|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, I had to do that to at one point, for the same reason. I got a little tired of him sidestepping every point made and then proceed to insult me when he didn't know how to respond and ran out of his copy paste arguments. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time arguing him as it's utterly pointless and you might end up reducing yourself to his level. |
people in glass houses shaolin...
interesting that you didnt respond to a single "copy paste" argument. you were almost as bad as culurut with your "no steel building has ever fallen because of fire" until i stomped that one into the ground.
you never did come back with an answer to why you ignore all the fireman testimony regarding WTC7 and the MASSIVE fires it had. but you'll pay attention to minute zero, panicked comments about there being bombs in the buildings. or that witnesses supposedly heard bombs going off. you know, because uneducated, panicked civilians are the best source for distinguishing explosives from explosions or architecture falling apart.
you completely dismissed the article from one of the world's leading demolition teams, as if they were somehow co-opted into saying the WTC buildings werent brought down by demolitions, yet put all your stock in a physics professor that wouldnt know the first thing about engineering and explosives, and whose paper STILL hasnt received a peer review (you know, the FIRST step in getting scientific acceptance for research).
none of you have ever dealt with how much time it would have taken to plant charges in all 3 buildings. completely prohibitive of a clandestine secret plan. you ignore the fact that not a single explosive compound has been suggested that could have been used to bring those towers down. yet, we're still seeing the same, tired thermite arguments from all the professional crazies.
you ignore the fact that the collapse of WTC1&2 arent even close to resembling a controlled demolition. you ignore engineering experts from around the world that have examined this issue.
the reason i ended up insulting you was because you were ignoring anything i had to say. plenty of your arguments are repeated known fallacies and you werent paying attention when i was pointing that out to you. (hey, just like culorut ignoring how youtube hasnt deleted the footage he claims). i never pretended to have the answers to all the arguments you presented, but thats more to do with focus than anything. i prefer to limit the discussion to things that need no inference, such as the buildings fell down. we could go round in circles about what one particular paragraph of the PNAC document is supposed to mean. again, thats not evidence and the amount of weight you and others put in such ambiguous (out of context) sentences borders on the embarrassing.
as for culorut, he has merely posted the same, tired bullshit that has been dealt with 100s of times, without even realising how fucking stupid he is. im pretty sure he even posted an article including questions about why the pentagon missile battery didnt fire on the incoming plane (assuming there was a plane of course!) completely ignoring the fact that pre 9/11 the pentagon had no such system.
but hey, i think its commendable you stick up for your fellow crazies. its kinda cute in a way. please file away the BBC report in your "things that absolutely show 100% that the US government bombed their buildings" file 
___________________
|