The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 22 Jan 2007 22:45 Mitchell Jones wrote: > I would also repeat what I said yesterday: it is obvious those crashes > were due to a conspiracy. The question is: who were the conspirators? > Were they Al Qaeda, as is commonly alleged? Or was the whole thing a > black ops operation pulled off by the Bush administration? My point here > is not to argue for one conspiracy theory over another, but rather to > argue that whichever conspiracy theory you endorse, you have to accept > that the jetliner crashes were the instrument by which the towers were > brought down. The towers survived the jet impacts just as they were designed. Also, no jet hit WTC7, and so far, demolition is the =only= plausible explanation for its sudden and unprecedented free fall and symmetric drop. > Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer. Which is another reason to accept that 9-11 was an inside job. The Bush regime's conspiracy theory requires the believer to accept far too many impossible scenarios and "coincidences". Here are a just a few of them. http://100777.com/node/963
From: Henry on 25 Jan 2007 19:24 BrianNZ wrote: > Henry wrote: >> Good job discussing this topic without insults and name >> calling, BTW. That's usually one of the first tactics used >> by followers of the "official" conspiracy theory. <g> > Of course =you= would never use insults and name calling <g>..... I'm not above doing it in retaliation, but I don't initiate it. That's why there's no name calling in my exchanges with M. Jones. See how that works? It's the old "do unto others" thing. That one is is easy - it's the turn the other cheek part that I haven't quite mastered. <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: Henry on 25 Jan 2007 19:28 Road Glidin' Don wrote: > Heh, heh, heh. Don, you're out of hiding! Here, try again to explain or defend the blatant hypocrisy you seem to have displayed in the post quoted below. Is avoiding the question your own timid way of saying, "Yeah, I guess I fucked up"? <g> 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, they're being pulled apart. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no weight above it 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 26 Jan 2007 00:00 On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:28:18 -0500, Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >Road Glidin' Don wrote: > >> Heh, heh, heh. > <snip> >"Yeah, I guess I fucked up"? <g> That should have been your reply to Mitchell Jones. He's given you an excellent reply. I should thank you for having stimulated such an excellent, well-informed post from him. It was also good comic relief - watching a yappy, unschooled Kool-Aid drinker getting so thoroughly thrashed. Again! I've actually worked in the field of architecture - equipped by formal training in structural design (including knowledge of how floor systems are connected to that structures and how they will fail with outward deflection) and I can tell you, you've been beaten on every score in this argument. Doesn't matter if you can't adjust to that fact, Henry. Oh yes, we know you feel entitled to demand it of eveyone else, but honest self-examination certainly isn't *your* strong suit - that would require a bit of real character. Your betters know that and reward your disingenuous preaching with the shunning it deserves. You obviously sense and feel the sting of that treatment, as you beg and taunt like a child, desperate for any attention. Makes one wonder what really *is* your problem. No father-figure around while you were growing up and now we have to pay for that? Anyhow, it's quite hilarious in a way. In all seriousness, if you had an avowed, determined enemy, set on making you look feeble-minded and ultra-gullible - so that, in the future, no one would ever take your opinion seriously about anything else, ever again - by posting far-fetched lunacy here and then attributing it to you, he could not have come up with better material than what you have freely provided at great expense to your own time. Hear that sound? It's everyone laughing at you. -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Henry on 27 Jan 2007 10:47
Road Glidin' Don wrote: > Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >> Don, you're out of hiding! Here, try again to explain >> or defend the blatant hypocrisy you seem to have displayed >> in the post quoted below. Is avoiding the question your own >> timid way of saying, "Yeah, I guess I fucked up"? <g> > That should have been your reply to Mitchell Jones. He's > given you an excellent reply. His comparison of the steel frames of the towers to a glass table was most excellent, wasn't it? I liked his claim that heat resistant steel will become fuel and ignite and melt in an office fire, too. Nice, subtle use of sarcasm, BTW. <vbg> > I've actually worked in the field of architecture - equipped > by formal training in structural design Great, let's see you use your "knowledge" to explain how fires caused the massive steel frames of WTC7 and the towers to disintegrate in a matter of seconds, putting up no more resistance than air for the first and only time in human history. So far, all we've seen in use is your running and hiding skills. > Hear that sound? Not yet, but I expect the sound of you running away to start up again real quick like... <vbg> Here, try again to explain or defend the blatant hypocrisy you seem to have displayed in the post quoted below. Is avoiding the question your own timid way of saying, "Yeah, I guess I fucked up"? <g> 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, they're being pulled apart. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no weight above it 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 |