Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

[NoDrama]

The problem with being a jackass about stuff... is that when you are wrong... it sucks extra special.

This is gonna sting a little.

C4 has an autoignition temperature of 200 deg c and is indeed flammable.

See... I do know a little bit about boom boom.

Now if you were just pleasant you wouldn't look like such a jackass now.

http://www.rmisonline.com/chemicaldatabase/ViewInfo1.aspx?SID=98

God how I LOVE it when you make your own argument against yourself. You just said that c4 burns, autoignition is burning, not exploding. Thanks for making my point even stronger. Hell this is easy, I really just gotta let you guys argue against yourselves, you make statements that totally contradict your earlier posts. Oh and you know absolutely NOTHING about explosives. you probably can't even tell me how you make c4 explode. Hint: there is no fire involved.c'mon Im sure you can read some wikipedia or something and come back with yet another failed attempt to explain your theory. You also said that you could find me buildings that fell into themselves, but you haven't backed up anything you say with anything
resembling facts.

Here is a definition for autoignition, just so you don't try to erroneously use it again sometime in a conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature

 

[what... huh?]

Hint: there is no fire involved.

There is fire involved. Heat and concussion. Either by electronic or conventional black powder. Shock, and heat, go boom. I would think a munitions expert such as yourself would know that...

You understand the difference between making a declarative statement and and interrogative one? I asked for someone to let me know something I was clearly unaware of. You make it out like I stated it wasn't possible. I asked. Let me demonstrate.

"Can someone tell me an ordinance that does not explode in an inferno?"
Question. Cannot be correct or incorrect.

"Hint: There is no fire involved"
Statement. An incorrect one.

Glad I could clear that up for you. So are you going with C4 or thermite?


You were correct and I concede the notion that fire alone will not do it... which was my original IMPLICIT assertion. I am big on intellectual honesty, and it was my misunderstanding that intense fire alone will do the trick.

However a jet ramming into it will.

 

[what... huh?]

You also said that you could find me buildings that fell into themselves, but you haven't backed up anything you say with anything
resembling facts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature

Don't remember saying that... but here.

http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=344558

Just curious... have you ever been to a controlled demo? I remember it being very loud. Gargantuan booms heard for miles.

Since you are the resident munitions expert... what explosive, in tons, which is capable of bringing that building down doesn't make any noise or flash?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

Does that look like it is falling at the rate of gravity into its own footprint? Eerie innit?

 

[NoDrama]

Don't remember saying that... but here.

http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=344558

Just curious... have you ever been to a controlled demo? I remember it being very loud. Gargantuan booms heard for miles.

Since you are the resident munitions expert... what explosive, in tons, which is capable of bringing that building down doesn't make any noise or flash?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

Does that look like it is falling at the rate of gravity into its own footprint? Eerie innit?

LOL and THEN you link buildings that aren't even steel reinforced, both of your links are of small( less than 10 stories) masonry (brick) buildings. There is no resemblence to a 47 story steel structure, like comparing apples and screwdrivers. So far you have proven my point even more..thanks

Oh and the second link doesn't look like free fall to me, looks like there is some resistance there as you can plainly see the whole building doesn't fall straight down, not in either of your links. Pure rubbish. You might wanna stop before the hole you have been digging for yourself gets too deep to climb out of. Olosto learned this point a few posts ago.

Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives. Wanna know what kind of item can cut through steel and weaken a building so severely and it does not go boom? Its called Thermite and its extremely easy to make out of totally easy to get and LEGAL supplies. Hell I can make Thermite in my garage, its very easy to do, just need rust and aluminum and a small piece of magnesium to get the process to start. You should look into it sometime and learn something new today.

Heat is not fire, if it were, your stove would have flames coming out of it when you cooked, cuz like you said heat is fire. Now my stove has these hot glowing electrically operated coils in it, there is never a fire.


One more thing, if you watch the videos you can CLEARLY hear the explosions go off before the building starts to blow, also you forgot about all the people that swear they heard explosions before the buildings fell. Not to mention the Janitor guy Rodriguez who was the only survivor and he clearly states that there were explosions even before the plane hit.

 

[NoDrama]

There is fire involved. Heat and concussion. Either by electronic or conventional black powder. Shock, and heat, go boom. I would think a munitions expert such as yourself would know that...

You understand the difference between making a declarative statement and and interrogative one? I asked for someone to let me know something I was clearly unaware of. You make it out like I stated it wasn't possible. I asked. Let me demonstrate.

"Can someone tell me an ordinance that does not explode in an inferno?"
Question. Cannot be correct or incorrect.

"Hint: There is no fire involved"
Statement. An incorrect one.

Glad I could clear that up for you. So are you going with C4 or thermite?


You were correct and I concede the notion that fire alone will not do it... which was my original IMPLICIT assertion. I am big on intellectual honesty, and it was my misunderstanding that intense fire alone will do the trick.

However a jet ramming into it will.

So now your saying that there were explosives inside that were activated by a Jet hitting it with concussive force and the flames from the ensuing burn of the fuel? cuz if you are I'm not really sure what your arguing about, cuz basically your agreeing that the buildings were blown up.

FWIW It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong..+rep to you for that.

edit: I can't +rep you cuz i +repped you earlier on a different post, just imagine I gave it to you for now while I go find others worthy of praise.

 

[what... huh?]

LOL and THEN you link buildings that aren't even steel reinforced, both of your links are of small( less than 10 stories) masonry (brick) buildings. There is no resemblence to a 47 story steel structure, like comparing apples and screwdrivers. So far you have proven my point even more..thanks

I didn't realize that was the task assigned. I thought I was asked to show a building dropping in its own footprint naturally.

I have demonstrated that a car fire can weaken and collapse steel structures MUCH larger than the beams in the WTC.

Oh and the second link doesn't look like free fall to me, looks like there is some resistance there as you can plainly see the whole building doesn't fall straight down, not in either of your links. Pure rubbish. You might wanna stop before the hole you have been digging for yourself gets too deep to climb out of. Olosto learned this point a few posts ago.

I guess... I don't have any motivation to believe that which I believe and am trying to demonstrate. I don't mind digging a hole. If I am wrong... this is the only way I am going to noodle it. I am ok with the hole. I still haven't seen, in all this time (now granted I haven't argued this topic in YEARS so there are new things I am finding) which convinces me otherwise.

Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives. Wanna know what kind of item can cut through steel and weaken a building so severely and it does not go boom? Its called Thermite and its extremely easy to make out of totally easy to get and LEGAL supplies. Hell I can make Thermite in my garage, its very easy to do, just need rust and aluminum and a small piece of magnesium to get the process to start. You should look into it sometime and learn something new today.

I addressed the ingredients of thermite a few posts ago. I know how it works. Show me a precision demo with thermite. Show me a drop of something big with thermite. It is my understanding (still not any maner of expert to be sure) that they use thermite to cut beams etc... they use munitions to drop. If I am incorrect, please show me. Frankly... all I know about explosives I learned from shooting eggs... lol

Heat is not fire, if it were, your stove would have flames coming out of it when you cooked, cuz like you said heat is fire. Now my stove has these hot glowing electrically operated coils in it, there is never a fire.

So fire doesn't create heat? I thought I said heat and concussion. A traditional blasting cap, as I am sure you know, uses black powder to create both conditions... without the fire it would not go. It seems like splitting hairs... but I will take it on your word that you knew that. I am frankly willing to just consider you an expert on the subject at face value. You certainly seem more educated in the subject than I, so I will, frankly, defer to your judgment on such, unless something just sounds wrong and I will look it up.

One more thing, if you watch the videos you can CLEARLY hear the explosions go off before the building starts to blow, also you forgot about all the people that swear they heard explosions before the buildings fell. Not to mention the Janitor guy Rodriguez who was the only survivor and he clearly states that there were explosions even before the plane hit.

How does that work? How many people were in that building? One janitor hears explosions?

Are we now throwing out the thermite theory and going back to more typical ordinance? I just want to be clear.

So now your saying that there were explosives inside that were activated by a Jet hitting it with concussive force and the flames from the ensuing burn of the fuel? cuz if you are I'm not really sure what your arguing about, cuz basically your agreeing that the buildings were blown up.

I am saying if there WERE ordinance like C4, a lot of it would have gone off during the impacts it seems to me. You tell me.

 

[natrone23]

Also if it was demo, somehow they were able to start the demo at the exact floors where the plane hit, because if you notice it, collappes at the point where the plane hit it. explain that

 

[what... huh?]

I have never seen a building demo'd top down and have no idea what it would do/look like... so I didn't bring that up.

 

[olosto]

The C4 won't ignite without high high energy imparted on it like a plane slamming into a building would do it. C4 is remarkably stable. It was used in Vietnam to cook MRE's. Just ignite the C4 and it makes a great little fire that lasts a while.

The point is that thousands of tons of explosives would be needed and there is just no way to rig those buildings with that amount of explosives period. If people wanna argue that fine but unless you show me conclusive proof, your just a nutjob.

Anyone ever work with thermite? Its a powder that is left open to the air for oxygen for the reaction. If a building were impacted my a plane, how are these delicate thermite casings going to stay put and actually work? No, if you look at a real demo you will see the amount of ground work it takes. Its just not possible

 

[GrowRebel]

Um... Jackass... there is a link in the quote. Wikified for your protection.

I rather be a jackass than a dumbass ... you should have pointed out the story was further down the page. But you still are showing a bridge that is made mostly of concrete with steel inside ... no where near the thickness of the steel used in those skyscrapers ... and the whole bridge didn't collapse ... only a section. Like with those buildings you posted collapsing ... it's not the same. They are constructed differently than those skyscapers ...

Lol... the only "stories" you have linked, with very rare exception, are not recognized or accredited papers... they are jackasses like you, sitting in their basements blogging on how the gubbament is comin' for em for spreading THE TRUTH!!! lol.

Folks this is the typical bushwhack response when ever they can't refute the evidence ... they claim the source isn't "credible" or "recognized" ... he can't say why they are not "credible" or "recognized" other than claiming that their some "basements blogging" ... notice since he has no way to refute Mr. Gage ... or any of those high ranking officials I posted that don't buy the "official story" he has to resort to ridicule ... notice the pretty picture? The best argument he can give is to show a guy with a tin hat ... now isn't that special?

