DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: The one rathole this thread has yet to descend into... until now. Islam has nothing to do with 9-11, after-all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 It's part of it but things are rarely that simple. Thinking they were is a big reason this all turned into such a mess. All religions get used to advance objectives that have nothing to do with religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, ?Impact said: The one rathole this thread has yet to descend into... until now. You have been supporting this, and them, the entire thread. And still no shame! Professor Hulsey has shown us, in certain terms, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  What part of this, which you were petrified to quote, do you not understand? Quote Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: ... we're looking at progressive collapses, what we found is quite interesting, but no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have symmetrical behavior, it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure is not built perfectly, for god's sake, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to come straight down. A building forced to come STRAIGHT down is a building that is being brought down by controlled demolition. Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Wilber said: It's part of it but things are rarely that simple. Thinking they were is a big reason this all turned into such a mess. All religions get used to advance objectives that have nothing to do with religion. Â What part of Islam am I misunderstanding? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, Wilber said: It's part of it but things are rarely that simple. Thinking they were is a big reason this all turned into such a mess. All religions get used to advance objectives that have nothing to do with religion. No, Wilber, it was a made in the USA fable, one that is still being made and strengthened as we speak that the alleged hijackers were radical Islam that was hell bent on destroying the west and all its wonderful values! Some values we have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:  What part of Islam am I misunderstanding? You should be asking yourself, What part of everything am I misunderstanding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: You should be asking yourself, What part of everything am I misunderstanding?  Says the Troother. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: No, Wilber, it was a made in the USA fable, one that is still being made and strengthened as we speak that the alleged hijackers were radical Islam that was hell bent on destroying the west and all its wonderful values! Some values we have! You must really hate yourself. I really don't know how you expect people to take you seriously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Wilber said: You must really hate yourself. I really don't know how you expect people to take you seriously. This is one for all the Freuds. Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what science is, Wilber? Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what compassion is, Wilber? Can you not grasp how many millions have died because of these lies, how many hundreds of millions have had their lives and countries destroyed? Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:  What part of Islam am I misunderstanding? The part that says it isn't some monolithic entity or that people will try to bend it and use it to advance their own ambitions. Christianity has the same sort of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Wilber said: The part that says it isn't some monolithic entity or that people will try to bend it and use it to advance their own ambitions. Christianity has the same sort of history.  I reject your opinion re: Islam. I've read the Quran and a pile of Hadiths. I didn't misread them.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Thirty Years War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:  I reject your opinion re: Islam. I've read the Quran and a pile of Hadiths. I didn't misread them.... Yeah, trust this man of science, Wilber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Wilber said: Thirty Years War Off topic gentlemen. Start a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Wilber said: Thirty Years War  Surprisingly, not all about Roman Catholics vs Protestants. Gustavus Adolphus didn't think: I'm going to crush Pappenheim to save Europe from Roman Catholicism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:  Surprisingly, not all about Roman Catholics vs Protestants. Gustavus Adolphus didn't think: I'm going to crush Pappenheim to save Europe from Roman Catholicism. No, aside from the atrocities committed in the name of religion, religion was used to advance other ambitions. That is the point I was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 21 minutes ago, hot enough said: A building forced to come STRAIGHT down is a building that is being brought down by controlled demolition. Halsey was directly asked about controlled demolition stated categorically that he cannot make that claim. You are again confusing science with truther conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Halsey was directly asked about controlled demolition stated categorically that he cannot make that claim. You are again confusing science with truther conspiracy theories. Again, not a link, not a quote, just your regular dishonesty. Of course not. That wasn't the direction of his study, which, if you had had the slightest thread of honesty, we would have been able to have established long ago just what his study was all about. You illustrated by your continued deceptions that you didn't want the results of Professor Halsey's study here. His study was and is, paraphrased, I can't tell you what brought it down, I can only tell you what did not bring it down But this abysmal lack of honesty that you have carried like a banner throughout this thread, keeping every out to lunch individual on your side, just for the sake of having a bunch of detractors on your side. There have been a lot of despicable things on this thread and you own many of them. Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: Again, not a link, not a quote, just your regular dishonesty. ... His study was and is, paraphrased, You ask for a quote, but don't provide one yourself? What exactly however is different from what you claim he said and I do? We both seem to claim he cannot say what brought down the tower. Is it not dishonesty to continue to make the despicable claim that it was a controlled demolition? Edited March 7, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You ask for a quote, but don't provide one yourself? What exactly however is different from what you claim he said and I do? Yes, I did provide a quote, a transcribed one, which I noted was transcribed from a video and it could contain some errors. What you do is almost never or never produce a source, a quote or a link.  Quote We both seem to claim he cannot say what brought down the tower. Is it not dishonesty to continue to make the despicable claim that it was a controlled demolition? No, what is dishonest is for you to not provide the context in which he said that. Because that would be honest and that is just not you. You have been claiming since the get go, with all manner of personal attack, both your own and those you encourage, that the official story has some measure of truth, despite all the evidence that shows it is impossible. Now NIST's WTC7 is worth the paper it was deceived on. And on you go. More of your dishonesty.  Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 44 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Is it not dishonesty to continue to make the despicable claim that it was a controlled demolition? Perform some more kitchen experiments and tell us what it was. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 19 hours ago, hot enough said: If you knew how to do research, you could find out two things; it's commonly used among people knowledgeable in this field and secondly, it follows the rules of English grammar/word formation perfectly.  1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: This is one for all the Freuds. Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what science is, Wilber?    Quote  Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what compassion is, Wilber? Can you not grasp how many millions have died because of these lies, how many hundreds of millions have had their lives and countries destroyed?   So, stop trying to make victims of the hijackers who deliberately slammed those planes into the towers! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, hot enough said: You have been claiming since the get go, with all manner of personal attack, both your own and those you encourage, that the official story has some measure of truth, despite all the evidence that shows it is impossible. Now NIST's WTC7 is worth the paper it was deceived on. And on you go. More of your dishonesty. Hulsey claims that WTC 7 could not be brought down by fire alone NIST claims that fire was the primary factor in bringing down WTC 7 Those are not incompatible statements. I certainly am interested in seeing what Hulsey publishes, and the professionals who review his findings. Certainly a more detailed finite element analysis is welcome, and that is what he is promising. He has made claims about deficiencies in the NIST model (e.g. connectors, friction, heat conduction/insulation of concrete, etc.), and claims to have a model that take them into account. It would be very interesting in seeing if he quantifies how much each of those contribute to differences in the model. By his own words, which you paraphrased above, he has not claimed any more insight into what did cause the collapse.  Edited March 7, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 24 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Hulsey claims that WTC 7 could not be brought down by fire alone NIST claims that fire was the primary factor in bringing down WTC 7 Have you watched any video presentation of Prof Hulsey describing his study? If you have, which one or ones? Where has your info come from and why no links from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.