr rodriguez has become the person who most in the movement look upto, however where there is doubt questions should be asked, thats the basis for questioning the offical version so it should apply to everything.
the questions by witchfinder general in another thread i though were pretty reasonable and once asked was curious myself, as it could look bad even if its not the case but the questions are left unanswered.
he met with bush and others considered to be in on 9/11 or working to the same agenda as those who are suspected of it.
he has jref connections apparently
are there any witnessess who say and confirm they were rescued by him?
then theres the rumbles he mentions which later turn to booms, to fan the flames after talks with the adminstration??? create a fall guy for the movement? what would happen to the movement and the CD theory if rodriguez turned around one day and said i was lieing about the booms?
im a truther and the questions need to be asked if that makes me a critic to others then fine i aint ignoring my recent doubt.
if these questions can be answered by anyone please do i asked them here because of there nature and more than likely being looked at as not supporting the movement.
although i do support a full enquiry into 9/11 im just in doubt about these points at the moment and am thinking it could be possible rodriguez may be a part of an agenda, but im hoping somebody can reasure me otherwise.
being a nice man or whatever people think dosnt mean you are not working or apart of something else.
was it rumbles or booms? boom seems like an overstatement compared to a rumble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's interesting is that you question only whether there could be yet another layer to the conspiracy. None of your questions ever relate to whether the conspiracy actually exists.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | What's interesting is that you question only whether there could be yet another layer to the conspiracy. None of your questions ever relate to whether the conspiracy actually exists. |
mmmm maybe thats because if willie rodriguez is a plant or wrong it would'nt make some of the other facts wrong and the conspiracy would still be there.
but whats intresting is you think everything is one way all time.
its a well known fact that goverment do false flags and history shows it.
if any facts came about that challenged all the facts then i'd beable to come to the conclusion there is no conspiracy, but as its just willie rodriguez in question with those questions it means other facts still stand and there is still a possibility there was a conspiracy.
it dosnt change WTC7 for example. and there may well be perfectly good explainations for the rumble/booms yet, but i dont know thats why im asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You might want to look at it a little deeper than that.
Rodriguez didn't come up with these bomb in the basement theories, troofers did. They built conspiracy theories based on a noise he heard in the basement. All along they have ignored the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to set off a bomb in the basement to make a building collapse from the top.
All along there have been alternative explanations, consistent with the official story, which could explain why he would hear noises in the basement.
But no, conspiracy theorists have fabricated ridiculous theories and defended them fanatically. They have build castles out of sand, if you will pardon a cliche metaphor, because that's what they do - not try to find out what happened on 911, instead they try to dream up conspiracy theories for every aspect of 911.
So if Rodriguez were to change his story or be exposed as a plant (I doubt either), the troof movement has to point finger at itself - these bomb in the basement theories made no sense whatever Rodriguez heard - rumble or boom - and its the troofers that built them up and defended them, not Rodriguez. If these bomb in the basement theories made sense, it wouldn't matter what Rodriguez said since obviously you only had such testimony for one tower anyway.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William Rodriguez is only significant regarding the 'basement bomb' theory because he's the only one to claim that an explosion came from below before it came from above. There are other witnesses to explosions and damage in the basements of both towers (see my other post in this thread).
If you rule out Rodriguez as a credible witness then the only question is whether or not the extent of the damage witnessed on the basement levels can be explained by fireballs traveling down the elevator shafts. I'm not sure that's been conclusively proven either way, but in the absence of conclusive evidence it can only be seen as possibly suspicious.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no such thing as conclusive evidence to the troof movement. If conclusive evidence were presented, then it must have been faked or planted, or you would demand to see the (e.g.) steel samples yourself only to claim they had been doctored if the tests don't give you what you want to hear. There is no conceivable, imaginable evidence that cannot be rejected by someone that wants to reject it.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | There is no such thing as conclusive evidence to the troof movement. If conclusive evidence were presented, then it must have been faked or planted, or you would demand to see the (e.g.) steel samples yourself only to claim they had been doctored if the tests don't give you what you want to hear. There is no conceivable, imaginable evidence that cannot be rejected by someone that wants to reject it. |
Yes you're right, and I'd say that's just as likely to be true of people who vociferously support the OCT as it is of those who uncritically support every aspect of Loose Change. There is nothing unique about 'troofers' in the attachment they form to their ideas. In fact the conspiranoia that infects much of the movement is just an inversion of the "see no evil" approach of the MSM. Each is equally deluded, in its own way.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | You might want to look at it a little deeper than that.
