U watch -- U consider -- U explain

I know about mimimal posts.

Some times the less one says, the more room there is for others to consider.

Like I said: U watch


www.youtube.com...


Then : U consider


And Finally : U explain

reply to post by hdutton


Nice comparison. It is (also) my humble belief that the people that can't 'see' what is presented to them in a direct or a comparative way concerning 9/11, is because, their sub-conscience is protecting their outlook on their world. Without this protection, their world would crumble. I feel for them, but at the same time, they anger me. Truth is always better than a manufactured dream IMO.

(credit to tossoutguilt for being inside my head.....)

reply to post by hdutton


Different buildings, different circumstances, different results. Not exactly one of the world's great mysteries.

Your supposed to know 9/11 is a inside job, they would have done a better job if you were not supposed to know. They would not have put it in movies and they would have said that terrorist planted charges.
Just like the JFK assignation, they told you the bullet came from behind even though his head flu back because they wanted you to know "DONT SCREW WITH US WE WILL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF OR FRAME YOU AS A TERRORIST"

reply to post by hooper


!!!! FIRE !!!!!!

!!!! TIME !!!!!!

!!!! GRAVITY !!!!!!

Your right ! Not always the same !

Originally posted by hdutton


And Finally : U explain

Simple to do.

Truthers are argueing from a point of incredulity and nothing else when they use this video as evidence that 9/11 was an inside jerb..

It's really evidence that engineering, and specifically fire science and its engineering, is a mature industry and that they do a pretty good job of protecting buildings from fires.

As a matter of fact, the very existence of fire science and the amount of money spent on understanding how fire will attack a steel building disproves truther's incredulity to anyone rational.

Truthers remain unmoved, so what does that tell you about them?

the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

Originally posted by hdutton
I know about mimimal posts.

Some times the less one says, the more room there is for others to consider.

Like I said: U watch


www.youtube.com...


Then : U consider


And Finally : U explain

The pile of the same stupid just gets bigger and bigger, but as long as it gets the Truthers giddy and moist, I suppose its all good.

Why they keep pointing to fires in buildings that were *totally* different from the WTC, and buildings that did not have 767 slammed into them and then, with great breathlessness and many typographical errors )!!!!@@!!) and while losing the ability to spell, say "See? U explain", just adds to the aforementioned pile of stupid.

It just gets faster and funnier. A digital Occupy Wall Street !!!!@@!@

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

This was a hotel in Madrid. It burned - "slap - damn - up" !

Why did it not melt enough for "the top floors" to fall ???

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I've read all of your posts on this subject for the past few months, and have reached the conclusion that you have absolutely no idea what happened that day, but yet you insist on agreeing with anyone who believes the OS. What does that tell me about you?

Originally posted by dillweed
What does that tell me about you?

Why don't you explain to me how this video is based on a scientific facts and evidence, and NOT an appeal to incredulity?

Cuz I see none, nor does any rational person.

So I guess that should tell you that I'm a rational person that follows the science, and not any incredulity that videos like this try to inspire in the gullible

Originally posted by hdutton

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

This was a hotel in Madrid. It burned - "slap - damn - up" !

Why did it not melt enough for "the top floors" to fall ???

because metal will conduct heat like a heat sink. A fact those evil bastards don't want you to remember. They would rather verbally assault the person behind the comment (like calling them truthers as if it were a malady or something) than address the information... when the information can't be explained they will steer the conversation into one of defend yourself rather than draw attention to the content.

One other interesting aspect they don't want you to consider is how come a blow torch doesn't melt? Or the pot on your stove? Nope, they would rather have you believe the obvious lie than see logic.

As liars, they always get caught because this lie is so big not everyone is on the same page and doesn't know what to say..

Here is an example of how easy they get caught lying...

Google Video Link

The truth needs no explanation yet the shills/trolls/gatekeeprs/disinfo/cointelpro agents always put the truth on trial in the court of public opinion rather than explain the lunacy behind the theory they promote.

Justice is the best money can buy... unless you are God. The time is coming when all dues will be paid

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Sorry I skipped your reply.

I show a llink to a video comparing two buildings which have been distroyed.

The first thing you come up with is "9/11 was not an inside job".

Can and will you explain to me where that came from ?

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Sorry I skipped your reply.

I show a llink to a video comparing two buildings which have been distroyed.

The first thing you come up with is "9/11 was not an inside job".

Can and will you explain to me where that came from ?

Shills just do that, wont address, just smear. Fairytalers job at its best. The problem they have is that if they start really discussing the issues the OS holds no water, so they cant discuss, just smear.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by hooper

 

!!!! FIRE !!!!!!

!!!! TIME !!!!!!

!!!! GRAVITY !!!!!!

Your right ! Not always the same !

You forgot

!!!! BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION !!!!!

Just because you labeled them both simply as "buildings" does not mean they are the same.

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

I read I considered and I laugh.

In a forest fire when flames burn a tree from bottom to top does the tree fall into its own roots?

well why not? The wood burns completely and it only has gravity acting on it?

That is what you are saying except with steel the fall would be even more lopsided not uniformly straight down. You guys must really think we are all idiots and I for one resent asinine remarks like you make with the implication that you got it all right and the entire world is wrong.

Further, tiny bone fragments of what was once thousands of people rained down on NY and yet you have no conscience or moral outrage over that apparently.

Get help...

reply to post by hooper


Please to define the differences in steel frame building and steel frame building .


I really need your help, I am getting confused.

Originally posted by hdutton

I show a llink to a video comparing two buildings which have been distroyed.

And I pointed out that the video is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity.

There is zero science behind it.

Do you care to comment on the very existance of fire science and engineering that attempt to mitigate the effects of fire on buildings? Cuz to the rational, their very existance is proof positive that fires are a danger to buildings.

Originally posted by Saltarello

so they cant discuss, just smear.

Care to discuss the science in the video?

Cuz the rational see nothing but an appeal to incredulity.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


HuH ?

I guess you are right. Fire is dangerous.

Not only to buildings but to the people who might be in them at the time.

Actually, I thought of the posting of this vid as a kind of retorical excersize which would cause most people to pause and think about the "normal" effects of a castistrophic fire on a building. ( I had one man tell me the main difference was 'one of them is at night'.")

NIST told us Building seven collapsed because of "office fires". Well, so much for the credibility of NIST.