Soundtrack Central The best classic game music and more

    Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Kenology Oct 18, 2006 (edited Oct 18, 2006)

I anticipated that...  I should've addressed it earlier. 

But yeah, watch the first piece in my last post, it gives you other examples of controlled demolitions being termed "pulled". 

Also, don't try to take his words out of context!  He was clearly not referring to firefighters when he said "pull it"!  Why wouldn't he have said "pull them" if he was referring to the firefighters?  How do you explain that?  This is just DAMAGE CONTROL! 

How about the other buildings around the world that burned far longer than the WTCs and stood strong?

WTC 7 went down in a controlled demoliton.  He said it.  His spokewoman tried to do some damage control.  But to no avail.  Go on and dig up all the articles that'll say that "pull" doesn't mean controlled demolition.  I bet there are a million of them now!  LOL!  Especially after this screw up with Silverstein on national TV.

avatar! Oct 18, 2006 (edited Oct 18, 2006)

Kenology wrote:

Also, don't try to take his words out of context!  He was clearly not referring to firefighters when he said "pull it"!  Why wouldn't he have said "pull them" if he was referring to the firefighters?  How do you explain that?  This is just DAMAGE CONTROL!

It's so wonderful that you, Kenology, can speak for others!     Silverstein says *he* was referring to the firefighters when *he* said "pulled", but obviously you know better...

Seriously, if a man says "I was referring to firefighters", then how can you POSSIBLY say "no you weren't!  I'll tell you what you were really saying!"   Such an argument is laughable!!  The only person who is taking things out of context is YOU! 

Oh, and as for saying lots of other fires have burned longer than the WTC and such buildings have not collapsed?  Sure, I won't argue with that.  HOWEVER, we need to examine some facts:

1)Let's ask ourselves, before 9-11 how many skyscrapers have been hit by Boeing 767s or other airplanes of comparable size?  The answer is ZERO!!  The impacts by the planes GREATLY damaged the stability of the towers.  Never before (and thankfully since) has such a plane smashed into such a TALL structure!

2)Do all fires burn at the same temperature?  If you burn a log in your fireplace during winter, will it heat up to 1000 degrees Celcius?  Obviously not!  Not to mention the fact that all that jet fuel was spread out over a substantial area.  Thus, you had a 1000 degree Celcius fire over a large area and the amount of energy released is tremendous, and (as previously stated numerous times and ignored by Kenology) greatly weakens the tensile strength of steel!

3)The towers were enormous!  Once the beams failed, you had a million tons that wasn't supporting itself.  Let's see where will it go?  Why straight down thanks to a force known as "gravity".  If the beams did not have to support such an emormous weight (ie if it was a differently designed structure), then sure the structure *might* not have ever collapsed.  However the point is that the collapse of the towers should not be so surprising when you look at the facts (although it certainly was shocking when it happened).     

4)I'm sure I can dig up lots and lots of articles on your so-called "pulled" ploy or whatever you want to call it.  Thanks to the internet, I can also easily dig up articles that "conclusively show" (similar to your 9-11 conspiracy websites), that:

a)the Earth is flat
b)the Moon Landing was a fake
c)the Illuminati control the world...although if you lean along the lines of anti-semitism (which I'm not saying you do) you could say the Jews rule the world
d)the list goes on...


-avatar!

edit: reworded a couple of sentences

csK Oct 30, 2006

Wait, whats going on?  It seemed this thread started with a legitimate question - why one country is not allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes without threats but another country (an isolationist crazy country at that) is testing nuclear bombs with only verbal condemnation - but now its gone into all of this 11 september conspiracy bull?  Puh-lease.

avatar! Oct 30, 2006

csK wrote:

Wait, whats going on?  It seemed this thread started with a legitimate question - why one country is not allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes without threats but another country (an isolationist crazy country at that) is testing nuclear bombs with only verbal condemnation - but now its gone into all of this 11 september conspiracy bull?  Puh-lease.

I agree with you.  The 9-11 conspiracy is a bunch of bull, and it's unfortunate that a crazy leader is testing nuclear bombs with just a minimum of verbal condemnation (I would argue that China is the main reason why more drastic but still non-militaristic actions are not being taken).  Reminds me of Stanley Kramer film, "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"

cheers,

-avatar!

    Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB