COMMENTS:
Just out of curiosity -- why in the world would you get so worked up and angry about someone's opinion that doesn't have any effect on you?
After the 3rd column inch of text, and the gratutious glimpse of your enviable life  your ballot stopped being a question and turned into a rant.
As to your ballot question, when dealing with people who don't seem to have a firm toe-hold on Reality (on some topic), I often calmly point out some of their unrealistic reactions in the form of a mildly sarcastic question. 
You are absolutly right Cathexis I do get annoyed by dumb irrationality and I dont know why. That was the whole point of this thread. Looking at my own comments though it seems the real problem is between rational and irrational people. A rational person cannot enter into a dialogue with an irrational one because they think in completely different ways. Explaining a logical argument to an irrational conspiracy theorist is as pointless as trying to describe the colour blue to a person who has never been able to see.
I always like to point out logic and facts to people, like to those dumb as a post "Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists who try to claim that cellphones can make calls from planes flying six miles up and over 450mph. Such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which did't exist prior to 2004).
The other lie these "Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists like to spread is the one about steel-framed buildings being able to collapse at freefall into their own footprint without a controlled demolition. In actual fact, before and after 9/11 it's NEVER HAPPENED.
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo.
Then there's those shills who try to pretend that the US government doesn't employ shills whose job it is to LIE on message boards, and attack those who question the OFFICIAL LIES.
Patience in dealing with these idiot tin-foil hat wearing "Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists really helps, I just keep hammering home the unavoidable FACTS, backed by real physics, citing engineers and scientists, news sources and other cited experts.
We don't all have to fall for the propaganda of warmongering governments that tell lies about WMDs in Iraq, try to cover up previous conspiracies like Iran-Contra, or Watergate, or use almost daily colour-coded terror alerts to frighten the public while engaging in illegal and unconstitutional phone tapping. Why should we trust a government that has so little respect for human rights that they operate secret torture prisons in other nations, and kidnap people (calling it "rendition") in violation of the laws of other nations including their own allies, as well as imprisoning innocent people for five years without a trial.
Search -- True. But a problem arises when each party is completely convinced that they are being utterly rational and the opponent is not.
For example, if one firmly believes that there is NO WAY that their government could be a party to illegal and abhorrent misdeeds ... and that colours their perspective for all matters related, might not that be irrational?
Was the Bush Admin involved? Sadly, for me, at least, I could not say that is irrational *based solely on the integrity and honesty of the Bush Administration.* Note -- I am not making an assertion that they were; I am merely stating that I do not find such a statement to be absolutely impossible. However, if it is inconceivable to one party that their government *could* engage in such activity, might that not be ... irrational?
What I am saying is, I have seen a lot of people who are completely convinced they are rational and the other person isn't. Consequently, the entire 'discussion' becomes an effort to prove their point; not to discover Truth.
One or both parties are probably wrong. Sadly, in such cases, it seems few are ready to examine their own views, with an objective reality check.
Each party, IMO, should take some time to critically examine their own position and see what facets are due to 'belief/ perception' rather than fact.
Each party.
Good idea, so have you seen any steel-framed tower buildings collapse at near freefall into their own footprint without a controlled demolition lately? Damn WTC 7 looked EXACTLY like a typical (near perfect) implosive controlled demolition. Collapsing to the ground in just 6.6 seconds, 95% directly down into it's own footprint.
it did severe damage to nearby buildings, murderer
What I really can't stand is people who play games like stating "All of these people without exception accept most of the official account of 9/11." but can't be bothered citing a census to prove their claim.
Besides, I know a great physicists and engineers who DON'T accept the official story in any way at all.
Besides, I know a great many physicists and engineers who DON'T accept the official story in any way at all.
neothe1, since you continue to tell outright lies about MrFatNose in that fake Osama bin Laden confession video, it's hard to give you any credibility as being anything other than a shill.
Besides, WTC 7 was an excellent controlled demolition, and more than 95% of the building did collapse into it's footprint. Of course, it's going to damage some buildings nearby. I don't know of many controlled demolitions which don't make a mess, do you?
as for the twin towers, they did not collapse at anywhere near freefall speed, as there were peices fallling off and falling to the ground significantly faster than the collapse of the builing. calculate how fast it would have to collapse to go down in 12 seconds from a height of 990 feet, not 1355 feet in 10 seconds as the murderers want us to think.
