"BornN2BS" <nirrad01@gmail.com> wrote:

houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been
much cooler that typical residential fires are?

This was misquoted as I never posted such a statement
and is another lame attempt to discredit me. For future
reference I don't use the * symbol as a modifier, or to
place emphasis on a word in a given sentence. I do find
it most interesting that you chose this misquoted 
material to question whether or not I am a human.

I see no quotation of you there. You seem to know
English, so what are you talking about?  Do you need a
lesson in how quotations are marked?
--
--Bryan

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been
much cooler that typical residential fires are?

I  was not responding to you Bryan. The above was used in a
context which implied that I made the statement. The poster
went on to falsely lambaste me using the misquotation as a
foundation from which to launch another in a series of
personal attacks. 

I did not lambast you at all. I did not even quote you at
all. The sentence that you mistankenly construe as a
quotiation is actually a *question*. It ends with a question
mark and it is the last sentence in the post. It is not a
foundation from which to launch anything. It is an attempt to
get you to either retract some questionable claims or accept
their logical consequences. 

Read the post again. It has the following structure: [You
claim that P. But Q follows from P. Hence, do you think that
Q?] This should not reasonably be construed as a claim that
you said "Q". 

Again : You claimed that the WTC fire wasn't hot enough to
weaken steel. But typical residential fires get into the
500-650 degree C range. This is a premise that I presented
with supporting reference and that you did not contest. 600C
is enough to significantly weaken structural steel. Does it
not follow from this and your earlier claim that the WTC fire
would have been cooler than many typical residential fires
are? If you think something to be true, ought you not also
believe what logically follows from it to be true as well? 

Now will you clarify this apparent inconsistency among your
stated beliefs and their consequences?

This is a challenge to your willingness to argue rationally,
not a personal attack.

I accept your challenge and I applaud your calm and rational
approach. My argument is that the WTC towers did not collapse
as a result of damage caused by planes and the resulting
fires. 

"Your" argument, my ass.  It was discredited long before it 
started reverberating out of your orifices.

First of all, I don't claim to hold a degree in engineering or
related fields of study. My opinions are based not only on the
visual evidence and eye witness accounts, but also political
and economic factors as well.

All of those things were filtered by your highly efficient clue-
repellent circuits.  You have no idea what any of them really 
show or signify.

IMO, it is quite possible that weakening of the infrastructure

What "infrastructure"?

created by the impacts, in conjunction with the heat generated
by the fires, was sufficient enough to cause structural
failures on the affected floors of the WTC towers. But, for
both towers to completely collapse as a result of damage so
high up on the structures did not obey the laws of physics. In

Good grief.  Do not ever utter the term "laws of physics" again, 
unless you're working up a standup comedy act or something.

A few laws of physics would help you understand, for example, 
what will happen if a thirty story building (or any other 
300,000,000 pounds of steel and concrete) falls on top of a 
structure such as the next floor below it, but it's clear that 
nothing will help you understand those "laws" until some 
hypothetical time when you decide you want to.

addition, there were numerous reports of at least one loud
explosion near ground level before the first tower collapsed. 
I was watching along on TV. The CNN news anchors were verbally
startled by an explosion that rocked the WTC area just before

If they were "verbally startled," it must have been someone 
screaming "This is it! Jesus is back!" or some shit like that.

the first tower fell. They emphatically confirmed this on live
TV with a reporter close to ground zero. As the massive cloud
of dust engulfed lower Manhatten, the  explosion was likewise
shrouded in a cloud of mystery. 
         The same cloud hung over the
Pentagon attack when vital accounting records were destroyed
by a low flying jet that punched a relatively small hole in a 
freshly reinforced section of concrete, while hardly damaging
the lawn. 

That one is always worth a few chuckles.  Thanks for 
regurgitating it.  However, the "depleted uranium missile" claims 
are much more amusing.

Why the transcripts of various 9/11 broadcasts does not
reflect the entire dialogue is beyond me. I can say, without a
doubt, that the official record was altered. People close to
ground zero gave similar accounts of explosions. This was not
thoroughly investigated by the media in the aftermath of 9/11,
nor were the numerous shortcomings of the Defense Department
and the official story. Instead of feasting upon the veritable
smorgasborg of coincidences and failures, the media largely
turned a blind eye to the difficult questions. 

Since you're apparently trying to become an entertainer, tell us 
how those Defense Department shortcomings support any of the 
nutcase "theories" you're trying to revive-specifically any DoD 
shortcomings that support the impercipient nonsense you're 
recycling about the building collapses.
 

The massive pile of debris at ground zero was carted away in
record time, and an assault on Afghanistan was quickly
organized while a pipeline was covertly constructed. Then,
somehow it seemed logical to go to war with Iraq against the
wishes of the UN and the majority of tax paying Americans.

Even if you could stick to your topic, you'd be a laughingstock.

I have to commend you on one thing you got right, since it's 
"the" one: Never before has rubble from a pair of collapsed 
500000-ton, 110-story buildings been moved faster.

As you can see, the role that the fires played in the WTC
towers on 9/11 are not that important to me in the overall

That was funny. 

scheme of things. I do not, however, mean to discredit you in
any way, shape, or form. To the contrary, I respect your
opinion immensely due to the fact that I sense an unusual
degree of respect in your post. For that, I thank you kind 
sir. I cannot adequately express the urgent need for all sides
to engage in intelligent debates on the subject of 9/11. 

Good grief...hey, maybe the mysterious "explosion" was a nearby 
irony meter factory.  (By the way, some of those laws of physics 
you have vaguely heard about support the idea that not every loud 
report is an explosion.)

If we
can all treat each other with respect and keep our emotions in
check, a great resource of information is at our fingertips.

Hilarious.  Fuckin' hilarious.  "A great resource" such as the 
criminally stupid nonsense you found on that idiot Dick Eastman's 
web site or similar dumps?

Don't bother to post the pharisaical sniveling.  I know I'm an 
asshole and even you know you're thick.