So you acknowledge you were wrong, and will stop saying so in the future?

Nope ... I simply proved that you said what you said ... nothing more.
Now notice here folks how he does that bushwhack spin a round ... keeps stating I'm wrong ... but has offered nothing to prove it. That's how they operate when they can't dispute the facts ... side step ... project own short coming to others ... and the turn around spin.

That is incorrect. They must be off course with no contact for 5 minutes. More importantly we have to know they are off course... and they rarely know. Then usually the pilot is alerted, and course is corrected. Even around the pentagon. They don't just call in the guns.

Oh no ... if a plane comes to close to a secure building like the pentagon or the WH jets are called in and in a hurry.
Check it out folks it's standard procedure ...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Private Plane Flew Too Close To The White House[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland
and they intercepted the plane, escorting it out of the area, she said. [/FONT]Cessna 182 Flew Too Close To The White House[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At 8:03 p.m., controllers were told that NORAD had scrambled
the two F-16's from the 113th Air Wing at Andrews[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

You link me to liars... you promote lies... and you continue to call ME a liar... what have I lied about? I mean... I don't even see anything I have been incorrect about. Let me guess... I am in on it too. I'm one of them.

Bwaa ha ha ha ... folks this is an excellent example of when the bushwhack can't dispute the evidence with evidences of their own they simply claim the messenger is a liar! Bwaa ha ha ha ... doesn't say why they are lairs ... or what part of the 7 min video is a lie ... as you can see in my posts I've asked him several times to explain ... but instead he simply states that they are liars ... wow ... let give him a hand ladies and gentlemen for his brillant debating skills

Every piece of evidence I have demonstrated has been credible, and you haven't addressed any of it.

You noticed how the bushwhack will lie ... then say ...no I didn't ... you did ... so what about the PM evidence? You still claim it to be credible? I address that in the 390 post ... the bullshit about Ashcoft was address ... the double talk about the bridge ... NORAD ... I could go on an on but all you folks have to do is check it out for yourselves if you haven't already.

Because re-reading your posts is like drilling my own knees with a masonry bit on slow. You can't even speak the language... no wonder you get confused so easily. Read over the last 5 pages and count for yourself. It just wastes my time, telling you what I already told you.

Here's another bushwhacked ploy folks ... since he can't dispute any of the evidence he pretends that I can't speak the language ... yeah ... that really proves the information I've provide is wrong pretty pathetic in his spin attempt ... they follow the same MO ... if they don't have the facts ... make shit up and if that doesn't work ... project their short comings unto the opponet ... side step as much as possible ... you'd seen it in several of his posts ... "I'll answer your question when you answer mine" that sort of thing. It's like when "Bert" in the sitcom "Soap" thought he could make himself invisible and no one could see him ... that's how the bushwhack are. They snap their fingers and pretend that their bullshit is invisible ... but guys ... we can see you ... and your bullshit ... They really believe if they say it enough people will accept it as fact. They figure if corporate media and faux news can do it so can they ... but I keep telling them that don't fly here ... but they just have a problem believing that ... so I simply must keep using them as a clear example of how stupid their mindset can be.

Not a single one. Nothing. Nil.

See ... even though the proof is there in the posts ... they pretend it's not ... even though we've all seen it ... they pretend we did not ...

You can barely post at that. I have addressed quite a bit... the problem is much of this is complicated. These problems require more discussion than you are willing to give them... you just keep linking me to youtube videos as if these wing nuts are in ANY way credible. STOP LINKING ME TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LYING... BLATANTLY... AND ACTING AS IF THEY ARE CREDIBLE. It isn't much wonder that you do not understand credibility.

Here again he can't address the facts ... even in one 7 min. video ... he can't do that ... so since he can't he comes back to me and how I can "barely post" ... repeats again how he has address everything even though he hasn't ... then he attacks the messengers as "wing-nuts" ... never tells us why they are or what they said to make them that way ... only that they are ... see how they work folks when they don't have the facts to back them? Just spin, deny, and attack the messengers ... that really all they have ...notice that their leaders do that to on corporate media ...

Gotta say... don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed. Even if the planets were to realign and you were able to convince me I am wrong... I wouldn't be embarrassed. That is all very important to you... you cannot have a discussion without being an asshole... because you don't really care about being right... you want to win.

Here again folks his focus is on me ... not Gage or the information he presented ... now he believes he can read my mind ... isn't is neat how they do the side stepping ... you know that's what they are going to do ... yet they continue to do it ... Bwaa, ha ha ha ... I love this guy!

You won't. You will continue to come across as a wackjob with an attitude and problems with authority.

See back to me again. I'm a "wackjob" ... I have an "attitude and problems with authority" ... that how the bushwhack and their leader operate folks. If you can't dispute the facts ... spin, attack the mesenger, and pretend they won the debate.

I really hope you are young.

I would think it would distress you to have someone young kick your ass with facts and evidence. Perhaps you enjoy things like that ...

On the subject of time intercepting with jets... you don't understand a very simple concept. I cannot prove a negative. I can say, for instance, that there is not a pink elephant in your room. I cannot PROVE it. The onus of proof is on you. I have exhausted every resource I have looking for any interception in history which breached 45 min, and there is no such record. The onus is on you to disprove MY statement... because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand?

