Geez, Bob. Is it necessary to be so adversarial?

Can we not just discuss facts and ideas without getting all personal and reactionary?

clocker bob wrote: Interesting how my ideology can be both dangerous and irrelevant.

Bob, you're about as dangerous as hand cream..

Hello everyone. I definitely won't be bothered to read this whole thread, so I don't know if someone's pointed this out ahead of time. But the obvious explanation is that the government knocked this highway over in an effort to make it look like petroleum fire could melt steel beams. The conspiracy just gets deeper....

Yeah, I've seen the website. It's funny as hell.

Gramsci wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Interesting how my ideology can be both dangerous and irrelevant.

Bob, you're about as dangerous as hand cream..

Hey, you're the one with the cognitive dissonance. Both of these statements below can't be true, but in your scattered brain, you try and juggle them.

Gramsci Argument #1: Conspiracy theorists are nuts. Anyone who listens to them is crazy.

Gramsci Argument #2: Conspiracy theorists are holding progressives back. They have too much influence, and they divide the movement.

For you to employ both those arguments, you are claiming that conspiracy-phobic leftist cowards would be ringing up victory after victory against corporate power, if only the conspiracy-phobes were able to bring all the crazy conspiracists back to their side.

That's hilarious, you retard. You simultaneously dismiss conspiracy theorists and blame them for your own failures- except you don't see your failures as yours, you think the blame falls on us.

Maybe you need to look at your own soggy, dork-infested and spineless movement to understand why you have no traction and why the New World Order plays you socially-acceptable clowns like fiddles. You and your movement have too many sacred cows to ever do any harm to the elites. They laugh at you and we laugh at you. On that, we agree.

Gramsci on May 4, 2007:

gramsci wrote:Ummm. The WTC collapsed because the structural strength was in the external cladding of the buildings, like any cylinder. For a very easy example of how this works stand on a soda/beer can, then poke it in the side with your finger. That's the exact reason the WTC collapsed, but planes were the finger.

It's basic architectural stuff... the structural integrity of both buildings was catastrophically compromised by the destruction of a section of the cladding, the fuel only operated to make things worse by weakening the structure further.

Fire had nothing to do with the WTC collapse, gravity did...

Gramsci on May 6, 2007:

gramsci wrote:It's simple Bob, you punch a hole on the load bearing facade of zillion floor building, then ignite a couple of tons of kerosine mixed with ethanol in there and the building falls over...

Is that simple enough?

Nice. Only took you two days to jump from a gravity-driven collapse to a gravity-driven collapse aided by fire. Big problems, though:

From the NIST report, 2005, pg. 127:
"The duration of temperatures near 1000 C was about 15 to 20 minutes. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 C or below."

NIST report, pg. 140:
"NIST contracted with UL to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of the trusses like those in the WTC towers...all four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately two hours without collapsing."

Say goodbye to the pancake theory.

Regarding the jet fuel:

NIST, pg. 179:
"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."

Occam's Razor:

Controlled demolition has imploded hundreds of steel skyscrapers.

Fire and gravity and plane impact have never demolished a steel skyscraper on any day but 9/11/01 ( according to the government theory ).

Therefore, Occam's Razor points to controlled demolition as the most likely hypothesis.

You have presented no physical evidence to support that hypothesis.

Colonel Panic wrote:You have presented no physical evidence to support that hypothesis.

Of course I have. If I see three buildings implode in a manner identical to controlled demolition, then controlled demolition must become a hypothesis considered by those investigating the crime ( other than by dopes like you and Gramsci ). Physical evidence is:

rate of collapse

squibs

pulverized concrete

ejected steel

liquid and molten metal

reports of explosions by eyewitnesses

And above all that, the utter rarity of fire/gravity collapses before or after 9/11, which demands that a more plausible explanation for the demolitions be studied. Because the fires and impacts could not have created conditions that exceeded the load bearing capacity of the buildings, the fire/impact theory must be rejected.

This place is full of government shill-types.

Don't let them get you down Bob.

sunset_gun wrote:This place is full of government shill-types.

Don't let them get you down Bob.

They need to send someone fast. I just added another reader. I'm up to six.

Another point on the towers that I don't think I have emphasized enough- there were two floorswith extra reinforcements in each tower, 1/3 up and 2/3 up, with an added layer of hat trusses. These floors are where the majority of the elevator shafts terminated and began. You can see them clearly in these pics:



Of course, gramsci the liar will tell you that these buildings were cylinders just like coke cans, and all the load bearing was on the perimeter columns. What a nut/shill. Who the hell knows with that guy...