"BornN2BS" <nirrad01@gmail.com> 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. Justice will be served, regardless of the efforts
of many scoundrels whose agendas are simply to clog the
internet with disinformation.
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.
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.
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. If you
are blind to the obvious shortcomings of the afore
mentioned, your agenda is counterproductive to finding out
the truth. 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.
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. If you
are blind to the obvious shortcomings of the afore
mentioned, your agenda is counterproductive to finding out
the truth. 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.
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. Let's see..... kook or
murderer. Tough decision... another debate for another
time.
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.
Knucklehead here read that, scratched his head for a while,
and told himself "They are too!" <snicker>
Good non-start, knucklehead.
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.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! (Later, this idiot says I
"ignored" melted steel.) Knucklehead, it softens BEFORE it
melts. Before, as in "earlier"...as in "prior to melting,"
etc. Let me know how much more dumbing-down it would take to
get that through your clue repellers. By the way, since you
have some desperate need to portray yourself as a thinker,
I'd like to hear your opinion as to any possible role
decalescence might have played in the structural failure.
Just for the hell of it.
There is NOTHING you can post here to explain how fire in
the WTC softened ANY 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.
It's hilarious that you write that moronic snivelly nonsense
so near where you saw the fact that temperature and heat are
not the same thing. It certainly puts your mind into
perspective. Maybe it will get all the normal people to talk
down to you. It certainly should.
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?
That's my best estimate of the amount of fuel, yes. You
already demonstrated that you don't know that the amount of
heat available is related to the amount of fuel, so there's
no point in trying to explain these fundamentals to you. The
fundamentals are clearly out of your mental grasp.
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?
Pay attention, airhead. Obviously I had a reason for
mentioning that. Amanda, a featherbrain who's considerably
brighter than you are, insisted that 100000 pounds of fuel
would require a flying Titanic or something like that.
By the way, fool, those ships you mentioned were powered by
wind. I'm eager to hear you shriek that that's impossible.
Don't let me down, clown.
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.. and the fact that the firemen
found what they described as bombs.. your arguement might
be valid. Weak and insignificant.
Halfwit, did you intend to comment on what I said? You did?!
Bombs?! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
There are more. Thousands of them.
Bring it on Mr. Griifin. I prefer a thousand at a time.
Get used to this, chump: You're just another manipulable
knucklehead. As for your wanting a thousand after your
laughably stupid zero out of five performance...ROTMFFLMMFAO.