The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 19 Feb 2007 20:57 Road Glidin' Don wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:46:34 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> Why should I stop exposing parrots of the Bush regime's >> impossible magic fire theory as misinformed, and their >> comical conspiracy theory as impossible? It's my moral >> and civic duty, I'm enjoying it immensely, and I'm exposing >> the official theory as impossible nonsense. Besides, I love >> watching folks like yourself run and hide or make fools of >> yourselves when you're challenged to defend your mindless >> parroting. <vbg> > You ever seen that old Canadian comedy called (IIRC) "Kids in the > Hall?" We're discussing the hard evidence related to the demolition of the twin towers and WTC7. You're incapable of addressing the the hard evidence because you know it proves the Bush regime's magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy to be an impossible and simple minded fairy tale. > They had a character in there who liked to spend his time, framing > people in the distance, between his pointer finger and thumb and > pretending to squish them. As he did so, he would chuckle with evil > delight and say, "Aha! I am squishing you." and then frame another > target to do the same thing, saying "I am squishing you too. Oh, that > hurts, doesn't it?" > While it makes him a pathetic spectacle, it's something he needs, to > feel he's a somebody. So, if you realize how silly you look when you claim that you're crushing my arguments by cowering from a discussion of the facts and hard evidence, why do you do continue to do it? You only make your magic fire theory and its followers seem more comical. What did you think of MJ's claim that the inside of the cores of the towers had the same conditions as an oil fired furnace where the fuel is injected and atomized, there's a continuous supply of fuel, an optimal air fuel mixture is created, and air is forced into the combustion chamber under pressure? Thing is, I know that you realize that's completely a completely absurd assertion because on your web site, I've read some of the involved and detailed mechanical work that you've done to on your Harley. Yet, you have to praise MJ's "explanation" anyway, because your blind faith in the Bush regimes magic fire conspiracy theory and your fear of knowing the truth is so strong, it inhibits your ability to think rationally. So, you nervously and mindlessly mumble about a comedy show instead of addressing the questions you're asked about your magic fire theory. Do you think you'll ever be able to answer the very clear and reasonable questions towards the end of this post? You accuse me of disregarding other peoples' views, yet while I read and reply, you take off running. It's hard to consider your view if you're just gonna disappear when you're asked to present one. <vbg> Road Glidin' Don wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:39:27 -0500, Henry <impeach(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> >> It's very funny, considering that I defend all my claims >> >> with hard evidence, qualified references, facts, and well >> >> articulated logic, > > And disregard anything that challenges your world view. You know I read and reply to every "explanation" given in support of the official conspiracy theory. Then I articulate the distortions, lies, and omissions using photo evidence, qualified references, logic, and common sense. I welcome any and all discussions of the hard evidence, science, and basic physics relating to the attacks and demolitions of 9-11-01. That's how we learn the truth about it. It's silly to say I disregard the official conspiracy theory. I've studied it in great detail. That's how I know it's packed full of lies and physically impossible. Here, try again to answer a couple of very clear, reasonable questions. "Disregarding anything that challenges your world view" is no way to go through life. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, their load is lightened. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with the weight above reduced is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has the weight of the rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse on this page: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos Does that look like the gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel frame to you? If so, what do you think is causing those huge explosions and dust clouds that make it look like a controlled demolition? Keep in mind that this is at the onset of the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly yet. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Henry on 19 Feb 2007 20:59 BrianNZ wrote: > Rather than waffle on trying to troll old posts, just keep to your > points with Mitchell Jones. It's making for interesting reading and > there's a few points he's brought to your attention that you > haven't responded to. Too bad I missed them. Can you repost them so I can take a look and reply? This is about the fifth time you were asked, by the way. Apparently, those interesting points are as hard to find as a photo of the gale force wind driven core melting raging infernos in the towers. <g> Doesn't it seem weird to write a post asking someone to respond to a few interesting points, but when they ask you which points, you just wonder off? Most folks would consider that to be rather bizarre behavior. Here's an example of a point MJ made that I think is highly speculative and most likely impossible. He claimed that spilled fuel from the jets burned inside the cores of the towers just as hot as an oil fired forge, even melting the massive core box columns. The forge not only burns