The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Road Glidin' Don on 22 Feb 2007 20:42 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:53:45 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >Road Glidin' Don wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:21:04 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Nope. I control your "thoughts", your replies, and this >thread. > HTFH > > 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> I suspect that, if you were truthful, you would have to admit you're over (probably way over) your head on that subject, Henry. What level of formal education have you achieved in the fields of chemistry and physics? Do you even know what a Mole is? (hint: it's not a small, furry, brown animal). Unless you have the education required to work through the calculations (*yourself*) to answer the question you raised, you are simply relying, by faith, on the accuracy of someone else's calculations. The same applies in the specialized field of structural engineering. Which begs the question, what is the extent of your training in math? No one here owes you an education, Henry - even though MJ tried to provide you the beginning of one. And, as everyone here knew ahead of time, the outcome of that attempt was completely predictable, based on your past - which is why no one sees it worth their while to invest their valuable time to have a good faith discussion with you. It's the bed you made which you are forced to sleep alone in and no amount of your complaining or baiting will change that. Quite honestly, your reputation for rational argument here is in such tatters that you really ought to focus your efforts on another forum (if you haven't already) - somewhere where people don't know you yet. After all, that's likely the only reason MJ thought it feasible to engage in a discussion with you. (he knows better now). Yeah, I suppose it's a wretched form of existence you've been reduced to, but you're better to accept and work with what you've got, Henry. So, just keep moving and you can still have fun. And - just so long as you're not vainly hoping you'll get respect for your kook views - you can still drop by here now and then to discuss motorcycles! > 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. Nah. It's only amazing to watch you desperately flinging your poo, hoping it will get you attention. Unlike you, I have training in building structural design, not to mention a university education in chemistry, physics and mathematics. > 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> Ah, poor Henry. I tell you you're wrong but won't take the time to explain it to you. How could I neglect doing so for such a deserving person? LOL! -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Henry on 25 Feb 2007 19:06 Road Glidin' Don wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:53:45 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> 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> > I suspect that, if you were truthful, you would have to admit you're > over (probably way over) your head on that subject, Henry. I know for a fact that if you were truthful, you'd admit that there was no fuel injection, no continuous, regulated atomized supply of fuel, no optimized air fuel mixture, and no forced induction in the cores of either tower. Then would also admit that MJ's claim that conditions in the cores of the towers were the same as the conditions in a furnace built to melt metal was comically absurd, as was his comparison of shattering glass to gradually heated structural steel. But you're not being honest, and you're not credible - you're quite simply and thoughtlessly agreeing with =anything= said in support of the Bush regime's thoroughly debunked and comically impossible fairy tale. That's why you're forced to avoid any discussion of the facts and hard evidence, making yourself and your conspiracy theory into a naught by joke in the eyes of thoughtful, reasonable, and intelligent people. > No one here owes you an education, Henry - even though MJ tried to > provide you the beginning of one. Yeah, his comparison of a glass coffee table to the heated structural steel in the towers was definitely enlightening, as was his claim that there was a blast furnace and a raging inferno with gale force winds in the cores of the towers. Funny how you can suck down and mindlesly puke back up such silly drivel and still take yourself so seriiously... <g> > Quite honestly, your reputation for rational argument here is in such > tatters If that were true, someone would be able to quote something I wrote that isn't rational. But of course, you're not able do that, and we =know= how much you wish you could. <g> A challenge to quote something I've written that's irrational is yet another example of a challenge that you are pitifully incapable of meeting. I'll probably repost this challenge a few times just to drive the point home - where the events of 9-11-01 are concerned, you present yourself as a timid fool with no credibility or integrity. You =simply= rant, run, and hide. >> 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. > Nah. Since you're obviously not considering the facts from a rational perspective, you can't appreciate the idiocy of your random babbling or your mindless praise for absurd analogies and wild, impossible claims. >> 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> > Ah, poor Henry. As predicted. <chuckle> Here, try again... 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://stj911.org 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 25 Feb 2007 19:06 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 26 Feb 2007 12:57 On Feb 25, 5:06 pm, Henry <trea...(a)bush.gov> wrote: >You accuse me of disregarding other peoples' views, yet while I read and reply, >you take off running. That's because you don't answer the hard questions put to you, Henry. You run from them. See if you can respond this time, without snipping from the question (reposted again, below) that you don't want to answer. To wit: <begin quote> "I suspect that, if you were truthful, you would have to admit you're over (probably way over) your head on that subject, Henry. What level of formal education have you achieved in the fields of chemistry and physics? Do you even know what a Mole is? (hint: it's not a small, furry, brown animal)." "Unless you have the education required to work through the calculations (*yourself*) to answer the question you raised, you are simply relying, by faith, on the accuracy of someone else's calculations. The same applies in the specialized field of structural engineering. Which begs the question, what is the extent of your training in math?" <end quote> That is the central, crucial point that you snip out and don't want to address. So tell us Henry. Do you have the education to do the calculations for yourself (like MJ, myself and others here can), or do you accept on the basis of *faith* what your one or two experts say (even though they are opposed by all other experts), because their conclusion supports a political statement you want to make? MJ worked out his case for the combustion scenario using data and scientific formulas. You're sitting there still wondering what a Mole is.
From: Road Glidin' Don on 26 Feb 2007 22:19
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:23:15 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >In addition to chemistry and physics in high school, I finished two >years of college with a math and science emphasis. LOL! With such an advanced education, soon you'll be providing expert testimony for the efficacy of Susan Somers' bio-identical youth hormones. -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |