Thread Graveyard

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

laminustacitus — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:52:18 GMT

Seph:

laminustacitus:

A) It only takes one structural defect to bring down a building, there need not be a total system failure, but rather a failure of just a couple floors.

B)The floors that failed were completelyt doused in jet fuel.

You're arguing that the failure of a couple floor (due to office fires nonetheless!) caused this:

It was not an "office fire" it was an airplane filled with aviation fuel. Indeed, it is often amazing how what would seem to be little events can yield so much destruction.

Seph:
Yeah, that sure looks like a gravity induced pancake collapse to me. But go on, explain your position, how can the failure of a few floors cause the collapse of a high rise at near free fall speed. I'm eager to listen.

Once a couple of floors can no longer support the weight above them then the building collapses, simple physics.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:45:10 GMT

Juan:
Okay, what label do you want me to use ?

If you don't know the proper definition of words don't use them.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

liberty student — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:25:49 GMT

Moved to graveyard.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Juan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:19:07 GMT

Then define neo-con for me. Come on you can do it.

Maybe you missed this ? I asked Why.Should.I

Lets call a spade a spade, you are an illiterate who does not know how to use a dictionary.

Okay, what label do you want me to use ? Little propagandist of the amerikkkan military establishment ? Apprentice of dr. goebbels ? Or what ? I'm open to suggestions.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:08:28 GMT

Then define neo-con for me. Come on you can do it.

Lets call a spade a spade, you are an illiterate who does not know how to use a dictionary.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Juan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:58:42 GMT

No Poptech, neocon is a label which fits your position, because, you see, you are a neocon. If you were to say that the 'workers' should own the means of production I'd call you a commie. If all you do is lie about the amerikkkan military/government in order to paint them as honest people doing their job, then you are a neocon. Your clueless or rather dishonest remarks about empire vs. 'nation building' give you away too.

You think it is some childish form of intimidation.

Again, if you were a commie and I called you a commie, you wouldn't whine about intimidation would you ? Why do you object to my calling a spade a spade ? It's not intimidation it's simply standard usage of words.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:48:00 GMT

Juan:
Why should I ? Anyway, have you got a mirror ? Try looking into it.

Because you can't you just throw the word around to attack anyone who does not support your views. You think it is some childish form of intimidation. I think it is a joke and makes you look like one.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Juan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:41:55 GMT

Define neo-con for me.

Why should I ? Anyway, have you got a mirror ? Try looking into it.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:40:55 GMT

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
The red line was added by a researcher to the cropped images of the end sequence [in I believe, June or July 2009] in order to demonstrate, well, exactly what it demonstrates.

That the video pans right? Amazing! Thankfully he added the red line or you might believe some other nonsense.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:38:51 GMT

Juan:
The difference of course is that you spread pro-government neocon propaganda whereas the 'truthers' at least know that the government is not to be trusted.

Define neo-con for me.

Yes clearly Penn and Teller, the BBC, The History Channel, National Geographic, NIST and Popular Mechanics are all spreading the neo-con propaganda! ROFLMAO!

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Poptech — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:34:34 GMT

Seph:
You're arguing that the failure of a couple floor (due to office fires nonetheless!) caused this: Yeah, that sure looks like a gravity induced pancake collapse to me. But go on, explain your position, how can the failure of a few floors cause the collapse of a high rise at near free fall speed. I'm eager to listen.

It would only take the structural failure of one floor.

But it was not just fires fueled by 24,000 gallons of jet fuel (which can burn over 2000 degrees F) and office items but also severe structural damage caused by the impact and explosion of a 200 ton 767 flying at 500 MPH.

Yes in the real world objects fall in the direction of gravity and the collapse was not at free fall speed.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Seph:
B) Even PM admits the jet fuel would have burned up after 20 minutes.

It only took less than 5 minutes for a jet fueled fire to weaken a steel's load bearing ability to cause a catastrophic failure in experiments.

Seph:
How do you explain building 7?

Building seven was another unique design built over an existing con-ed substation and it is all explained in this video.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Seph:
How do you explain the pools of molten steel below WTC 1, 2 and 7 which, according to observers on hand was flowing freely even weeks after the attacks? What melted it, since jet fueled fires cannot?

Can you show me pictures of "molten steel from ground zero", confirm it was steel and not another metarial and glowing red steel is not "molten".

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

liberty student — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:16:38 GMT

Caley McKibbin:
No matter what you say, these nutters will always believe.

You mean the folks who pay their taxes, right?

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

onebornfree — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:12:38 GMT

Juan:
OneBorn,

Where does the second video come from ? The second video does show a plane that doesn't move with respect to the picture frame, but I don't think that's part of the original video.

Yes it is a part of the original, [which was first aired on CNN 09/12/01] and , as I stated before:

"both sequences are from the same original source - the second is merely an analysis of the last few frames of the first. "

The red line was added by a researcher to the cropped images of the end sequence [in I believe, June or July 2009] in order to demonstrate, well, exactly what it demonstrates.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Juan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:55:00 GMT

Yes it does, it proves truthers will do whatever it takes to spread propaganda.

You mean some of the people you dismissively call 'truthers' spread propaganda, just like you do ? The difference of course is that you spread pro-government neocon propaganda whereas the 'truthers' at least know that the government is not to be trusted.

Look at the first video and it starts to pan right near the end. Some idiot truther zoomed in and spliced the video starting there. Those are not separate videos but the second is a spliced zoomed in one of the first.

Yes, so the video is a strawman of sorts and as I said, it proves nothing. The video is misleading and it weakens the credibility of people who are skeptics of the government's version, BUT it doesn't prove that the government's version (that you parrot) is true.

Re: In Light of Recent Conspiracy Talk...

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:32:29 GMT

No matter what you say, these nutters will always believe.