26 Jun 2006 14:18:13 -0700, "BornN2BS" <nirrad01@gmail.com> licked
the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
John Griffin wrote:
"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:
In news:8uju92dc1e75g1p46741ov12iko5fhpgdc@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:44:19 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:
In news:5bpr921hc46k98t30d82lv9rpjveiffdv5@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:
Why? I'm not a politician I am not answerable to the
people, I'm answerable only to myself I needn't justify
any belief or conclusion I may make according to evidence
presented.
And just exactly where is this evidence?
Everyone is free to study the events of 9/11
and study the ideas for and against the conspiracies for
themselves.
Unfortunately for you and people like you, many great minds are
starting to focus their attention on the 9/11 mass murder.
Just who might these "many great minds" be? Care to name, say seven or
eight of the "many?" I'd be keen to watch their progress.
Justice will
be served, regardless of the efforts of many scoundrels whose agendas
are simply to clog the internet with disinformation.
Ad hominem noted. Do try to argue facts, not personalities. FWIW I
strongly doubt there will be much serious investigation into the
so-called conspiracy to cover up the "real" reason the WTC towers
collapsed done on the Internet.
And the people who actually understand the facts are free
to laugh at you and mock you for your silly ko0kspiracy
beliefs, too.
The only people laughing at anything in this thread must think that
thousands of American civilians dieing is funny. You must put yourself
above your fellow citizens by calling the kooks? Why don't you just go
to hell Mr. Griffin, and burn alive like many of the 9/11 victims did.
Your letting your choler cloud your judgment.
They can if they like but they would be making fools of
themselves.
Not when you make laughable k'lames, such as your foolish
comparison of a B-25 Mitchell to a Boeing 767.
You obviously missed the point. The point was planes do hit
tall buildings and that was a quantifiable risk when the WTC
was built. Addmitedly the B25 that hit the Empire State
Building in 1945 was a lot smaller than a Boing 767, But
that's totally irrelevent to the point that was being made.
But since you are being picky about it the B25 was capable of
carrying 3000 to 4000lb of bombs and there were larger planes
in service even in 1945.
SCREW 1945. Just another diversion. Who gives a fuck about 1945? Why
does this B25 keep coming up? Give it up, man. Why are you so fixated
on this? Nobody should ever compare the WTC with the Empire St.
Building. No comparison and a complete diversion. A very weak attempt
at a diversion. End of subject.
Ooooh! "End of subject." The master has spoken.
Problem
is apart from maybe some people high up in government or
people working in intelligence most of us don't actually
know all the facts pertaining to the event of 9/11 we only
know what we are told and can pick up in the media, press
and on the Internet, and can come to what ever conclusion
that seems plausible. This means no plausible theory is any
more valid than any other. And that of course includes the
official KoOkspiracy theory. LOL
The real kookspiracy is the official story, which has more holes than
any alternative suggested in this thread.
Evidence? Would you like to list the holes?
If you are blind to the
obvious shortcomings of the afore mentioned, your agenda is
counterproductive to finding out the truth.
What makes you so sure there is an agenda?
There were just too many
people involved on 9/11 to pull off a successful cover-up. Maybe they
will all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of international law.
You said it right there. There wasn't a conspiracy. There was a well
coordinated attack on the WTC, The Pentagon, and the fourth plane
that was headed for Washington D. C.
The predominent analysis is built on the available facts,
while the ko0kspiracy theories that you believe in are built
upon misunderstanding and/or ignoring those facts, plus wild
speculation without evidence.
The real kookspiracy is the official story, which has more holes than
any alternative suggested in this thread.
This is the second time you've mentioned holes in this post. Since
you're so sure of yourself, I'm confident you wont mind pointing out a
dozen or so of these "holes." There's the good chap.
If you are blind to the
obvious shortcomings of the afore mentioned, your agenda is
counterproductive to finding out the truth.
You keep making this onager assertion, but without providing anything
that approaches evidence to back it up. If it's so easy for others to
do, may we (tinw) prevail upon you to dip into your vast storehouse,
and bring forth some evidence for your claims.
There were just too many
people involved on 9/11 to pull off a successful cover-up. Maybe they
will all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of international law.
Only the survivors.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference puts you in the
same class as Biblical literalists who k'lame, because their
misunderstanding of scientific evidence and theory blinds
them, that the Earth is only thousands of years old.
The fact that you do nont want the truth revealed puts you in the same
class with murderers.
Yet another ad hominem, and a particularly vicious one. Being a kook
does not necessarily mean that someone is endangering another.
Accusing someone of murder, comes perilously close to libel. Unless,
of course, you can back it up with something other than bluster.
Let's see..... kook or murderer. Tough
decision... another debate for another time.
If you were capable of rational debate, perhaps.
My advice would be; Don't believe anything.
Spoken like a true paranoid.
You can't always trust politicians
Where politics has any
involvement one can rest assured the liars, hypocrites
Scribes and Pharisees will distort the "truth" to whatever
end they choose.
Better that than ko0ks who disregard the facts if favor of
their paranoid ko0kspiracy theories.
What fact's?
The answer to that question, once it has been cleaned up, would
probably run to a few megabytes just to review what you've said
here, and I'm sure there are plenty that you haven't ignored yet.
Here's one for you: Heat and temperature are not the same thing.
Here's a corollary to that one: Softened steel will not carry as
much load as it did before the hardened steel absorbed enough
heat to soften it. (Compare this, roughly, to male anatomy if
you like.)
Bullshit detector going crazy!!! There was no softened steel.
Really? Just how would you know that? There was a fire. The
temperatures were well below that which would cause steel to melt.
Remember, "molten steel" is the favorite watch cry of the
conspiracy kooks who simultaneously claim the fires in the WTC
were hot enough to melt steel, but were not hot enough to cause
it to soften.
Steel does not have to be incandescent in order for it to be softened
enough to be compromised. Now, do tell us, just how hot was it in the
middle of the fires burning in the towers before they collapsed?
You can be a hundred degrees or so above or below the temperature.
A ball park figure will do.
There is
NOTHING you can post here to explain how fire in the WTC softened ANY
steel.
You can soften steel in a charcoal fire. Well below the heat available
from burning jet fuel. Air coming in through the broken windows
in the sides of the building, would create enough draft to raise the
ambient temperature well above that required to soften steel.
Pure conjecture that is just another meaningless distraction.
Burning jet fuel is hotter than a forced air mixture of oxygen and
acetylene too, I guess.
Where are you getting acetelyne? Acetylene isn't required to cause
steel to soften, glow, or melt. Try again.
Here's another: The airplane that hit one of the towers still had
over 100,000 pounds of fuel in its tanks when it hit.
Another distraction. It doesn't matter if there were a million gallons
of fuel. Is that the best you can do?
Yes. It matters. There is a relationship between the temperature
of a fire, and the length of time required for the metal to reach
a high enough temperature to begin to soften.
So just how hot was it in the center of the fires in WTC 1, & WTC2?
How long did both burn before they began collapsing
Want another?: The Titanic carried more than 100,000 pounds of
fuel when it left port. Somewhere around 200 times that much.
And this is relevant how? You are reaching just a little aren't you.
What about the Nina, Pinta, and the Santa Maria?
They made it home.
How do you like this one? If the towers had been imploded by
seeting off charges of any kind inside them, all of the fucking
windows would have been sucked inside before the collapse. (See
the definition of implode if you don't believe that.)
This one is really tough. Let's see.. if you ignore the pictures of
melted steel..
Do you know what has to happen to steel before it melts? IT HAS
TO SOFTEN!!
and the fact that the firemen found what they described
as bombs..
Where is the citation for this?
your arguement might be valid. Weak and insignificant.
Try again.
There are more. Thousands of them.
Bring it on Mr. Griifin. I prefer a thousand at a time.
Strange you should issue that particular challenge; you haven't
been able to handle the ones presented to you.
BTW You could make a ton of money by filing a class action lawsuit
against the school district that (tried) to teach you basic science.
You would only need one plaintiff exhibit: yourself.
Widdershins
My inner child is a mean little fucker.