Another little lie and a strawman argument from neothe1.
Yes, the twin towers did go down at nearly freefall speed. Freefall from the top of the buildings would be 9.2 seconds. The collapse took 12-13 seonds each. That's close to freefall.
Video evidence shows lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
And ... we're officially off-topic. 
Or was the veracity of the 'conspiracy' really the topic?
Actually, if you read through Searchlight's entire ballot description, it apparently was meant only as an attack on 9/11 sceptics.
L: Which is why I chided him.
But until his question is resolved (from whatever perspective the parties want to apply it), the clash is unproductive.
In response to the question... You shouldn't always assume who the idiot and who the intelligent one is. It seems from your ballot that you are convinced you are the intelligent one, which has led to your overwhelming happiness, wealth and ugly arrogance. Fair enough.
Only problem is, you've come across as a bit of an idiot on this ballot.... so the real question should be -
"How should intelligent people deal with searchlight?"
SL - What is your problem with conspiracy theorists? Would you be happier to just believe everything your told by official sources? Are they the only people who should be trusted?
In fact your whole rant above seems pretty irrational to me.
I'm sure there are some theories out there that were concocted for the sole intention of creating a smokescreen and discrediting anyone who questions the official report of the events of that day. (Holograms, missles, etc.)
It's too late to question now. All the evidence has been...
Hey! What happened to the evidence?
Voted : D x 3
= Dee Dee-dee!
Tommo and Cathexis, you are quite right to criticise the whole tone of my intro to this thread. I was ranting and I was being a bit irrational. I guess that is what happens when I am pissed about something. It was wrong to write off people as being "idiots" just because they believe something I do not. There are examples in history of highly intelligent people believing in all manner of nonsense. The best example could be Arthur Conan Doyle believing in the Cottingley Fairies. Just because someone has a high IQ they are not necesarily rational all the time. Looking at 9/11 we can talk about steel building falling down all day. It wont change the simple fact that after nearly 5 years nobody has provided testimony that they were part of the VAST conspiracy which has been suggested by some people. Mai Lai, Abu Graib and Arms to Iran were all conspiracies which were blown because people were involved in the plot who blabbed to the media or to friends or to family members. If the twin towers were brought down with bombs someone must have planted those bombs. Someone must have seen them being planted. That is the gaping, huge hole in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. On the other hand we have thousands of people who saw the arabs hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings. We have black box evidence from the planes. We have phone messages. There is a mountain of evidence for the "arabs did it" theory and no witnesses and no evidence of the other theories. Just a lot of speculation though some of the questions are interesting.
** karma **
neothe1, stop LYING and playing strawman arguments all the time about "gravity acceleration". If you to make that bullshit claim, then provide MATH.
And Searchlight, your whinge about not having witnesses to bombs being planted is irrelevant to the evidence.
Here's your problem;
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.
Your carrying with other excuses can't get around this.
A man walks into a room full of people with an SMG and kills them all, but you would claim that despite the dead bodies and the bullets, and video evidence of the people being shot, that he couldn't have done it because the security guards didn't see him bring in a gun.
Likewise, we don't need to have witnesses to people planting explosives, because we already know from science and previous evidence that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. However it was done, it was done. Just like the man with the SMG still shooting people dead despite nobody seeing him bringing in a gun.
** karma **
already proven. the debris fell much faster than the building, completely disproving your nonsense.
Voted : Just ignore the fools
Unless its your job quit engaging in commmunication with them
(already proven. the debris fell much faster than the building, completely disproving your nonsense.
by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 7:32pm}
I already KNOW THAT!
You are playing a strawman argument game again, telling lies and misrepresenting what others have stated!
I stated, that debris ws not falling as fast as the collapse wave ITSELF, referring to the visible straight lines of explosions taking out the floors BEFORE the debris from above could reach those floors.
Since those floors were being blown out before any debris could reach them, meaning at a faster rate than freefall, then it's OBVIOUS that the falling floors from above were not causing those floors below them to collapse, because those lower floors had already been destroyed before they could be reached.
The entire building however, as I have REPEATEDLY STATED collaped at close to freefall. 12-13 seconds vs the 9.2 seconds of freefall when calculated from the top of the towers.
Your bullshit about "gravity acceleration" remains BULLSHIT! I have never claimed any such thing that would require it. Only YOU, neothe1, have continued to tell that LIE and claim that I have.
the debris was falling at freefall speed, easily twice as fast and the collapse of the building, disproving your argument. now accept that and move on.
correction: twice as fast as the dust cloud, which was below the collapse.
also, apperently the timer by which your kind measure the collapse was not only started 2 seconds after the collapse began, but ended only when the building dissapeared into the dust cloud which was taller than the nearby buildings. that is a HUGE manipulation.
take a look at a real demolition:
ebaumsworld.com/ 2006/ 08/ building-implosiion. html
it almost seems to turn to dust and crumble all at once. the charges are visible flashes, not broken windows billowing smoke. it comes down incredibly fast, faster than wtc 7 even. it does not spew debris outward, it doesn't flatten out like a crushed pop can, the siding dosn't fall of in big chunks.
video.google. com/ videoplay? docid=53 6023583241683 3797&q= implosion
notice how it also does not rip open the buildings next to it
lots of angles on this baby:
video.google.com/ videoplay ?docid=- 5446838 557512388 694&q= implosion
second tallest tower ever imploded, apperently:
video.google. com/ videoplay? docid=- 620986 7556562706 196&q= implosion
totally different kind of collapse.
another. notice how loud those charges are:
video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=- 270794 18017658 79851&q= implosion
appropriate choice of music for this conversation (remember, remember, the eleventh of september)
3 things i've learned during the last half hour of searching:
1: demolitions are done in 2 waves, using very loud and very visible explosive charges
2: they blow up a lot of buildings in texas
3: americans love to see things get blown up.
Neothe1's little lies;
LIE no.1
"the debris was falling at freefall speed, easily twice as fast and the collapse of the building, disproving your argument. now accept that and move on.
by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 8:57pm"
Not true, it was not TWICE as fast. It was only 9-10 seconds for freefall vs the 12-13 seconds of total collapse of the buildings.
The falling debris also was not keeping up with the straight lines of explosions blowing out whole floors below the debris. This is easily seen on videos in slow motion.
Neothe1's little lies;
LIE no.2
{as the dust cloud, which was below the collapse. by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 9:15pm}
The dust cloud wasn't just below the collapse, quite a lot of it went UPWARDS, just like that fast flying debris that was being thrown when those floors were blown out by the straight lines of explosions, sending some debris UPWARDS.
Neothe1's little lies;
LIE no.3
{ also, apperently the timer by which your kind measure the collapse was not only started 2 seconds after the collapse began, but ended only when the building dissapeared into the dust cloud which was taller than the nearby buildings. that is a HUGE manipulation.
by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 9:15pm}
This is a big strawman on neothe1's part, as he tries to pretend that people time the collapse "2 seconds after the collapse began" which is blatantly untrue. He also tries to pretend that we say the collapse ended when the "building dissapeared into the dust cloud" which YET AGAIN is another LIE.
here's a video posted by another bush lackey:
video.google. com/ videoplay? docid=- 506151 477000917 1572&q= demolition
the poster wants us to focus on the first glance impression that jennings and dahler got of the collapse.
but the little transcipt to the right of the video is missing an important part, when dahler thought over what he saw and corrected jennings's comment about demolition:
"uh, what, what appeared to happen from my vantage point, the top part of the building... was totally involved in fire, and there was, there appreated to be no effort possible to put that fire out. it looks like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire that it just, the, weight of it collapsed the rest of the building, that's what appeared to happen. i did not see anything happening at the base of the building, it all appeared to start at the top, and then just collapsed the rest of the building by the sheer weight of the top. there was no explosion or anything at the base part of it, but i i did see that the top part of it started to, to collapse, the walls started to... bulge out, bricks, glass, things coming th-, coming out, and then it collapsed in on itself, and it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top."
in the transcript on the right, that part reads as "..."
Neothe1's little lies;
LIE no.4
{it almost seems to turn to dust and crumble all at once. the charges are visible flashes, not broken windows billowing smoke. it comes down incredibly fast, faster than wtc 7 even. it does not spew debris outward, it doesn't flatten out like a crushed pop can, the siding dosn't fall of in big chunks.
by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 9:25pm}
This is another big strawman on neothe1's part, because he's misrepresenting both the video evidence and what a controlled demolition looks like.
First part "it almost seems to turn to dust and crumble all at once", well, that sounds eactly like the Twin Towers controlled demolitions, as the floors turned to dust and crumbled all at once with each straight line of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them.
Second part "the charges are visible flashes", well, that sounds eactly like the Twin Towers controlled demolitions, as the there was quite a few visible flashes as each straight line of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them. They show up in the videos of the WTC 1 and 2, and there are visible flashes in the videos of WTC 7. You can see them in slow motion.
Third part "not broken windows billowing smoke" which ignores the fact that the WTC buildings had some small fires in them, and tries to pretend that since most controled demolitions aren't done on already burning buildings that this means the WTC buildings weren't controlled demolitions. The excuse is an OBVIOUS fallacy.
Fourth part "it comes down incredibly fast, faster than wtc 7 even." ignoring the fact the WTC 7 went down in 6.6 seconds, only 0.6 seconds slower than freefall, and looks EXACTLY the same a well done controlled implosive demolition in EVERY WAY. Also ignoring the fact that a taller building is going to have the roof hit the ground later than a
shorter building like in his linked video
Fifth part "it does not spew debris outward," which ignores that neither did WTC 7 spew debris outward which was also a controlled implosive demolition. 95% of WTC 7 went straight down into it's own footprint. You can see this in the videos and the photos from above. Neothe1 also is trying to pretend that his linked video of an IMPLOSIVE demolition would apply to the very different EXPLOSIVE demolitions which DO throw debris outward, upward, and everywhere else at high velocity - just like the way the Twin Towers did, as those straight lines of explosions were blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them (which anyone can see in slow motion)
Sixth part "it doesn't flatten out like a crushed pop can", and neither did WTC 7 which was also a controlled implosive demolition. 95% of WTC 7 went straight down into it's own footprint. You can see this in the videos and the photos from above. Neothe1 also is trying to pretend that his linked video of an IMPLOSIVE demolition would apply to the very different EXPLOSIVE demolitions which are recognisable by those straight lines of explosions were blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them (which anyone can see in slow motion)
Seventh part "the siding dosn't fall of in big chunks" and neither did WTC 7 which was also a controlled implosive demolition. 95% of WTC 7 went straight down into it's own footprint. You can see this in the videos and the photos from above. Neothe1 also is trying to pretend that his linked video of an IMPLOSIVE demolition would apply to the very different EXPLOSIVE demolitions which are recognisable by those straight lines of explosions were blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above
"Not true, it was not TWICE as fast."
it was.
"It was only 9-10 seconds for freefall vs the 12-13 seconds of total collapse of the buildings."
that is not the actual collapse time, that is an altered collapse time, starting after the collapse started and ending before the collapse ended. combine that with the fact that you're not measuring the actual height of around 990 feet, and the indisputable photographic evidence showing large chunks of siding falling off the building and hitting the ground well before even the dust cloud reached it, and i have an airtight case against you.
"The falling debris also was not keeping up with the straight lines of explosions blowing out whole floors below the debris. This is easily seen on videos in slow motion."
those were explosions of air and smoke, not fire. no flashes or loud bangs as sown in the actual demo videos i posted
"The dust cloud wasn't just below the collapse, quite a lot of it went UPWARDS"
well now shit, professor, i'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
"just like that fast flying debris that was being thrown when those floors were blown out by the straight lines of explosions, sending some debris UPWARDS."
tell me, if these explosions are happening on the sides of the building, how can they send debris up? and any flying debris like that by definition removed the word "controlled" from your theory.
"This is a big strawman on neothe1's part, as he tries to pretend that people time the collapse "2 seconds after the collapse began" which is blatantly untrue. He also tries to pretend that we say the collapse ended when the "building dissapeared into the dust cloud" which YET AGAIN is another LIE."
more insistence, still no evidence. ppor
{ totally different kind of collapse.
by neothe1 on Aug 17, 2006 9:35pm}
You need to be clear, dear, which kind of collapses that you are talking about and which buildings.
WTC 7 = IMPLOSIVE controlled demolition. Looks just like your linked IMPLOSIVE controlled demolitions.
WTC 1 and 2 = EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions, looking just like any other EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions
Anyone can see those straight lines of explosions blowing out the floors in the Loose Change.
video. google. com / videoplay? docid = -8260059923762628848&q =loose + change & pl = true
"First part "it almost seems to turn to dust and crumble all at once", well, that sounds eactly like the Twin Towers controlled demolitions, as the floors turned to dust and crumbled all at once with each straight line of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them."
broken windows are not explosions, isolated incidents of such are not lines, and the building fell in huge chunks, it did not neatly disintegrate like the landmark tower did.
"Second part "the charges are visible flashes", well, that sounds eactly like the Twin Towers controlled demolitions, as the there was quite a few visible flashes as each straight line of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them. They show up in the videos of the WTC 1 and 2, and there are visible flashes in the videos of WTC 7. You can see them in slow motion."
Definitions of flash:
a momentary BRIGHTNESS
a sudden intense burst of RADIANT energy
GLEAM or GLOW intermittently
emit a brief burst of LIGHT
a puff of smoke is not a flash.
"Third part "not broken windows billowing smoke" which ignores the fact that the WTC buildings had some small fires in them, and tries to pretend that since most controled demolitions aren't done on already burning buildings that this means the WTC buildings weren't controlled demolitions. The excuse is an OBVIOUS fallacy."
that doesn't even make sense. my whole point is that the building was on fire, you can't use a puff of smoke as an example of anything. and they weren't small fires either, or there wouldn't have been a huge cloud of smoke obscuring a third of the building (the same one the loose-changers used to obscure the first 2 seconds of the collapse so they could start their timer late)
"Fourth part "it comes down incredibly fast, faster than wtc 7 even." ignoring the fact the WTC 7 went down in 6.6 seconds, only 0.6 seconds slower than freefall, and looks EXACTLY the same a well done controlled implosive demolition in EVERY WAY. Also ignoring the fact that a taller building is going to have the roof hit the ground later than a
shorter building like in his linked video"
and how did you adjust that calculation? and "in every way" would include the flashes of both waves of explosives and NOT tearing open nearby buildings.
"Fifth part "it does not spew debris outward," which ignores that neither did WTC 7 spew debris outward which was also a controlled implosive demolition. 95% of WTC 7 went straight down into it's own footprint."
i am not talking about 7 wtc
"Neothe1 also is trying to pretend that his linked video of an IMPLOSIVE demolition would apply to the very different EXPLOSIVE demolitions which DO throw debris outward, upward, and everywhere else at high velocity -"
i diddn't say throw, i said spew. as in crumbling and falling in a disorganised fashion, not being thrown, not at high velocities. and an EXPLOSIVE demolition would not use the same charges and the same methods of destroying the structures of floor after floor in sequence as you claim. your argument contradicts itself.
"just like the way the Twin Towers did, as those straight lines of explosions were blowing out the floors before the falling debris from above could reach them (which anyone can see in slow motion)"
those were not explosives, i've already proven that several times.
"Sixth part "it doesn't flatten out like a crushed pop can", and neither did WTC 7 which was also a controlled implosive demolition. 95% of WTC 7 went straight down into it's own footprint."
we are not discussing 7 wtc, coward. stop changing the subject
** karma **
** karma **
repost:
"Not true, it was not TWICE as fast."
it was.
"It was only 9-10 seconds for freefall vs the 12-13 seconds of total collapse of the buildings."
that is not the actual collapse time, that is an altered collapse time, starting after the collapse started and ending before the collapse ended. combine that with the fact that you're not measuring the actual height of around 990 feet, and the indisputable photographic evidence showing large chunks of siding falling off the building and hitting the ground well before even the dust cloud reached it, and i have an airtight case against you.
"The falling debris also was not keeping up with the straight lines of explosions blowing out whole floors below the debris. This is easily seen on videos in slow motion."
those were explosions of air and smoke, not fire. no flashes or loud bangs as sown in the actual demo videos i posted
"The dust cloud wasn't just below the collapse, quite a lot of it went UPWARDS"
well now shit, professor, i'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
"just like that fast flying debris that was being thrown when those floors were blown out by the straight lines of explosions, sending some debris UPWARDS."
tell me, if these explosions are happening on the sides of the building, how can they send debris up? and any flying debris like that by definition removed the word "controlled" from your theory.
"This is a big strawman on neothe1's part, as he tries to pretend that people time the collapse
"2 seconds after the collapse began" which is blatantly untrue. He also tries to pretend that we say the collapse ended when the "building dissapeared into the dust cloud"
which YET AGAIN is another LIE." more insistence, still no evidence. ppor
your attemps to silence me only prove my point, coward
The easiest course is to ignore idiots. The problem is that all of us are idiots to some others, aren't we. So, it may be best to suffer idiots and fools and try to glean what wisdom there is within them.
"There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance can be cured by learning and reading.
Stupidity isn't willing to be cured."
** karma **
You best admit that you LOST THE DEBATE COMPLETELY, since all you do in argument back is to paste your spam, neothe1 the lying shill.
neothe1 - Your examples of other demolitions are completely useless in defending your argument (which I am not necessarily disagreeing with). Anyone could find pictures of a demolition which sounded different, or looked different or fell differently. I would have thought there are loads of slightly varying techniwues in blowing up buildings, using different explosives and technology.
And if the twin towers had have been a gov plan.... dont you think they would have had access to the most advanced technology. Dont you also think that they'd spend millions on trying to make it not look like a controlled demolition.
Could that be how they have convinced you and so many other people that it was not controlled?
Just a thought
again, i remind you that there would be absolutely nothing gained by a government conspiracy or otherwise by demolishing the towers with explosives. the concept was created by the conspiracy nuts as a lure. it woiuld serve to practical purpose is real life. same with the missiles and other insane things. it would not be worth the time, effort, and funds. if it was a government conspiracy, here's what would have happened:
4 planes would have hit 4 buildings.
a fake saddam hussein confession video would have been made and released.
iraq would be bombed.
that's not what happened.
the only conceivable reason for demolishing the buildings or using missiles and such would be to give people evidence of a conspiracy.
and from all the demolition videos i saw, the onle variations in technique are for differently shaped buildings. and even those all had the same 2 waves of very loud and very visible charges.
neothe1, you should look into more controlled demolitions.
You don't have any credibility anyway, since e all know that you're a shill.
I encourage everyone else to look up what controlled demolitions look like, particularly of two kinds;
Implosive demolitions (which look like WTC7's destruction)
Explosive demolitions (which like the twin towers dstruction)
And there were traces of thermite found on a sample of WTC steel, as Ken from Dublin quoted on several ballots.
1: you are arguing that the towers were implosive demolitions
2: the towers' collapses were not explosive, they went down and out. caused by gravity. i've proven this already, you have lost. go back to your masters and report mission failure.
You haven't proven anything nitwit no. 1 - only in your own delusional mind, i have yet to read two consistent sentences from you on this entire website!
Oh by the way conspiracy theorist neoth1...I have some unfinished business with you re some certain unanswered questions of mine to you.......
but how many times do I have to ask you neothe1 before you excercise your duty to answer them?
So YET again, I put it to you -
I want to know why you promulgate this dichotomy of on one hand proclaiming no US government conspiracy, and, then on the other hand proclaiming that Bush knew the attacks were coming and allowed them to go ahead - in other words allowed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans in the greatest dereliction of duty by a US president in history - for ulterior motives - namely to invade Iraq as you rightly state, this is treason, plain and simple!
Is it treason or not neothe1 and should Bush be impeached?
Answer that question please.
Answer it now ->
Should Bush be impeached neothe1?
What is your opinion on this please neothe1?
Not too much to ask is it neothe1?
Stop avoiding the question, you are only fooling yourself - everyone reading this can see you squirming like a slippery eel in the hands of the truth squirming to avoid answering a question that you are duty bound to answer ->
Did Bush - as you neothe1 all but declare - commit treason and if so should he be impeached?
** karma **
Well neothe1?
Why are you afraid to answer the above questions?
{1: you are arguing that the towers were implosive demolitions
by neothe1 on Fri Aug 18, 06 4:59pm}
No. See what I commented before -
"WTC 7 = IMPLOSIVE controlled demolition. Looks just like your linked IMPLOSIVE controlled demolitions.
