I've heard all the above before. Yawn. Why don't you people go and hang out on debunking sites?.
Been there, done that. I was part of the "skeptic forum" (using a different alias) for some time but got annoyed with the offensive behavior and narrowminded attitude of some of those so-called "sceptics" and left. I prefer to spend my time online among loony David Icke fans rather than among pretentious fools who like to believe they're ultra-sceptical and ultra-rational while buying into pretty much everything coming from a source they deem credible and using one strawman argument or insult after the other in an attempt to make their point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albie
Then you'd know that the last word is the debunkers on ALL this.
No it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albie
Why pose the same boring five year old questions that have been debunked already?
I should be asking you that.
Anyway, feel free to "debunk" some of the statements in my last post USING YOUR OWN WORDS. That might get interesting
I'd rather not link this user name to my old user name. I've drawn too much attention with that user name from "watchdog" organisations at various Internet communities (the Wiesenthal Center had me banned at Deviantart and some local organisation had me banned at a Dutch language forum). With this user name I can yet again fly under the radar and I like to keep it that way.
By the way, I forgot to mention I've also posted on RODOH (the "debunker"'s alternative to CODOH).
How is this possible? How could fire somewhere in the middle of a skyscraper possibly make the building fall down straight down at near free fall speed? If fire truely was the cause, you'd expect the top of the building (above the roots of the fire) to break off at the weakest spot and the bottom (below the roots of the fire) to keep standing. And even if the entire building was on fire (which is contrary to the footage), fire could not have made the building come down the way it did.
There are many books and websites that precisely explain just how exactly this is possible, and in fact probable. The fact that you haven't looked at them is not conclusive proof that they dont exist. My half brother was badly injured at the Pentagon, and I spent a couple of years after 9/11 looking at ALL of the information, conspiracies included. I have to admit that a controlled demolition is certainly possible, but seems to me to be the more unlikely alternative.
Whether you consider it unlikely, is irrelevant. It is not only testable but there's enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the West is dominated by a (predominantly Jewish) oligarchy of bankers and industrialists (centered around the Rothschild banking dynasty) who are responsible for most wars during the last 2 centuries and the current decline of the West (that Spengler already described as early as 1920). The philosophical origins of this oligarchy go way back to he Talmud and Kaballah, but it wasn't until the late 18th century they really developed into what they are today. For more info on this, read the literature of psychology professor Kevin MacDonald.
The French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Communist Revolution bear their signature and had the very purpose of replacing the old elite (arristocracy and clergy) by their own. On the influence of the oligarchy in late 19th and early 20th century USA, I can highly recommend Giselher Wirsing's "Der masslose Kontinent - Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft".
Ah yes...I knew the antisemitism would come out at some point.
__________________ If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
There are many books and websites that precisely explain just how exactly this is possible, and in fact probable.
There are also books and websites that explain just exactly how a hollow earth or a flat earth is possible and in fact probable. Just because some people attempt to explain the unexplainable with faulty logic, that doesn't mean they're right.
Please tell me in your own words how it is technically possible for fire to cause what happened and please refer to my objections to this theory while you're at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
Ah yes...I knew the antisemitism would come out at some point.
It's so much easier to accuse the other of antisemitism than to respond to his arguments. Feel free to attempt to disprove the facts I presented to you. Why don't you read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique first before you continue to make such ignorant accusations?
There are also books and websites that explain just exactly how a hollow earth or a flat earth is possible and in fact probable. Just because some people attempt to explain the unexplainable with faulty logic, that doesn't mean they're right.
Please tell me in your own words how it is technically possible for fire to cause what happened and please refer to my objections to this theory while you're at it.
It's so much easier to accuse the other of antisemitism than to respond to his arguments. Feel free to attempt to disprove the facts I presented to you. Why don't you read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique first before you continue to make such ignorant accusations?
Its pretty simple really, and you would know exactly what I am talking about if you read anything besides the conspiracy pages. I am sure that BlueAngel will be trying to paint me as claiming to be an expert because of this (It is a favorite tactic of hers), but here goes.
1. The impact of the airliner likely removed much of the soft, foam fireproofing that was designed to protect the steel in the event of a conventional fire.
2. While the resulting fire, which was only temporarily fueled by the aviation fuel, certainly was not hot enough to "melt" steel, as CTs love to claim, it was certainly hot enough to weaken and expand the steel, causing the truss' to fail.