Rodriguez didn't come up with these bomb in the basement theories, troofers did. They built conspiracy theories based on a noise he heard in the basement. All along they have ignored the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to set off a bomb in the basement to make a building collapse from the top.
|
With respect, that paragraph is a steaming pile of doggy doo. Are you suggesting that all this evidence is ignored? All of this corroborated evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like the NWO controls London firefighters now, forcing them to make outrageous claims about buildings on fire being at risk of collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6598383.stm
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a shame you don't specify how exactly this building is similar to the WTC complex.
But then neither do the Fire Brigade specify that they were expecting total, absolute and utter collapse, or the more common fire-related partial collapse.
Still it all helps get that meme out there, doesn't it?
Mission accomplished.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's a shame you don't specify how exactly this building is similar to the WTC complex. |
I thought the troofer line was that if the WTC collapses from fire, all burning buildings have to collapse. I guess you finally figured out how ridiculous that was. | Quote: | | But then neither do the Fire Brigade specify that they were expecting total, absolute and utter collapse, or the more common fire-related partial collapse. |
Maybe you should call them. Oh wait, troofers don't do that. Lets wait a few years and then ask a professor of philosophy.
But why would it matter? Ordinary fires can't damage structural steel, so partial collapses are impossible. At least that what the philosophy professors say. | Quote: | Still it all helps get that meme out there, doesn't it?
Mission accomplished. |
Good to attempt to shoot down anything which appears in critics corner, even if you can't make sense. Obfuscation accomplished.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | I thought the troofer line was that if the WTC collapses from fire, all burning buildings have to collapse. I guess you finally figured out how ridiculous that was. |
What??? Good grief Pepik, I thought you'd have realised after all this time that the 'troofer' line is that buildings don't totally collapse from fire. We contend they were covertly demolished, remember?
| pepik wrote: | | Maybe you should call them. Oh wait, troofers don't do that. Lets wait a few years and then ask a professor of philosophy. |
And also ask a physics professor skilled in materials analysis, like Steven Jones. Griffin, who I presume you are referring to, is pretty skilled at razoring through the BS government Inquiry cover-up lies.
| pepik wrote: | | But why would it matter? Ordinary fires can't damage structural steel, so partial collapses are impossible. At least that what the philosophy professors say. |
There you go getting all confused over your Professors again. And your fire temperature-dependeant damage. What was it NIST found again? Evidence of steel temperatures of approx 250C? Or in layman's terms, about enough to bake a cake.
| pepik wrote: | | Good to attempt to shoot down anything which appears in critics corner, even if you can't make sense. Obfuscation accomplished. |
Yes well, although to be fair, this thread wasn't really much of a challenge - but hey! it's Friday; we'll make allowances for you.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What??? Good grief Pepik, I thought you'd have realised after all this time that the 'troofer' line is that buildings don't totally collapse from fire. We contend they were covertly demolished, remember? |
No, you are asking how the building was constructed, which we all know doesn't matter since buildings don't collapse from fire alone, right? And of course if WTC7 collapses, then WTC 6 has to collapse too, right? Or have you been getting confused? | Quote: | | And also ask a physics professor skilled in materials analysis, like Steven Jones. Griffin, who I presume you are referring to, is pretty skilled at razoring through the BS government Inquiry cover-up lies. |
I'd prefer someone who does structural engineering. Ever tried talking to someone in the field? Or is "scientist" good enough. | Quote: | | There you go getting all confused over your Professors again. And your fire temperature-dependeant damage. What was it NIST found again? Evidence of steel temperatures of approx 250C? Or in layman's terms, about enough to bake a cake. |
Well no actually, but I'm sure you don't read NIST reports, you read what the conspiracy wesbites tell you NIST says. | Quote: | | Yes well, although to be fair, this thread wasn't really much of a challenge - but hey! it's Friday; we'll make allowances for you. |
So easy you gave up on coming up with an even remotely plausible explanation for basement bombs. Oh well, who needs one anyway. Lets here it for truthiness.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | No, you are asking how the building was constructed, which we all know doesn't matter since buildings don't collapse from fire alone, right? And of course if WTC7 collapses, then WTC 6 has to collapse too, right? Or have you been getting confused? |
I'm sorry but the only response I can muster to this is, in your mate Anti-Sophist's word, 'gibberish'.
Try it again when you've sobered up.
| pepik wrote: | | I'd prefer someone who does structural engineering. Ever tried talking to someone in the field? Or is "scientist" good enough. |
I think someone able to detect and report on intergranular corrosion of the metal and spheroids of previously molten iron in the dust is exactly the right person in this case.
| pepik wrote: | | Well no actually, but I'm sure you don't read NIST reports, you read what the conspiracy wesbites tell you NIST says. |
I think you'll find that your debunking sites don't differentiate between the gas temperatures of the fires, and the heat actually transferred to the steel and determined by the paint deformation tests.
Certainly some steel was far, far hotter - the famous horseshoe girder would have required several thousand degrees, as would the evaporation eroded flange that FEMA itemised. However as those temperatures are way outside the envelope of jet-fuel/office-content fires, presumably you don't really want to go there.
And I really can't be arsed going through my NCSTARS at the moment for such a half-hearted throwaway statement anyway.
| pepik wrote: | | So easy you gave up on coming up with an even remotely plausible explanation for basement bombs. Oh well, who needs one anyway. Lets here it for truthiness. |
The 'plausible explanation' is that they were part of a sequence for the controlled demolition of the WTC. There's nothing more that can be said at this stage.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/highway.collapse.ap/index.html
"Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."
Gasoline can't do that right? At least according to the troofers' crack team of scientists.
By the way your explanation for why bombs were set off in the basement is a joke. Please try harder.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/highway.collapse.ap/index.html
"Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."
Gasoline can't do that right? At least according to the troofers' crack team of scientists.
By the way your explanation for why bombs were set off in the basement is a joke. Please try harder. |
And of course being the obediant dupe that you are, you believed it straight away, right Pepik?
Two clues for you: don't believe everything you read in the papers. If steel was melted, it sure as hell wasn't gasoline that tanker was carrying.
I think the more likely explanation is that one of Arnie's education-lite appointed cronies embellished things a bit. The steel most likely expanded and distorted rather than 'melted'. And of course it also helps subliminally reinforce the Great 911 Myth.
How can I state that so confidently?
Because even in the perfectly metered, pressurised and aspirated confines of a jet engine burning fuel does not reach a tempertaure that high.
"Fuel is added to the air and burned in a combustion chamber to raise the temperature of the fluid mixture to about 1,100°F to 1,300° F". http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/Engines101.html
Congratulations - you are now a fully Bush-science qualified citizen who believes whatever you're told - even when you should know better.
As to your second point, it is rather your preferred reality of 'no explosions, nothing happened' which is the bigger joke.
Just because events make no sense or have a conceivable reason in your insulated world doesn't mean they did not happen.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pepik,
I can't see a response to my above invitation:
On the 8th June (Friday) 7pm at the Indian YMCA (not far from the square mile) we have Engineer Gordon Ross explaining exactly why basement explosions would have been a neccesary part of the demolition, and explaining why a gravitational collapse would be quite impossible.
Will you come along and challenge him with your mighty obedience skills?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Goodness, a flippant dismissal? Who would have thought.
Oh well, I guess it didn't happen then. Move along, nothing to see here people.
| Quote: | | Just because events make no sense or have a conceivable reason |
Our theories make no sense and we can't conceive of any reason for them. But other than that, they're great! (copyright 2007, Troof Movement)
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Close to the square mile but far from Tuscany, where I will be on holiday. Sorry to say I won't be cancelling my trip for your meeting. But you've already seen my questions, please feel free to ask them on my behalf.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pepik,
Put them in a numbered list and I will be happy to.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please help me find the posts where you laid out this person's theories, i can't find them.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pepik-
I didn't because I haven't seen into the future and seen the lecture yet. Two of his essays are on Journal for 9/11 Studies (name- Gordon Ross), he will be presenting the findings of his latest paper at this lecture.
The basic tennets are:
The collapse would run out of energy and halt itself due to the energy being used to destroy matter taking from the energy available to continue it.
How explosives could be used to create exactly the collapse we saw (which no scientist or engineer has yet explained without explosives).
Beyond that, the details I don't know.
Give me a list of questions and I will present them to him in the Q&A session. The talk will be videoed so you'll be able to see the answers.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