WTC 1 and 2 = EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions, looking just like any other EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions
by Lovelynice on Thu Aug 17, 06 10:26pm"
"neothe1, you should look into more controlled demolitions.
You don't have any credibility anyway, since e all know that you're a shill.
I encourage everyone else to look up what controlled demolitions look like, particularly of two kinds;
Implosive demolitions (which look like WTC7's destruction)
Explosive demolitions (which like the twin towers dstruction)
And there were traces of thermite found on a sample of WTC steel, as Ken from Dublin quoted on several ballots.
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 18, 06 3:49pm"
Stop playng the strawman arguments and claiming that I have stated something which I have not.
{ i've proven this already,
by neothe1 on Fri Aug 18, 06 4:59pm}
There you go again with your lying about Walter Mitty victories which don't have.
ken 1: i will not respond to pasting.
ken 2: you are arguing that the south tower was IMploded, not explosed. unless you're retracting your previous statements about freefall and charges?
now from what i'm seeing, the term "explosive demolition" covers any demolition using explosives (as opposed to a wrecking ball or whatever) INCLUDING demolition implosions. the closest thing to a demolition EXplosion is what's used on bridges, which is not done in 2 waves like the implosions used for buildings. it's done all at once. but being an explosion, it, by definition, EXPLODES. a loud boom with giant fireballs and debris flying up and out at high speeds. that is inconsistent with the towers' collapse, as is an implosion. the collapse is only consistent with gravity.
Neothe1, is stillplaying strawman arguments and making up his lies about what I have stated.
But I'll repeat them for him.
"WTC 7 = IMPLOSIVE controlled demolition. Looks just like your linked IMPLOSIVE controlled demolitions.
WTC 1 and 2 = EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions, looking just like any other EXPLOSIVE controlled demolitions
by Lovelynice on Thu Aug 17, 06 10:26pm"
"neothe1, you should look into more controlled demolitions.
You don't have any credibility anyway, since e all know that you're a shill.
I encourage everyone else to look up what controlled demolitions look like, particularly of two kinds;
Implosive demolitions (which look like WTC7's destruction)
Explosive demolitions (which like the twin towers dstruction)
And there were traces of thermite found on a sample of WTC steel, as Ken from Dublin quoted on several ballots.
by Lovelynice on Fri Aug 18, 06 3:49pm"
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo
your argument contradicts itself. or it would if there was such thing as a demolition explosion.
and as i've already proven, it did not collapse into it's footprint, it did not collapse at freefall speed, it was not controlled, it was not a demolition implosion, and there is no such thing as a demolition explosion. there are indisputable facts.
^^^Typical shill irrational denial without peer review back up or expert analysis of the facts.
already proven.
Neo Google this: Towering Inferno In Caracas CBS
Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.
"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.
Also Neo, Google: Bolts Contributed To WTC Collapse CBS
Regarding team research at MIT.
oh, but that means the architect who designed the towers was in on it too!
i seem to recall hearing that bin laden said in the "fake" confession video that he did not expect the buildings to collapse. he's an architect himself, correct? i think that's where his family's money came from, they built palaces and things for the saudis. i guess he diddn't factor in shoddy american workmanship. i bet the japanese could build a tower out of rice paper that would stay standing after an impact like that.
Also, the engineers and builders of the Titanic said that it was "unsinkable". The massive ship's hull was built from thick reenforced steel. But the ship struck an iceberg and sank in less than three hours. The builders were dumbfounded by this. According to her builders, even in the worst possible accident at sea, two ships colliding, the Titanic should have stayed afloat for at least two to three days. In recent years, scientific studies have found that some of the metal used to build Titanic was of poor quality.
Perhaps the wealthy but greedy builders found a better deal on a bulk purchase of steel, and got what they paid for. Anyway, it just goes to prove that rational thinking and science will clarify the mystery, not silly conspiracy theories.
In the end, we as well as builders should conclude that saving money and taking shortcuts does not make for better construction...and that engineers should avoid making outlandish claims about what they build.
as i understand, the biggest flaws in the titanic were that they refused to put the doors they had below,for keeping out water, on the upper decks where the rich people were, and they didn't have sideways-facing props for faster turning which might have prevented the accident altogether.