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." In addition, the water lines servicing the sprinkler system were damaged by the impact, so there was essentially no mitigation taking place.
3. Once the structual elements were weakened, the floors began to pancake down onto each other. There was a certain amount of leaning as well, especially in the collapse of the south tower. As the collapse happened the top section of the building clearly leans over before coming down.
I will say that the theory of a controlled demolition is intriguing, but there are too many what ifs and special pleading required in it for it to work, in my opinion.
__________________ If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
I1. The impact of the airliner likely removed much of the soft, foam fireproofing that was designed to protect the steel in the event of a conventional fire.
That doesn't seem too farfetched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
I2. While the resulting fire, which was only temporarily fueled by the aviation fuel, certainly was not hot enough to "melt" steel, as CTs love to claim, it was certainly hot enough to weaken and expand the steel, causing the truss' to fail.
The center core? The entire outer shell? I somehow find that hard to believe considering there's much of the building that appeared relatively untouched by the flames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
3. Once the structual elements were weakened, the floors began to pancake down onto each other. There was a certain amount of leaning as well, especially in the collapse of the south tower. As the collapse happened the top section of the building clearly leans over before coming down.
At what floor did the floors start pancaking? How could this have happened at near free fall speed? How could the central column and the outer shell all just collapse vertically? Considering the steel framework that was actually developed to be able to withstand the impact of an air plane (because one once flew into the Empire State Building by accident), I don't see how this was possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
I will say that the theory of a controlled demolition is intriguing, but there are too many what ifs and special pleading required in it for it to work, in my opinion.
Controlled demolition is the only explanation that makes sense regarding the way WTC1,WTC2 and even more WTC7 collapsed.
The center core? The entire outer shell? I somehow find that hard to believe considering there's much of the building that appeared relatively untouched by the flames.
At what floor did the floors start pancaking? How could this have happened at near free fall speed? How could the central column and the outer shell all just collapse vertically? Considering the steel framework that was actually developed to be able to withstand the impact of an air plane (because one once flew into the Empire State Building by accident), I don't see how this was possible.
Controlled demolition is the only explanation that makes sense regarding the way WTC1,WTC2 and even more WTC7 collapsed.
You can assert that if you want, but it is only an assertion. Perhaps you should start from the null hypothesis and work forward instead of making tendentious claims? Controlled demolition is not the ONLY explanation, just one of a myriad of theories, and one I am not convinced by.
__________________ If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
You can assert that if you want, but it is only an assertion.
I'm making assertions?? You're the one who comes up with a silly theory that by no means explains what happened to the inner core and outer shell, yet I'm the one making assertions?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
Perhaps you should start from the null hypothesis and work forward instead of making tendentious claims? Controlled demolition is not the ONLY explanation, just one of a myriad of theories, and one I am not convinced by.
Controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation for why the inner core and outer shell collapsed. It is the ONLY explanation for the building collapsing at near free fall speed. There are only a myriad of theories when you ignore the actual architecture of the WTC towers (I'd expect more from someone who claims to have experience as an engineer).
If you believe I'm wrong, then please address my objections from the previous post (which you conveniently ignored by falsely accusing me of making "assertions"). That just might get interesting
I'm making assertions?? You're the one who comes up with a silly theory that by no means explains what happened to the inner core and outer shell, yet I'm the one making assertions?!?
Controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation for why the inner core and outer shell collapsed. It is the ONLY explanation for the building collapsing at near free fall speed. There are only a myriad of theories when you ignore the actual architecture of the WTC towers (I'd expect more from someone who claims to have experience as an engineer).
If you believe I'm wrong, then please address my objections from the previous post (which you conveniently ignored by falsely accusing me of making "assertions"). That just might get interesting
No, actually I didnt ignore the actual design when i did my thumbnail calc on how much explosive it would have taken. Now, naturally, I cant speak to the use of nano-thermite since it is not an explosive commonly used in demo applications...yet lol. I have looked at the fire-collapse scenario and to me it seems not only plausable, but in fact probable. Just because you dont understand it does not mean it is just as much a viable option. You assert the controlled demolition as being the ONLY viable option, which is is not, and I have conceded that it certainly is possible, however improbable I might think that it is. Calm down, have a smoke, and stop getting so wound up lol.
__________________ If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
11-05-2009, 07:03 AM
Re: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
Re: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
