Re: Do we all agree that 9/11 was an inside job//Debunkers ARE implicated

Justin Case wrote:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xOGpg.11231$v4.10349@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
In news:Xns97F34EB95CBAthathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,
John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:
"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:fmcba25ckk27d498jhqb60mv4a3412me3u@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:58:34 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:aZdpg.285$wP7.215@fe06.lga,
H. Bosch <hbosch@charter.net> typed:

Amanda you should give it up. You get more ridiculous
with every post. You think you know things but you
don't know squat.
Then you are obviosly delusional.
No, he was quite correct; you far overvalue your limited
expertise, and make a habit of rejecting superior analysis
and outright factual information for the sole reason that it
interferes with your belief system.
As I have said before I don't have a belief system. You are
trying to debunk something that doesn't exist. Which simply
indicates a blind acceptance of official dogma and no facility
for independent thought and a fear of intellectual analysis.
Which is sad in a way, but thankfully not my problem.
It is spectacularly obvious that it is in fact your problem.

You're recycling the shallowest versions of long-since
discredited nonsense. You make vague references to scientific
and engineering concepts, erroneously believing that they support
you, while others give you specific results derived from
familiarity with those principles. For just one little example,
you were blown away by the very idea of an airplane carrying 100
thousand pounds of fuel. You actually thought it would take an
oceangoing ship to carry that much, which wouldn't even be a good
puddle in its bunkers. That was a definitive display of ignorance
and it puts all the rest of your yapping into perspective.
Idiot
--
Amanda

Instead of sinking down to the level of name calling, which is one of the
debunkers favorite tactics,
which derails any thread into a course of mindless drivel, lets examine the
facts.

Most debunkers will agree that the fires inside the WTC were not hot enough
to melt steel.

And neither did they need to have to be, although it is entirely possible that there may have been extremely hot spots under the rubble for a variety of mundane reasons.

Jet fuel alone could not have melted steel, but what about the pools of
melted steel found in the
wreckage ?

What pools are you referring to? Why are they pools of melted steel? Why couldn't they be pools of other metals, many of which melt at far lower temperatures? Do you have metallurgical analyses of these pools?

Most debunkers will deny any claims of molten steel at the WTC, but there
is an abundance
of video evidence and eye witness accounts that say otherwise.

No there isn't.

There is a
compelling amount of
evidence that proves that 'thermite' charges were used.

Total bollocks.

Lets see a peer reviewed paper that analyzed this evidence.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Except it's peer reviewed by Jones's own definition, and certainly not published in a peer reviewed publication.

�Professor Jones�s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.�

In other words, he is engaging in a slightly more sophisticated form of the usual incredulity that surrounds the konspiracy kook movement - "I can't believe in X so therefore Q". That it's wrapped up in the form of a paper (just like his groundbreaking paper that Jesus visited South America) doesn't make it true.

--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."