Yes, compartmental doors that would close to seal of water flow breaches. Unfortunately the engineers didn't design the doors to reach the ceiling. The water when high enough, simply flowed over the top of the closed door! What brilliant thinking!
However, the poor quality metal in the cold water shattered like glass when the iceberg struck the hull. This explains what many Titanic survivors said they had heard when the iceberg bumped into the ship, the loud sound of "shattering glass".
interesting.
Also Neo, Google: Bolts Contributed To WTC Collapse CBS
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Sun Aug 20, 06 12:51pm
they trusses were WELDED, not just bolted.
FEMA told lies.
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo
by Lovelynice on Sat Aug 19, 06 5:39pm
THEY CAN'T
That's why they are now trying to go on about a ship from nearly a hundred years ago instead.
repost:
and as i've already proven, it did not collapse into it's footprint, it did not collapse at freefall speed, it was not controlled, it was not a demolition implosion, and there is no such thing as a demolition explosion. there are indisputable facts.
and as i've already proven, it did not collapse into it's footprint
by neothe1 on Sun Aug 20, 06 9:57pm
YES WTC 7 DID COLLAPSE INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT
and the twin towers collapsed straight down into their own footprints too.
once again, we are not discussing 7 wtc. the twin towers only collapsed in their footprints because they collapsed everywhere around their footprints too. it was a gravitational collapse, not an implosion, it scattered everywhere.
it did not collapse at freefall speed,
by neothe1 on Sun Aug 20, 06 9:57pm
^STRAWMAN ARGUMENT^
no, WTC 1,2, + 7 all collapsed at CLOSE to freefall.
WTC 7
freefall would 6 seconds
collapse time 6.6 seconds (close to freefall time) and it looked just like any other controlled implosive demolition
WTC 1 and 2
freefall would 9.5 to 10 seconds
collapse time 12 to 13 seconds (close to freefall time) and they looked just like any other controlled EXplosive demolitions
it scattered everywhere.
by neothe1 on Sun Aug 20, 06 10:18pm
LIAR
WTC 7 collapsed 90-95% within it's own footprint.
The twin towers collapsed 90% within their own footprint.
You see this in the aerial photos from above.
it was a gravitational collapse,
by neothe1 on Sun Aug 20, 06 10:18pm
no, because none of the collapses can be modelled as such.
already proven. deal with it.
no nothing that you say is proven and you are lying again, because none of the collapses can be modelled as such.
alrready proven, ken. go do something else. go outside, go for a walk, go look at the monument or something, sit by the reflecting pool and swear to yourself that you won't let them fool you again and that you will never again be used as a tool to justify the murders of innocents.
you should get over that habitual lying of yours.
** karma **
{LovelyNice. Hi you dont seem to be....
by Searchlight on Mon Aug 21, 06 2:50am (on the ballot "JINN THE KAFIR - SHOULD HE BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT TO HATRED?")}
How curiously similar to this
{LovelyNice, as your attitude, ....
by MegiddoDawn on Fri Aug 18, 06 5:51am (on the wiped old ballot "Which 9/11 witnesses were more credible?"}
and both engage in filling entire paragraphs with personal attacks and insults instead of citing facts backed by sources, links, and quotes.
You bring yourself up or down to the level of anyone you want to have understandy you. The best thing is not to pay any attention to them.
Nice. Mention "9/11" and "conspiracy" and you're guaranteed a popular ballot or at least a long-running rant-fest.
I got bored half way down. For all side of these little wars it's about 70% pure rant and 25% antagonism and 5% presentation of a decent reasoned argument.
Total load of pish!
p.s.
@LovelyNiece
I may be a total idiot but:
What in the name of flying pig shit does zero-point energy have to do with building collapses.
Please explain...
""
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Definition courtesy of:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0861526.html
The Third Law of Thermodynamics
A postulate related to but independent of the second law is that it is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. Although one can approach absolute zero as closely as one desires, one cannot actually reach this limit. The third law of thermodynamics, formulated by Walter Nernst and also known as the Nernst heat theorem, states that if one could reach absolute zero, all bodies would have the same entropy. In other words, a body at absolute zero could exist in only one possible state, which would possess a definite energy, called the zero-point energy. This state is defined as having zero entropy.
|
