The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Road Glidin' Don on 31 Jan 2007 03:36 On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:08:20 -0500, Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >You recently accused me of ignoring opposing views, which is >not the case at all. <snip> >I don't reply to your points -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Road Glidin' Don on 31 Jan 2007 03:40 On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:18:22 +1300, BrianNZ <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: >Henry wrote: >> 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. > >Road Glidin' Don does not appear to be any of the above. Heh, heh, heh. Not exactly the reply you were looking for is it Henry? -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Henry on 31 Jan 2007 19:49 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 31 Jan 2007 20:04 BrianNZ wrote: > Henry wrote: >> 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. > Road Glidin' Don does not appear to be any of the above. So, you don't "think" Don stated that I ignore opposing views, eh? Time for a quote. Lies and nonsense are easily exposed on usenet. I guess that's one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. Notice the line in the quoted post below where Don states (referring to me) "And disregard anything that challenges your world view." So, Don obviously did state that I ignore opposing views. And of course, it was a very silly and hypocritical thing to say. That's why he runs and hides when I point out that it's he who disregards challenges to his world view, not me. As you well know, this ng has a lot of posts from me replying to and addressing views that challenge mine. You just saw me doing precisely that with M. Jones. When you've got facts to back your views, it's easy to support them. When they're based on blind faith and ignorance, weak minded folks tend to run, hide, or change the subject. HTH & you're welcome... 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 31 Jan 2007 20:08
Road Glidin' Don wrote: > 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 That's a Pete quote. He actually said that. Do try to keep up! BTW, you really should try 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. Backing up your words isn't so easy when they're naught but silly lies and drivel, is it? <chuckle> 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 |