Ladies and gentlemen it's the famous bushwhack talking point "I can't prove a negative" ... let give the boy another hand

The point is that thousands of tons of explosives would be needed and there is just no way to rig those buildings with that amount of explosives period. If people wanna argue that fine but unless you show me conclusive proof, your just a nutjob.

Anyone ever work with thermite? Its a powder that is left open to the air for oxygen for the reaction. If a building were impacted my a plane, how are these delicate thermite casings going to stay put and actually work? No, if you look at a real demo you will see the amount of ground work it takes. Its just not possible

We have shown you proof ... back on page 19 ... and I believe page 34 I have pictures of the steel beams from the tower with precision cuts ... it's not our problem that you can't comprehend the obvious ...
I thought your wife told you to leave us alone ... bwaa ha ha ha!
Uncle Mike will be on the air soon so I'm going to grab some chow watch a great musical ... "Kiss Me Kate" ... then check out the rest of Uncle Mike on line.

Have a good one people ... some em' if you got em'

 

[natrone23]

......OK

 

[olosto]

BUAHAHAHAHAAH! That pic cracks me up! Is that FDD??? lol

 

[NoDrama]

I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.

Every floor collapses at basically the same time and it come straight down, somehow the 2 fires must have weakened every piece of steel in the building equally, with no fuel to help it along, just papers and office furniture. Every bit of it is impossible. Even our own governments OFFICIAL statement is that " We don't know". crock of SHIIIIIT!!

 

[jfgordon1]

I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.

Every floor collapses at basically the same time and it come straight down, somehow the 2 fires must have weakened every piece of steel in the building equally, with no fuel to help it along, just papers and office furniture. Every bit of it is impossible. Even our own governments OFFICIAL statement is that " We don't know". crock of SHIIIIIT!!

look at all the government files disappearing n the rubble . i see a lot of ppl high fiving after that

 

[what... huh?]

I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.

Every floor collapses at basically the same time and it come straight down, somehow the 2 fires must have weakened every piece of steel in the building equally, with no fuel to help it along, just papers and office furniture. Every bit of it is impossible. Even our own governments OFFICIAL statement is that " We don't know". crock of SHIIIIIT!!

First of all... it didn't come straight down. It spilled into the street.

Second of all... it was filled with unbattled blazes. The flames that tore through this building (which again were set by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.) were completely uncontrolled for more than 6 hours. The NYFD chief had lost over 300 men already that day and demanded the FD be pulled from the area to prevent further loss of his men in a clearly unstable ground zero. The flames simply raged. For nearly 7 hours.

The decision was made after the SW side of the building began to bulge between the 10th and 13th floors, and about an hour later began creaking... generally a pretty good sign that it is going to collapse.

As I am sure you have heard, there were 3 web trusses used to transfer load balances to the foundation. The failure of the first causing the bulge, and a redistribution of WAY too much weight to the remaining two. An hour and a half later, as predicted, the building fell.


Find me a precision demo, anywhere in the world with no boom boom.


Thermite DOES ignite under fire.


In no video has there been a single explosion. Not one.

Find me silent demo. Before your theory of detonation is even possible... find me silent demo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg&feature=PlayList&p=A87B5B23C7D279C7&index=7&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=PlayList&p=A87B5B23C7D279C7&index=9&playnext=4&playnext_from=PL

the only demo I know ^

Concussive at street level.

 

[what... huh?]

I rather be a jackass than a dumbass ... you should have pointed out the story was further down the page. But you still are showing a bridge that is made mostly of concrete with steel inside ... no where near the thickness of the steel used in those skyscrapers ... and the whole bridge didn't collapse ... only a section. Like with those buildings you posted collapsing ... it's not the same. They are constructed differently than those skyscapers ...

So wait... so fire DOES or DOES not weaken steel? Did I lose the plot somewhere... or did I throw that out as evidence that in fact fire will weaken HUGE steel beams? I thought so. BTW look at my melted beams next to those men and your beams next to men. Not even a fifth the size of my beams. Quit changing the argument because you don't like being wrong. The question was will fire weaken steel beams.

Obviously the answer is yes.

It took out that section, because the fire was only underneath that section. WTC fires were spread throughout the whole of several floors. That was a SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Congratulations jackass... you are a dumbass.

Folks this is the typical bushwhack response when ever they can't refute the evidence ... they claim the source isn't "credible" or "recognized" ... he can't say why they are not "credible" or "recognized" other than claiming that their some "basements blogging" ... notice since he has no way to refute Mr. Gage ... or any of those high ranking officials I posted that don't buy the "official story" he has to resort to ridicule ... notice the pretty picture? The best argument he can give is to show a guy with a tin hat ... now isn't that special?

I am pretty sure that I clearly demostrated that Mr. Gage is either lying or misleading by stating that the building came down in less than 10 seconds... while trying to suggest that time/rate of descent PROVED that the building fell faster than gravity and must have been demolished.

That IS discrediting sir.

Your hero is either incompetent, or a liar. I mean... wtf? If I proposed something and you found such a painful and fundamental flaw, I would eat sh1t on it.

