You just keep obsessing about towers 1 and 2, you won't discuss #7 because it defies everything you can muster to explain.
You spend 70% of your posts attacking others, which makes you just the other fat mean kid no one wants to play with, hell you even attack your own supporters.
LOL @ 70% of my posts attacking others. Please demonstrate this lest you be labeled a liar and all you have said be stricken.
I have said several times that I like to move one thing at a time. There is still much left unresolved on 1&2. If you are wiling to concede the argument I will gladly move ahead full steam on 7.
Watch this video, it puts WTC 7 and another controlled demo building side by side for comparison, the both fall exactly the same, same speed starting from the bottom up. Explain that!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_comparison.wmv now that looks exactly controlled, hard to deny it.
My explanation is the same as yours. "I wouldn't expect it to fall like that."
And don't give me that fire shit, we have already proven the 2 little fires could mnot have done that, plus the very small physical damage from debris certainly would not do it either, the combination of both would not even put a dent into it.
You haven't proven any such thing... you have stated it several times. Here is another example of you kids misunderstanding/misusing the terms "evidence" "proof" and "disproven". A statement does not "disprove" anything, even if it seems logical. For instance... "2 small fires wouldn't burn for 7 hours". There... have I PROVEN how the building fell? No. Neither have you.
BTW the fire fighters did not think the buildings were going to fall, if they did you wouldn't have 300 dead now would they? Fire commanders don't send firefighters into a building they think is going to disintegrate. Fire fighters do not make the big decisions, the commanders do.
The firefighters knew building 7 was going to fall because the back side was bulging between floors 10 and 13.
Yep telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them contradictory pricks, yeah that is civility in action right there. Quite sure I have been the one acting civil.
I said also that before I returned in kind, I was seeing how the moderators handled it. I was new. If you are going to attempt to attack me personally, I am going to do it better than you to discourage it. The time I have available, your individual demeanor towards me, and the leash I am given determines how I treat you. You will notice I have not replied with anything but respect to Huffy, who has, as of yet, not been insulting. You may also note that I stopped reading grow rebels posts 20 pages back. If you want to return jibes while we argue, I don't take issue with it... but grow a thick skin... and be aware that you bring it on yourself. I enjoy being insulting as much as the next guy, but I think it distracts from this argument, which I find important, so despite my enjoyment, I would prefer to remain civil... but really either way, I'm good.
Yep telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them contradictory pricks, yeah that is civility in action right there. Quite sure I have been the one acting civil.
The beginning is the FIRST PART not the second paragraph, not the second sentence the very first sentence. If someone told you to read them a book FROM THE BEGINNING, would you then go and start at the second chapter because its close enough? fuck no you would start at the sentence that began "It was a dark and stormy night."
"Meg Murry, her small brother Charles Wallace, and her mother had come down to the kitchen for a midnight snack when they were upset by the arrival of a most disturbing stranger."
Couldn't resist.
The FIRST sentence. If you are anti semantic then you are anti meaning of words, or another way to say it is, you try to convince others that the meaning of the word is somehow different than what everyone thinks it means.
I didn't say first. I said beginning. Meg Murray walked into her mothers lab where bunson burners were lit in the beginning of the book too as I recall. A tesseract is mentioned in the beginning somewhere as well...
I am glad to clear that up for you.
This is a forum, Semantics are extremely important, there is no way to tell sarcasm from seriousness as there is no inflection to a post. Words must have a common meaning and buddy let me tell ya, the beginning of a post is the first fucking sentence, not the second sentence and not the beginning of the second paragraph.
As I said, because you misuse the term, does not mean you have been mislead.
The reason I said "begin" is because over the last 40 or 50 pages your modus operandi has seemed to be in the following order.
1 Address a point with rebuttal.
2 Ask for a contrived answer to a question.
3 Drop an insult about my integrity or comprehension skills.
4 Address other point or points.
5 Close insisting that I am not answering your questions, not noticing the rest of the post doesn't address the one question I ask until some 10-20 pages later.
The speculative questions, which you lambaste me for for asking, generally happen in the beginning stages of your posts. When they occur is not the point of addressing them however... that they occur is. If my impression of WHEN they are dropped is not completely accurate by your understanding of the word, then I sincerely apologize that I somehow indicated that their position in your posts bore any relevance. I guess a better way to have phrased it would have been to say "Funny, since so many of your questions ask or insist upon the same thing."
Now let me give you an estimate on how much thermite, between 1 pound and 10 trillion, somewhere in there ok? I have never blown up a world trade center so I can't tell you, maybe your friend has experience with 120 story steel skyscrapers, if he doesn't he isn't an expert at it is he?
So there are no demolitions experts who can comment on WTC is all that means. No architects who have not built buildings that tall... no... well really nobody is an expert in anything to do with the WTC towers unless they applied their expertise TO the towers... and unfortunately they are all in on it. That sucks. Nobody knows anything about physics, demolition, or thermodynamics... well... except you and grow.
How long will the reaction last? as long as there is reactable material, in the case of WTC 3 months. Pretty hard for us to PROVE anything and as such it is pretty hard for you to PROVE anything either. The building is gone, all the steel was melted down and the rest was burried in a land fill. So you go ahead and keep making your bridge argument and we will keep ignoring it.
Of course you will ignore evidence which directly contradicts your dogma. That is how fanaticism works. Gas doesn't burn at 2000 degrees, steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000, the truck was consumed in the blaze bringing the flames to over 3000 degrees. Why WOULD you acknowledge it? It demonstrates that heat fatigue and the weight of 13 - 25 floors could result in collapse.
How about you address some lingering problems which plague your theory.
1. Why would the thermite reaction not happen due to the heat from the fires/impact explosion?
The only answer given is that the thermite was in the lower 75% of the building... which begs question
A) How did the building fall from the top down AT the point of impact?
2. Why is there no record of any building in history being demolished from the top down?
3. Alumothermite reaction time. "As long as there is combustible material." Combustable material being iron oxide and powdered aluminum oxide... how long does it take to vanquish itself? It creates very intense heat for a very short time. You are avoiding the answer in your answer. There is a formula from which one can derive the maximum amount of burn time of a given reaction based on quantity. Give me that time... then make up a quantity (starting to see where this is going? Science sure is annoying ain't it?).
4. Gravity is a problem with thermite.
Securacom's may had a contract end in 1998, BUT that doesnt mean they dont have to complete previous contracts
The problem with your theory and links lies in the fact that securacom didn't "do" the installations of aything. J.E. Electric Installations Co. ran all of the cabling, installed all of the cameras/computer lines/control systems. Securacom was a systems integrator. They were in charge of tying the redundant command centers together, and translation from video hardware to computer IO controlling and grouping... sophisticated video systems are a pain in the ass. Evidently securacom sucked at it. The WTC security director (John O'Neil) was also killed in the collapse. You are going to have to include port authority in your group of people "in on it". A minimum number I am still waiting on.
They were also "excused" from their contract because of fulfillment failures in 98, which is the last time they got a check. They had an active contract in pen only.
"security" was handled by its owners... port authority... which had, among other things, bomb sniffing k9s on WTC premises. Including poor Sirius who died on 9/11.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
But now i shall call you something..... hypocrite!!
See above.
Keep it up ... it's a absolute joy making you look like a fool.
bullshit ... already been there and done that ... slam you with links to polls in a 
... still more proof you're fucked in the head. All too easy.
