100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just answer the simple question you were asked. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its a damn simple question. They just can't stand to admit that the answer is no. They have to make everything soooo complicated. WTC7 was sooooo special and different. It was felled by a fire. It was totally demolished and completely and suddenly collapsed from only a fire ---just as NIST claims. They know because they have all the rhetoric and scientific B.S. to back them up. Hey, pay attention, all would-be terrorists: You don't need bombs, planes or explosives. Just get some matches. Fire will do the job. We make our buildings out of extremely flammable stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just answer the simple question you were asked.
And actually it doesn't mean a thing one way or the other when it is taken out of contrext like CTers love to do.....9/11 was a first!...There is no template people!....Actually there were a lot of "firsts" that day..... In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour... Not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767.... Not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner....Building # 7?????...In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire combined with serious structural damage on upper floors caused by falling debris from another building collapse..... In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking about joining the truthers and providing them my "Nano Termite Theory" with full documentation. It might get some serious airtime since they seem to make mileage with the dummies with stuff like the post above!
I'm sure you would be great at that. You are certainly doing a good job with the B.S. on your side of the argument. Rhetoric and poppycock works for both sides I am guessing and scientific mumbo jumbo nobody understands probably does too. 
The scientific explanations are only mumbo jumbo to those who lack the training or intelligence to understand it. I'm glad that your side (truther) admits to the rhetoric and poppcock that you constantly provide but the other side (reality) does not use it because it isn't necessary, and if used, it would be shot down by peers of which you are not one. To date, there does not appear to be a single scientific subject that you can discuss without the same "rhetoric and poppcock" you admit to using here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just answer the simple question you were asked.
It was a simply yes or no, which you didn't really answer. What other building have you seen (besides WTC7) come down SUDDENLY and totally collapse from just a fire. (And a small one at that.) WTC7 was not, by any standards, a towering inferno. The fires could barely be seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/29/12 12:58 PM
|
|
I'm thinking about joining the truthers and providing them my "Nano Termite Theory" with full documentation. It might get some serious airtime since they seem to make mileage with the dummies with stuff like the post above!
I'm sure you would be great at that. You are certainly doing a good job with the B.S. on your side of the argument. Rhetoric and poppycock works for both sides I am guessing and scientific mumbo jumbo nobody understands probably does too.
The scientific explanations are only mumbo jumbo to those who lack the training or intelligence to understand it. I'm glad that your side (truther) admits to the rhetoric and poppcock that you constantly provide but the other side (reality) does not use it because it isn't necessary, and if used, it would be shot down by peers of which you are not one. To date, there does not appear to be a single scientific subject that you can discuss without the same "rhetoric and poppcock" you admit to using here. What you do most of the time is harp on how no one has the training or intelligence that you do. We all know how smart you believe yourself to be, but you are not smart enough to communicate in terms that are simple to understand. I am not trying to discuss a "scientific topic." I am asking, as a layman, if there were any other buildings ever taken down SUDDENLY AND TOTALLY by just fire? If so, when and where? I am also asking, if our buildings are made that flimsy, with flammable materials that will suddenly burn so hot that the entire building will totally and suddenly collapse then why would terrorists need to fly planes into them? WTC7 certainly did not require a plane, yet a simple fire, fueled by office furniture and it was totally destroyed and suddenly collapsed. Just strike a match, and take down a building. I don't believe it, and I don't believe your scientific rhetoric. If you are not smart enough to explain how that happened in layman's terms that average intelligent people can understand, then you are not as smart as you think you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sun 04/29/12 01:26 PM
|
|
I'm thinking about joining the truthers and providing them my "Nano Termite Theory" with full documentation. It might get some serious airtime since they seem to make mileage with the dummies with stuff like the post above!
I'm sure you would be great at that. You are certainly doing a good job with the B.S. on your side of the argument. Rhetoric and poppycock works for both sides I am guessing and scientific mumbo jumbo nobody understands probably does too.
The scientific explanations are only mumbo jumbo to those who lack the training or intelligence to understand it. I'm glad that your side (truther) admits to the rhetoric and poppcock that you constantly provide but the other side (reality) does not use it because it isn't necessary, and if used, it would be shot down by peers of which you are not one. To date, there does not appear to be a single scientific subject that you can discuss without the same "rhetoric and poppcock" you admit to using here. What you do most of the time is harp on how no one has the training or intelligence that you do. We all know how smart you believe yourself to be, but you are not smart enough to communicate in terms that are simple to understand. I am not trying to discuss a "scientific topic." I am asking, as a layman, if there were any other buildings ever taken down SUDDENLY AND TOTALLY by just fire? If so, when and where? I am also asking, if our buildings are made that flimsy, with flammable materials that will suddenly burn so hot that the entire building will totally and suddenly collapse then why would terrorists need to fly planes into them? WTC7 certainly did not require a plane, yet a simple fire, fueled by office furniture and it was totally destroyed and suddenly collapsed. Just strike a match, and take down a building. I don't believe it, and I don't believe your scientific rhetoric. If you are not smart enough to explain how that happened in layman's terms that average intelligent people can understand, then you are not as smart as you think you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personaly think a person has to be fairly stupid to except the pancake theory. Stupider still to argue about it.
All three buildings fell at or near free fall speed as if nothing but air stood between the top and bottom of the buildings. At every floor some resistance to the fall would have slowed it down a bit and in the normal world were logic and the laws of physics and gravity apply they would not have fallen at the speed of gravity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightymoe, the NIST's final report is on my computer. I've read it. Their final assessment is that fire alone caused the building to collapse. I just don't believe them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightymoe, the NIST's final report is on my computer. I've read it. Their final assessment is that fire alone caused the building to collapse. I just don't believe them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightymoe, the NIST's final report is on my computer. I've read it. Their final assessment is that fire alone caused the building to collapse. I just don't believe them.
Before your next "Mechanics of Solids" class I would recommend "Remedial spelling". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking about joining the truthers and providing them my "Nano Termite Theory" with full documentation. It might get some serious airtime since they seem to make mileage with the dummies with stuff like the post above!
I'm sure you would be great at that. You are certainly doing a good job with the B.S. on your side of the argument. Rhetoric and poppycock works for both sides I am guessing and scientific mumbo jumbo nobody understands probably does too.
The scientific explanations are only mumbo jumbo to those who lack the training or intelligence to understand it. I'm glad that your side (truther) admits to the rhetoric and poppcock that you constantly provide but the other side (reality) does not use it because it isn't necessary, and if used, it would be shot down by peers of which you are not one. To date, there does not appear to be a single scientific subject that you can discuss without the same "rhetoric and poppcock" you admit to using here. What you do most of the time is harp on how no one has the training or intelligence that you do. We all know how smart you believe yourself to be, but you are not smart enough to communicate in terms that are simple to understand. I am not trying to discuss a "scientific topic." I am asking, as a layman, if there were any other buildings ever taken down SUDDENLY AND TOTALLY by just fire? If so, when and where? I am also asking, if our buildings are made that flimsy, with flammable materials that will suddenly burn so hot that the entire building will totally and suddenly collapse then why would terrorists need to fly planes into them? WTC7 certainly did not require a plane, yet a simple fire, fueled by office furniture and it was totally destroyed and suddenly collapsed. Just strike a match, and take down a building. I don't believe it, and I don't believe your scientific rhetoric. If you are not smart enough to explain how that happened in layman's terms that average intelligent people can understand, then you are not as smart as you think you are. I have explained it in various degrees of scientific and layman's language. However, I do admit I am unable to dumb down the topic sufficiently for you to understand.... just like every other science tread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I must have missed it. The only posts I ever see from you is how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. You failed again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still hasn't gotten into your head that a burning Building is no place for Explosives!
That's an understatement. I certainly wouldn't store explosives in a burning building.
But I've seen buildings explode and guess what... fire is usually in the mix. Anyway, the explosives heard in WTC 7 was in the lower floors. The fires were in the upper floors. Again I ask, have you or anyone ever seen a fire take down a high rise building totally and suddenly. I don't think you have, because it has NEVER HAPPENED. You fail to realize that an explosion doesn't require an explosive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am locking this topic. This thread has run it's course. Leave the insults off of the forums.
Kim |
|
|
|
|