Like the burning C4 thing. You think that was fun? It is simply honest. Eat your sh1t like a fkucking man.

Nope ... I simply proved that you said what you said ... nothing more.
Now notice here folks how he does that bushwhack spin a round ... keeps stating I'm wrong ... but has offered nothing to prove it. That's how they operate when they can't dispute the facts ... side step ... project own short coming to others ... and the turn around spin.

Ummm... I clearly just disputed the "facts". BTW... do you think you have some sort of fan club you are addressing? In your sad and savage little mind do you imagine people looking to you for wisdom and heralding your posts with cheers of jubilation?

It comes across weird. Just thought I would let you know.

Oh no ... if a plane comes to close to a secure building like the pentagon or the WH jets are called in and in a hurry.
Check it out folks it's standard procedure ...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Private Plane Flew Too Close To The White House[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland
and they intercepted the plane, escorting it out of the area, she said. [/FONT]Cessna 182 Flew Too Close To The White House[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At 8:03 p.m., controllers were told that NORAD had scrambled
the two F-16's from the 113th Air Wing at Andrews[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

What do you not understand about restricted airspace? The whitehouse is under restricted airspace... the pentagon is not because it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

On 911 no aircraft in the United States violated restricted or prohibited airspace.

Bwaa ha ha ha ... folks this is an excellent example of when the bushwhack can't dispute the evidence with evidences of their own they simply claim the messenger is a liar! Bwaa ha ha ha ... doesn't say why they are lairs ... or what part of the 7 min video is a lie ... as you can see in my posts I've asked him several times to explain ... but instead he simply states that they are liars ... wow ... let give him a hand ladies and gentlemen for his brillant debating skills

You do realize that you have done nothing but call me a liar since I entered the thread...

Thieves think everyone steals.

I have said several times that the 10 second nonsense was EITHER a lie, or grossly incompetent. Either way... discredited.

You noticed how the bushwhack will lie ... then say ...no I didn't ... you did ... so what about the PM evidence? You still claim it to be credible? I address that in the 390 post ... the bullshit about Ashcoft was address ... the double talk about the bridge ... NORAD ... I could go on an on but all you folks have to do is check it out for yourselves if you haven't already.

What is PM evidence? I don't know what the 390 post is either. You say Ashcroft was addressed... I have yet to see anything which refutes it. There is no double talk about the bridge. You have no idea how NORAD functions... nor restricted airspace. YES when you enter RESTRICTED airspace jets come say hello. No planes entered restricted airspace on 9/11.

What have I "lied" about? Please, by all means, post a lie of mine. Not a theory, evidence... a lie and demonstrate it as such. Know what that makes you if you can't? Aint irony grand?

Here's another bushwhacked ploy folks ... since he can't dispute any of the evidence he pretends that I can't speak the language ... yeah ... that really proves the information I've provide is wrong pretty pathetic in his spin attempt ... they follow the same MO ... if they don't have the facts ... make shit up and if that doesn't work ... project their short comings unto the opponet ... side step as much as possible ... you'd seen it in several of his posts ... "I'll answer your question when you answer mine" that sort of thing. It's like when "Bert" in the sitcom "Soap" thought he could make himself invisible and no one could see him ... that's how the bushwhack are. They snap their fingers and pretend that their bullshit is invisible ... but guys ... we can see you ... and your bullshit ... They really believe if they say it enough people will accept it as fact. They figure if corporate media and faux news can do it so can they ... but I keep telling them that don't fly here ... but they just have a problem believing that ... so I simply must keep using them as a clear example of how stupid their mindset can be.

You cannot form a coherent sentence... you have continually made ignorant and incorrect assumptions. I have corrected you on each, and you just keep blasting ahead.

See ... even though the proof is there in the posts ... they pretend it's not ... even though we've all seen it ... they pretend we did not ...


Here again he can't address the facts ... even in one 7 min. video ... he can't do that ... so since he can't he comes back to me and how I can "barely post" ... repeats again how he has address everything even though he hasn't ... then he attacks the messengers as "wing-nuts" ... never tells us why they are or what they said to make them that way ... only that they are ... see how they work folks when they don't have the facts to back them? Just spin, deny, and attack the messengers ... that really all they have ...notice that their leaders do that to on corporate media ...

Deja vu.

For the record... I don't watch tv. You keep trying to bait me into this insulting game... you have been insulting to me since I got here... and yes I eventually called you a jackass... not for your theories... er... other peoples theories that you paste... but because you are acting like a jackass. So let's try this. You try and address the facts, and NOT me, my intellect, or my character and I will do the same. I wonder if you are capable.

Here again folks his focus is on me ... not Gage or the information he presented ... now he believes he can read my mind ... isn't is neat how they do the side stepping ... you know that's what they are going to do ... yet they continue to do it ... Bwaa, ha ha ha ... I love this guy!

I am rather fond of you too. Like a 3 legged dog. I feel both sorry for it and amazed that it can accomplish so much being so severely handicapped.

See back to me again. I'm a "wackjob" ... I have an "attitude and problems with authority" ... that how the bushwhack and their leader operate folks. If you can't dispute the facts ... spin, attack the mesenger, and pretend they won the debate.

deja vu.

I would think it would distress you to have someone young kick your ass with facts and evidence. Perhaps you enjoy things like that ...

You have presented evidence. The "Facts" you have been providing are all incorrect. For instance.

Bullshit ... if any plane ... and I mean any plane deviates from it course jets are scramble in minutes ... never in the history before or after 911 have jet not been scramble when a plane leaves it's fight path.

1. Jets are not called in when a plane goes "off course". Generally nobody on the ground has any idea if anybody is "off course".

Here is a brief explanation. A pilot files a flight plan with the FAA. The plane, as it travels, is not tracked by any single entity. As the plane enters a new "controlled airspace" the pilot changes the frequency on the radio to the new one. The new tower picks up a dot on the radar and squaks it (identifies self and asks for ID in return). That tower has no earthly idea where that plane has come from, what their flight plan is, or where it is supposed to end up. The towers (the only controllers in the entire trip) exist to keep planes from hitting each other, and assign runways if they are landing and taking off. This is not battlestar galactica. There is no dradus. MOST airspace is not picked up on ground. Only airspace surrounding large airports. The effective range of this radar is between 20 and 100 nautical miles.

IF they are unable to raise the pilot, they switch to the bordering frequencies in case the pilot switched over early/late. If that doesn't work they contact the airline to get details and see if they can raise the pilots on navcom. If the plane continues to be unresponsive, unless it threatens other aircraft, they leave it be and schedule traffic around it. If it then begins to behave oddly they FINALLY call NORAD. ATC does not control flight plans... they keep planes from bumping into each other.

That's it. Clear? Great.
Gonna stop saying that crap? Prolly not.

2. Fire weakens steel beams. Period.

3. Cell phones work on planes. They drop a LOT but work.

4. The planes were not at 35,000 ft.

5. House fires vaporize bone.

6. The terrorists names were on the flight manifests.


I have provided documents, links, images, books for all of this except the cell phone thing... but I am tired of doing research you do not read. I give you links and you say "you should have told me to look further down". What is the point of even debating you? It isn't a debate. You throw out BS in 8 mile long posts, you don't read the evidence against your borrowed theories, you are obnoxiously insulting simply because I have a different opinion than you, and you do not recognize when you have been corrected.

Seriously... what is the point?

Ladies and gentlemen it's the famous bushwhack talking point "I can't prove a negative" ... let give the boy another hand

Prove there are no unicorns. TY.

We have shown you proof ... back on page 19 ... and I believe page 34 I have pictures of the steel beams from the tower with precision cuts ... it's not our problem that you can't comprehend the obvious ...
I thought your wife told you to leave us alone ... bwaa ha ha ha!
Uncle Mike will be on the air soon so I'm going to grab some chow watch a great musical ... "Kiss Me Kate" ... then check out the rest of Uncle Mike on line.

Have a good one people ... some em' if you got em'

Nothing on 19. Want to know how to shear a 2 ft beam? Drop 500,000,000 pounds of concrete and steel on it against another 500,000,000 pounds of it trying to withstand the impact. Ever seen sheet metal cut? Same thing only bigger.


I will take that last bit of advice... and wish you the same

 

[what... huh?]

Couple late additions. We determine a plane is "lost" when its ID transponder stops functioning. Either due to malfunction or the switch being turned off.

If grow cannot engage in civil discourse please have chrome dome ask any questions.

Lastly... Here is how you operate...

You paste a mountain of info. When reply, you try and insult the poster to unsettle them. If a "fact" is disproven, you either change the scope of the original statement to create strawman arguments, simply say "nuh uh", or bury it in 300 miles of unrelated drivel and insults. This is why I keep asking you to address one argument at a time. As in one post at a time so as not to obfuscate your assertions which have been demonstrated to be false. This is also the exact reason you refuse.

Most people do not engage you because you are tiring, insulting, and intellectually dishonest. Not because they are afraid of truth.

If you do decide to drop the attitude and actually have a real debate, I will address only one topic at a time until it is put to bed.

 

[bryant228]

I love how everyone is an expert in engineering and demoliton. And no, I did not read all 44 pages of this post. One, I dont need too, it's the same bullshit I've heard a million times, and two I did skim over some of it. Yes, I've seen all the conspiracy videos with the so called "experts". Most of the issues in questions where of regular people giving their on site comentary as it happened. Real, top or their game, professional engineers have said the plans brought the towers down. How can the government even attempt to cover this us? The government could never keep this covered up if they had anything to do with it. There would have had to have been atleast 50-100 people involved.

I'll tell you alittle story of a government cover up. It involved just 2 people. One was in a high ranking government position. Does any of this ring a bell yet? I'll tell who was involved, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Yes, I know, how can this even compare. Well, it was a government cover up. And it only involved 2 people. Do you know the lengths they, both of them, went through to keep it covered up. And it still got out. Mainly because of the republicans. I suggest you read up more on that alittle more. It's some pretty fun reading too.

Also, for the government to be involved in the 911 attacks, it would have taken reaources of both parties, democrate and republican. How the hell could they have pulled that off when they can't even run the meet eye to eye on a budget.

The fact is someone would have came out about it now. Something would have surfaced by now about their involvement. And do you really think our government is that smart to pull this off? Do you really think that? And why would they want to do it? Yeah, the 2 wars we have are really paying off now. When you say our governemnt did this, your really making them look good.....and smart I guess. Please don't do that. Our government is filled with a bunch of rich assholes who only thing about themselves and how to get elected again. To give them the praise that they could pull this off is ignorant. And your pissing all over the people and families who lost loved ones on that tragic day.

I blame the internet. We are just a bunch of mice following the flute. Just because someone posts something on the internet of someone questioning something, does not mean it is a fact. And everytime I hear something involved in this conspiracy, I see America following the road of the stupid and selfish more and more. Every other country laughs at the U.S. because of this so called conspiacy theory. Good job America! You just made us look even more stupid and selfish. Thanks!

 

[GrowRebel]

So wait... so fire DOES or DOES not weaken steel?

It depends on the steel ... it can weaken rebarb ... the steel rods in the concrete that supports the bridge ... but the steel use in those skyscapers are massive compare the the steel used in the bridge ... and are fireproofed ... big difference ... excepted to the bushwhacked ...

Did I lose the plot somewhere...

You lost the plot the moment you entered this thread ...

or did I throw that out as evidence that in fact fire will weaken HUGE steel beams?

You haven't presented any evidence that fire will weaken huge steel beams ... where were the huge steel beams in the bridge? ... there were none. No steel in the buildings you posted ... none ... so you haven't proven anything.

I thought so. BTW look at my melted beams next to those men and your beams next to men. Not even a fifth the size of my beams.

Where are these steel beams? ... next to what men? You will have to point them out because I didn't see them. Not to mention them being bigger than the steel beams in the WTC ... is not possible so point it out ... now watch this folks ... he won't be able to do it ... once again.

Quit changing the argument because you don't like being wrong. The question was will fire weaken steel beams.
Obviously the answer is yes.

No the question was did fire bring down those towers ... the answer is obviously no.

It took out that section, because the fire was only underneath that section. WTC fires were spread throughout the whole of several floors. That was a SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Congratulations jackass... you are a dumbass.

Those building collapsed from the bottom and fell straight down ... the fires were on the upper floors ... fire can not melt steel beams that have been fire proofed plus the fire wasn't nearly hot enough to do so ...
once again folks the bushwhack tries to project his own short coming on to his opponent ... what ever you say dumbass ...

I am pretty sure that I clearly demostrated that Mr. Gage is either lying or misleading by stating that the building came down in less than 10 seconds...

Bwaa ha ha ha ... that's his argument folks! because it came down in less than 10 seconds! ha ha ha ... you only prove our point ... which is those buildings can't come crashing straight down in a few seconds! Bwaa ha ha ... and notice folks ... nothing about the evidence of thermite being found.

while trying to suggest that time/rate of descent PROVED that the building fell faster than gravity and must have been demolished.

That IS discrediting sir.

Bwaa ha ha ha ... you're discediting sir ... bwaa ha ha ha.

Your hero is either incompetent, or a liar. I mean... wtf?

Says the debating expert whos dumbass argument is because a blow it out his ass "time/rate of desent" bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's a good one!

If I proposed something and you found such a painful and fundamental flaw, I would eat sh1t on it.

"Painful and fundamental flaw"! bwaa ha ha ha too funny!

Like the burning C4 thing. You think that was fun? It is simply honest. Eat your sh1t like a fkucking man.

And you eat shit like a fucking woman! ha ha ha ...

Ummm... I clearly just disputed the "facts".

Ummmm .... you clearly just did the same bullshit you always do ... show nothing ... make ridiculous statements ... and side step the obvious .... ladies and gentlemen lets give the dumbass another hand ...

BTW... do you think you have some sort of fan club you are addressing? In your sad and savage little mind do you imagine people looking to you for wisdom and heralding your posts with cheers of jubilation?

It comes across weird. Just thought I would let you know.

There are "viewers at home" that stop by to see me make a fool of you ... whether you want to accept it or not ... Since you think it's so weird ... don't worry about it.

What do you not understand about restricted airspace? The whitehouse is under restricted airspace... the pentagon is not because it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

On 911 no aircraft in the United States violated restricted or prohibited airspace.

Like I said ... if something goes wrong NORAD is there ... Just that one day ... they were delayed ... you can go on and on about this as much as you want ... but NORAD is there for a purpose.

You do realize that you have done nothing but call me a liar since I entered the thread...

No ... you have done nothing but call my sources lies with nothing to back it up other than making ridiculous statements. ... like that "time/rate" bullshit that you pulled out your ass.

Thieves think everyone steals.

I have said several times that the 10 second nonsense was EITHER a lie, or grossly incompetent. Either way... discredited.

Only a dumbass of your caliber would believe that.

What is PM evidence? I don't know what the 390 post is either.

More proof that you are truly a dumbass. I think I make post hilight from that interview making the PM guy look stupid.

You say Ashcroft was addressed... I have yet to see anything which refutes it.

The man did testify under oath ... he could lie his ass off with no repurcussions what so ever! Why the hell should we believe him?

There is no double talk about the bridge.

Yes there is because there is no huge thick steel in the bridge like there are in the buildings!

You have no idea how NORAD functions... nor restricted airspace. YES when you enter RESTRICTED airspace jets come say hello. No planes entered restricted airspace on 9/11.

No you have no idea how NORAD functions ... I have submitted a link with evidence that NORAD had time and oppoturnity to stop those jets ... yet they didn't all you've done is blow it out your ass.

What have I "lied" about? Please, by all means, post a lie of mine. Not a theory, evidence... a lie and demonstrate it as such. Know what that makes you if you can't? Aint irony grand?

When did I say you were lying? You are the only one that has been accusing people of lying ... here again folks ... he projects his own short coming on to his opponets ...

You cannot form a coherent sentence... you have continually made ignorant and incorrect assumptions. I have corrected you on each, and you just keep blasting ahead.

Here we go again folks ... he couldn't dispute Gage other than his ridiculous statement ... with no backing I might add ... so one again he attack me ... since he can't attack the evidence ... so he fall back on the projection thang ... and pretends that he has made valid points ... aren't the bushwhacked fun to watch?

Deja vu.

For the record... I don't watch tv. You keep trying to bait me into this insulting game... you have been insulting to me since I got here...

Oh come now ... you must admit this is a lot of fun ... I'm have a great time aren't you?

and yes I eventually called you a jackass... not for your theories... er... other peoples theories that you paste... but because you are acting like a jackass. So let's try this. You try and address the facts, and NOT me, my intellect, or my character and I will do the same. I wonder if you are capable.

There goes the projection thang again folks ... will he ever learn that we are on to him?

I am rather fond of you too. Like a 3 legged dog. I feel both sorry for it and amazed that it can accomplish so much being so severely handicapped.

Yes I do pretty well don't I ... but it's really not that hard against a bushwhacked minded person ...

You have presented evidence. The "Facts" you have been providing are all incorrect. For instance.
1. Jets are not called in when a plane goes "off course". Generally nobody on the ground has any idea if anybody is "off course".

Says the bushwhack with no backing ...

Here is a brief explanation. A pilot files a flight plan with the FAA. The plane, as it travels, is not tracked by any single entity. As the plane enters a new "controlled airspace" the pilot changes the frequency on the radio to the new one. The new tower picks up a dot on the radar and squaks it (identifies self and asks for ID in return). That tower has no earthly idea where that plane has come from, what their flight plan is, or where it is supposed to end up. The towers (the only controllers in the entire trip) exist to keep planes from hitting each other, and assign runways if they are landing and taking off. This is not battlestar galactica. There is no dradus. MOST airspace is not picked up on ground. Only airspace surrounding large airports. The effective range of this radar is between 20 and 100 nautical miles.

Say the bushwhacked with nothing to back his statement ...

IF they are unable to raise the pilot, they switch to the bordering frequencies in case the pilot switched over early/late. If that doesn't work they contact the airline to get details and see if they can raise the pilots on navcom. If the plane continues to be unresponsive, unless it threatens other aircraft, they leave it be and schedule traffic around it. If it then begins to behave oddly they FINALLY call NORAD. ATC does not control flight plans... they keep planes from bumping into each other.

That's it. Clear? Great.
Gonna stop saying that crap? Prolly not.

Says the bushwhacked with absolutely no link to a source to back his statement ... I guess we are to accept him at his word ... not.

2. Fire weakens steel beams. Period.

And it doesn't cause a skyscaper to collapes on itself in a few seconds. Period.

3. Cell phones work on planes. They drop a LOT but work.

Not at the attitude the planes were traveling ... link posted.

4. The planes were not at 35,000 ft.

Source link?

5. House fires vaporize bone.

Bullshit ... and I provide links to back it up ...

6. The terrorists names were on the flight manifests.

No ... you only show a flight manifest ... not the manifest with the so called hijackers ... wow you are really wacked in the head.

I have provided documents, links, images, books for all of this except the cell phone thing...

Yeah ... right ...

but I am tired of doing research you do not read. I give you links and you say "you should have told me to look further down". What is the point of even debating you? It isn't a debate.

I have read it ... that's how I was able to show the folks it was bullshit.

You throw out BS in 8 mile long posts,

That you seem to have a problem refuting with evidence that we can check out ... the stuff that we are able to check out is easily discredited like the Popular Mechanics (PM) bullshit you tried to use.

you don't read the evidence against your borrowed theories, you are obnoxiously insulting simply because I have a different opinion than you, and you do not recognize when you have been corrected.

Seriously... what is the point?

No because you are stupid to the obvious ... that's why.

Prove there are no unicorns. TY.

there are unicorns ... you've seen one haven't you? Know what it look like don't you ... ha ha ha ...

Nothing on 19. Want to know how to shear a 2 ft beam? Drop 500,000,000 pounds of concrete and steel on it against another 500,000,000 pounds of it trying to withstand the impact. Ever seen sheet metal cut? Same thing only bigger.


I will take that last bit of advice... and wish you the same

Source? Link?

 

[what... huh?]

It depends on the steel ... it can weaken rebarb ... the steel rods in the concrete that supports the bridge ... but the steel use in those skyscapers are massive compare the the steel used in the bridge ... and are fireproofed ... big difference ... excepted to the bushwhacked ...

That look like rebar to you?

Again... my beams are bigger. You can at least see if not read yes?

This is you.