> On Mar 5, 1:49 pm, BDK
magicsteel.com> wrote:>>> On Mar 5, 12:01 pm, BDK
magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Mar 4, 6:20 pm, Iarnrod
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>> donny wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 4:30 pm, Iarnrod
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> donny wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 10:51 am, Iarnrod
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 6:03 am, donny
yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 8:38 pm, Iarnrod
yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> donny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:48 pm, Iarnrod
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't need to be an expert to see what happened. The buildings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were brought down by controlled demo.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donny: Controlled demolition is a physical impossibility for these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases. Did you miss the teevee where it showed airplanes crashing into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I saw the planes crashing into the towers.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, good, because that's what caused the collapses of the towers. Lots
>>>>>>>>>>>> of structural damage, uncontrolled fires, massive loads shifting from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the damage and weakened supports, suddenly 30 floors above came down
>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamically and crushed what was in its path on the way to the ground.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That should clear up that confusion!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No plane crashed into #7.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct. However, you might not have seen the tens of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>> tons of free-falling steel debris that DID crash into it and gouge a
>>>>>>>>>>>> huge hole into the south facade for about half the height of WTC7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> setting off more uncontrolled fires and instability that also led to
>>>>>>>>>>>> its collapse.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any more questions I can help with, I would be more than happy.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The buildings collapsed far too neatly and quickly to suggest that the
>>>>>>>>>>> two aircraft brought them down.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're kidding, right? "Neatly?" Have you not even SEEN any of the
>>>>>>>>>> videos and photos? "Neatly???" And "quickly?" Ever hear of gravity?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious: As a kooker, what is it that makes you "think" the
>>>>>>>>>> combination of severe structural damage from the plane crashes and the
>>>>>>>>>> resulting uncontrolled fires couldn't have done this? Why do you need
>>>>>>>>>> to invent things other than what your own two eyes have seen? How can
>>>>>>>>>> you reject plain sight in order to delve into bias-driven physically
>>>>>>>>>> impossible fantasies?
>>
>>>>>>>>> My two eyes have seen something that defies common sense.
>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you could help us by explaining what it was that you thought
>>>>>>>> defied common sense. It is not readily apparent, since everything that
>>>>>>>> day, while horrific, followed all physical laws and expectations that
>>>>>>>> would result when people find it in their way to do such acts of
>>>>>>>> terrorism in such a manner.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If by
>>>>>>>>> planes then they should have collapsed(if it is even possible that
>>>>>>>>> they collapse completely)in a chaotic fasion.
>>
>>>>>>>> They did. What on earth do you think was "neat" or orderly about the
>>>>>>>> collapses? You're not really explaining anything here other than your
>>>>>>>> own incredulity.
>>
>>>>>>> It's a matter of perspective. I see a neat, orderly and very quick
>>>>>>> collapse; you obviously don't. Maybe you should explain what was so
>>>>>>> chaotic about the collapse.
>>
>>>>>> Shit went all over, collateral damage to numerous buildings, vehicles
>>>>>> set ablaze, dust and debris for blocks... Shall I go on? More
>>>>>> importantly, why do *you* think that the collapse was "neat and
>>>>>> orderly" and why on earth do you think that means the plane crashes
>>>>>> were not ultimately responsible? No matter what might initiate the
>>>>>> collapse, it all still falls downward. "Neat and orderly" by no means
>>>>>> would suggest it couldn't have been the obvious cause -- the plane
>>>>>> crashes and subsequent fires.
>>
>>>>> Neat and orderly are of course relative here. I don't mean to imply
>>>>> that the building collapse was perfect. It wasn't. I'm just saying
>>>>> that I would expect a much more chaotic collapse(if it could collapse
>>>>> at all)than actually happened. The collapse itself was extremely
>>>>> fast. Almost at free fall speed.
>>
>>>> Until you learn to tell time, you won't understand anything else.
>>
>>>> BDK
>>
>>
>> Another kookpage, full of koo-koo-kookery.
>>
>> Why aren't I surprised, Donny?
>>
>> BDK
>
> That's your argument BDK? 'Kookpage'? Why aren't I surprised?
>
If you had half a clue, you would take one look at it, laugh, and say to
yourself, "Wow, what a whacked out kookpage!" Instead, you forget
everything you supposedly learned in science class, and open wide.
BDK