fuel that has been vaporized and the air fuel mixture optimized, but oxygen is forced in under pressure. A reasonably intelligent, logical person would ask how that could have been duplicated inside the towers by spilled kerosene that may have run down the sides of some of the steel columns. The answer of course, is that it can't possibly be duplicated for reasons so obvious that I won't insult your intelligence by explaining them. That claim is typical of the wild speculation, implausible, and and even impossible scenarios we see from followers of the "official" conspiracy theory. They must know it's all bullshit, or they wouldn't take off running when they're asked very clear, reasonable, and logical questions. <g> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Road Glidin' Don on 20 Feb 2007 00:17 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:57:32 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: > We're discussing the hard evidence related to the demolition >of the twin towers and WTC7. >You're incapable of addressing >the the hard evidence We're discussing the hard evidence related to the proposed changes to the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. You're incapable of addressing the hard evidence. Why are you running away from this argument, Henry? Are you afraid you can't support your position? -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Henry on 20 Feb 2007 19:21 Road Glidin' Don wrote: > We're discussing the hard evidence related to the proposed changes to > the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. No, this thread is about the demolitions on 9-11-01, and it's been about that from the start. Do try to keep up! What did you think of MJ's claim that the inside of the cores of the towers had the same conditions as an oil fired furnace where the fuel is injected and atomized, there's a continuous supply of fuel, an optimal air fuel mixture is created, and air is forced into the combustion chamber under pressure? Thing is, I know that you realize that's a completely absurd claim, because on your web site, I've read some of the involved and detailed mechanical work that you've done on your Harley. In spite of your best efforts to prove otherwise in these 9-11 threads, you are not a complete idiot. <g> Yet, you have to praise MJ's impossible speculation, because your blind faith in the Bush regime's magic fire conspiracy theory and your fear of knowing the truth are so strong, they inhibit your ability to think rationally. So, you mindlessly bob your head to =anything= that supports the Bush regime's conspiracy theory, no matter how comical or how absurd. You also spew silly drivel about a comedy show when you're asked specific questions related to your impossible magic fire conspiracy theory. From a rational perspective, it's really quite amazing to see. Do you think you'll ever be able to answer the very clear and reasonable questions towards the end of this post? You accuse me of disregarding other peoples' views, yet while I read and reply, you take off running. It's hard to consider your view if you're just gonna disappear when you're asked to present one. <vbg> Road Glidin' Don wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:39:27 -0500, Henry <impeach(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> It's very funny, considering that I defend all my claims >> with hard evidence, qualified references, facts, and well >> articulated logic, > And disregard anything that challenges your world view. You know I read and reply to every "explanation" given in support of the official conspiracy theory. Then I articulate the distortions, lies, and omissions using photo evidence, qualified references, logic, and common sense. I welcome any and all discussions of the hard evidence, science, and basic physics relating to the attacks and demolitions of 9-11-01. That's how we learn the truth about it. It's silly to say I disregard the official conspiracy theory. I've studied it in great detail. That's how I know it's packed full of lies and physically impossible. Here, try again to answer a couple of very clear, reasonable questions. "Disregarding anything that challenges your world view" is no way to go through life. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, their load is lightened. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with the weight above reduced is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has the weight of the rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse on this page: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos Does that look like the gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel frame to you? If so, what do you think is causing those huge explosions and dust clouds that make it look like a controlled demolition? Keep in mind that this is at the onset of the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly yet. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Road Glidin' Don on 20 Feb 2007 23:00
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:21:04 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >Road Glidin' Don wrote: > >> We're discussing the hard evidence related to the proposed changes to >> the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. > > No, this thread is about the demolitions on 9-11-01, and it's been >about that from the start. Do try to keep up! Don't matter. It's MY thread now. Nobody agrees with you and you've just been repeating yourself for days. That means you've now lost both the argument AND the thread. Now try to keep up. Some of the new topics might not be explained for you on your kook sites, so you might have to think for yourself. -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |