What does everyone here think? Have I lost the five (5) rejoinders?Galaxian wrote:Not content with having lost the first 5 rejoinders.Coito ergo sum wrote:1. ...not SOLELY due to a fire.Galaxian wrote:6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.
2. ...fire was not "low intensity."
3. ...the fires were not "secluded."
4. ...the towers were not just set on fire, but had been impacted and severely damage by airplanes flying into them at high rates of speed...
Coming from someone who swallows bunk whole, like it's People's Temple Kook-Aid, I can only laugh at your suggestions. When you do something besides cut and paste, without attribution, screeds from conspiracy websites, I'll take you a bit more seriously.Galaxian wrote: You now proceed to arm-wave over the sixth.
You're so obsessed with denying the bleedin' obvious to serve your masters' agenda that if you had any decency you'd be severely contrite by now. But decency is apparently not in your lexicon:
In part, yes.Galaxian wrote: 1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).
No, they were not. The fires burned and spread from the time of the impact of the planes. Brief duration is a relative term. How long do you consider "brief" in this instance? Give us a couple of example fires that you claim were brief. How long did they burn?Galaxian wrote:
2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.
And, you say that based on......what, exactly?Galaxian wrote:
3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.
I have watched, and it doesn't support your claim.Galaxian wrote: 4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see
Just like a Christian....I won't believe until I sincerely want to believe....Galaxian wrote:
(I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to)
Well, what I "want" has nothing to do with it. If the facts lead to George Bush twirling his mustache and pressing down on a detonator to down the towers to serve his nefarious purposes, fine. But, that's not where the evidence leads, as far as I can tell (including based on everything you've presented). There were no bulky attachments, for example. Yet you still claim there were. We have PROVEN that the images do not show bulky attachments. There were some conspiracy theorists who claim that the planes fired missiles in to the buildings - even you reject that, apparently. The buildings did not drop at or near free fall speed, unless 40 to 45% slower than free fall speed is somehow considered "at or near." Yet you keep making those bogus claims. The buildings falling do NOT look anything like any controlled demolition anywhere, and there is no evidence in existence of sufficient explosive material present to take down the buildings, of the buildings being rigged for demolition, etc. None. Zero.
What I "want" has nothing to do with that. I realize that your beliefs on this issue are based on your wants - your desire for there to be some masters-of-the-universe group hiding in the background, of which you and a select few have inside knowledge and the smarts to puzzle out the "Truth," but I don't operate that way. I don't let what I "want" get in the way of the facts. Try it some time. You might like it.
That's total bull. Just because you keep mouthing the same tired, debunked bullcrap, and just because - as you said - you "want" to believe your stupid conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that it's true. When you get the idea in your head to present one shred of evidence of a controlled demolition, I'll take you seriously, until then, you're a joke.Galaxian wrote:You're kidding, right?Galaxian wrote:
that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged;
To someone not watching it, perhaps it would seem so. But, it looks like a very violent and dramatic hit to me, which rocked the buildings to the very core. I recall my first reaction that day, when I saw the images of the raging infernos and the gaping holes in the buildings. I thought - damn those buildings are fucked - they're coming down today. I hope they get the people out fast. But, then again, I went to school for civil engineering so I'm biased in favor of the laws of physics.Galaxian wrote:
it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff.
Can you show me examples of haphazard and messy building collapses that approximate how tower 7 should have fallen?Galaxian wrote:
Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy.
It was as messy a collapse as I would have expected, actually. The building fell towards the part of the building that had been damaged. But, you seem to have this view that buildings tip over. News flash: they don't. Gravity and the building structure sees to that.
How should they have fallen has they fallen due to impacts that caused the upper floors to collapse onto the lower floors?Galaxian wrote:
But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.
Galaxian wrote:
So, you've FAILED in challenging my first 6 points. Want to keep going? Of course you do: you've got your 'ra-ra' cheerleaders wiggling their bums for you. Can't fore-go that titillating spectacle, can you?
