On Mar 5, 5:27 pm, BDK
magicsteel.com> wrote:>> 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
Insults are the extent of your ammo? How political.
