The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 30 Jan 2007 20:08 Road Glidin' Don wrote: > Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >> Hey Don, why can't you answer the very clear and >> reasonable questions towards the end of this post? > Why should I? Two reasons: (1) You recently accused me of ignoring opposing views, which is not the case at all. I welcome them, and I read and reply to them. (2) By doing exactly what you accused me of doing, you appear not only hypocritical, but incapable of defending your beliefs, which makes you appear to be weak minded and confused. > I never see you answer (or even quote) the points > raised in the beginning of my (or others') posts. If I don't reply to your points, it's because they don't address the facts, and are some sort of moronic rant about something totally irrelevant. > So when are you going to admit your culpability for believing the > Apollo moon landing was not faked by the U.S. government? Huh? > And what about that UFO they got hidden in Area 51? See, that's what I'm talking about. That sort of idiocy shows us how weak your mind and your magic fire conspiracy theory really are. When you're asked to defend it, you come undone and spew irrelevant nonsense. Rob and Pete like to talk about their family history of mental illness, and you talk about UFOs. Here, try again to answer just =one= very clear and reasonable question about your magic fire conspiracy theory. 'Course, if you have to run, hide, or change the subject again, we understand. <vbg> Road Glidin' Don wrote: > 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: Henry on 30 Jan 2007 20:15 Mitchell Jones wrote: > langkd_NO_SPAM(a)shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:06:04 -0600, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>> Incidentally, you should indicate it explicitly when you delete >>> material. The usual way this is done is to insert [snip] in the place >>> formerly occupied by the deleted material. >> Just par for the course, with Henry, Mitchell. Which is why you are >> an unusual case, rewarding him with any of your time or courtesy. > ***{Hey, he's been pretty reasonable, and this subject is very > interesting. It's been awhile since I studied statics and dynamics, and > this discussion has given me a much better understanding of the big > picture than I had before. It's easy to get lost in detail when you are > grinding your way through hundreds of end-of-chapter problems. These > issues, however, render it utterly mandatory that you see the forest > rather than merely the trees. > I would add that I see the Patriot Act pretty much the way Henry sees > it: as the end of America. We have now officially been cast down into > abject slavery--all "in the public interest," of course. That is the > significant fact here. It doesn't matter whether (a) the Bush > administration took down the buildings with jetliner crashes and > pre-planted explosives, as Henry believes, or (b) took them down with > jetliner crashes alone, or (c) merely seized upon crashes initiated by > al Qaeda, to justify the Patriot Act. Any way you slice it, the crashes > provided the political momentum to pass the act, and the act has killed > the country. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were all that > ever made this country worth a damn, are now dead letter. We now > officially have no rights. "Our" government can now do to us any damn > thing it pleases, and--count on it--it will become increasingly abusive > and dictatorial with the passage of time, as tyrannical governments > always do. > > Those who say tyranny can't happen in America are wrong, because it > already has. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** Heh, heh, heh. Not exactly the reply you were looking for is it Don? You know, you, Rob, and Pete, "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling should take some notes. Perhaps you boys could learn a few things about how to discuss controversial topics with intelligent adults absent the childish name calling and silly insults we usually see from the Bush parroting magic fire camp. Damn good post! <BFG> -- 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: tomorrow on 30 Jan 2007 21:02 On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, BrianNZ <b...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: > Henry wrote: (SuperSnippola) > Would it hurt you to discuss your views on other subjects? <vvbg> Please. Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.
From: BrianNZ on 30 Jan 2007 21:19 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, BrianNZ <b...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: >> Henry wrote: > > (SuperSnippola) > >> Would it hurt you to discuss your views on other subjects? <vvbg> > > Please. Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. > > But....but.....but....OK. :)
From: Road Glidin' Don on 31 Jan 2007 03:27
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:15:50 -0500, Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >Pete, "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling <snip> >you boys could learn a few things about how to discuss controversial >topics with intelligent adults absent the childish name calling >and silly insults -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |