Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16

You may consider basic science remarkable but I don't.



They teach us in fire school to do an investigation. What happens in reality is a different matter. That is the point I was making and it is where FE was coming from.




I couldn't care less about how pissed off you are. I only deal in facts and science. Unlike you, I don't let my feelings cloud my judgement on the issue. My training and experience tells me nothing extraordinary occurred on 9/11 regarding the cause of the collapse. Structural Engineers around the would reinforce my "fact" based opinion. Your "piss offedness" has no bearing on the issue.




Thank you.

   

Huh? They teach you to do an investigation... but if one has not been done in reality.. then theories made up of assumptions are tought instead.. ? .. and FE's coming from where?

   

No, that is not true, they have addopted the Israel profiling techniques. What you mentioned is, but a minute part of that.

That's a laugh and a half. The truth is, it's the truth. Whether you like it or not, the cost of life to some people is minimal, so yes, anyone including women and children can be a combatant. Deal with it, it's a fact of war. You should actually be praising Soldiers, because for the most part, they try to dissern between combatant and non-combatant, in milli seconds. Sometimes dying in the process.

   

   

   

That's what I said. What part of it are you having problems comprehending?



No. If one has not been done, firefighters write articles in magazines saying one should have been done because that is what we are taught. Again, I'm not quite sure what it is that you are having problems with.

   

This is what I'm having problems understanding.
They are teaching you theories not based on fact nor evidence, accoarding to yourself.
Explain this, pleas.

   

I'm not debating you any longer. Remember?
You had your chance.

   

Then stop whining about shyte, when you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

btw, I wasn't debating, I was setting you straight. You obviously needed it.

   

Well, they are "based on fact and evidence" to those of us with our heads outside of our rectums.

Fact - High impacts will remove fire proofing. I have seen this when cars have crashed into buildings

Fact - Heat weakens and expands steel

Fact - Steel buildings have collapsed before - I know - I've been to steel quonset fires and watched them.

Fact - The weight of the top floors would have been too much for beams that had lost too much of their strength

Fact - The building fell from the top down and not the bottom up. It began it's collapse where the plane impacted which would be as expected.

Fact - There is more than enough evidence to support the official conclusion.

Fact - The fire industry supports more thorough investigations

Fact - You posted a link to an article that said you are wrong and have feigned being obtuse rather than simply acknowledge your faux pas.

Fact - The last fact may not be fact. You could just be obtuse.

Fact - The CT's are the ones with theories not based on fact nor evidence.

Fact - The "evidence" that shows planes flew into the WTC, caused massive damage and fire and ultimately the destruction of the towers, is not absolutely 100% irrefutable. Nothing is. That is why more thorough investigations wouldn't hurt. Does this give creedence to the CTs. Of course not.

Fact - You could probably take it by correspondence...at least the S200 which doesn't require any practical if I recall. It might help you clear some things up.

   

Ok! Sure! I'm a dumbbell... Now that we got that one settled, let's take a look at the "facts" and "evidence" you have that would show what brought the towers down. Lets look at the steel buildings you have seen collapse and how relevant they are! Hell, I'll take any evidence! Whatever you can find in the current investigations that have been done and that proves anything. Just show it to me. Bold the interesting parts and tell me what you think is evidence and fact.

   

Why? Folks like you won't accept the facts or the evidence anyway.There's tons of info out there but you only accept what you read on foiler sites. I'm not here to debate you. I'm here to point out to others the flaws in your logic and the errors of your ways. If you actually posted scientific findings from people half as credible as Dr Calvert, I probably wouldn't find you near as laughable.

   

You aren't wearing tinfoil are you TheRealCanuck, careful OPP could be reading your thoughts via a valcun mind melt or a coat hanger coming out of his tinfoil hat.

   

Folks like me.. funny...
It seems like the only ones here who can't accept evidence and facts are the "DB's" becaus if non have been presented to me, how am I suposed to be able to ignore them?
Now, I've presented you with an oportunity to shut me up by presenting these evidence... but you refuse! .. and you find ME laughable..?

   

You have not presented any factual evidence. You have presented hearsay, misinformation and CT theories. You refuse to accept basic scientific facts such as steel weakens when heated and you embrace every offhand remark made on 9/11 as the gospel truth. You are a nutcase, plain and simple. I do not debate with nutcases, I laugh at them.

I come to these wingnut threads just so I can post stuff so that some others don't get the wrong impression that you actually have a point.

So you keep posting how it must be a conspiracy because somebody on the ground saw a "military plane" hit the WTC and I'll stick to what air traffic controllers, firefighters, structural engineers and police officers said.... n'K?

   

Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16