RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE

RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Yes he does. but seriously, I'd like to hear your theory as to what did it if there were no planes or missiles. You are a smart woman. You can figure it out for yourself. Yes I am Rule, smart enough to not believe conspiracy theories which make no sense at all. That is why you have to make sense of it yourself.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:16:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 2) You'd need a hell of a transmitter to get enough signal strength within the building. Why?

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:17:49 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite note the part about molten iron.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:18:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Yes he does. but seriously, I'd like to hear your theory as to what did it if there were no planes or missiles. You are a smart woman. You can figure it out for yourself. Yes I am Rule, smart enough to not believe conspiracy theories which make no sense at all. That is why you have to make sense of it yourself. yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Kick their asses when you simply let these propaganda whores know its they who have the theory and we who have the material evidence to prove THEIR theory is fucked. Because the evidence does match the guberment claim (THEORY) thats how you fight a propaganda war and win. ;)

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:18:17 AM)
quote: That is why you have to make sense of it yourself. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Yes he does. but seriously, I'd like to hear your theory as to what did it if there were no planes or missiles. You are a smart woman. You can figure it out for yourself. Yes I am Rule, smart enough to not believe conspiracy theories which make no sense at all. That is why you have to make sense of it yourself. I already have, I was looking for your explanation, which you neatly dodge every time you are asked for it.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:19:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Yes he does. but seriously, I'd like to hear your theory as to what did it if there were no planes or missiles. You are a smart woman. You can figure it out for yourself. Yes I am Rule, smart enough to not believe conspiracy theories which make no sense at all. That is why you have to make sense of it yourself. yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Kick their asses when you simply let these propaganda whores know its they who have the theory and we who have the material evidence to prove THEIR theory is fucked. Because the evidence does match the guberment claim (THEORY) thats how you fight a propaganda war and win. ;) Lets see. Do fireman ever commit arson? Yup. Do people ever commit insurance fraud? yup.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:21:12 AM)
http://www.google.com/search?q=fireman%20ever%20commit%20arson

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:26:39 AM)
quote: yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Careful RO you're sounding a bit "us vs them". All I'm asking for is his view on what brought down the WTC nothing more. I'm just curious, don't read into it what isn't there. On second thought, it's what you specialize in....seeing what isn't there.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:45:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Careful RO you're sounding a bit "us vs them". All I'm asking for is his view on what brought down the WTC nothing more. I'm just curious, don't read into it what isn't there. On second thought, it's what you specialize in....seeing what isn't there. well your question is inappropriate since we the people did not do the "official" investigation which made the "official" claim there was a conspiracy before any investigation was completed. If you dont want to get framed in with the propagandists then done use their tactics.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:47:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Each detonator would require it's own receiver and power supply. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Not easy to hide. Depends on the detonator and the power supply, not so? It seems to me that there was plenty of power available in the towers themselves, as for example the emergency electrical power supplies. I do not need to know how it was set up precisely. I only need to realize that in principle it can be done in various ways. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Even with very low power receivers (superregenerative) you'd have to replace the battery (say if you wanted to keep the box down to 3x3x4) in a year or so. I do not think that the detonators were present in the towers for more than two weeks, and the last ones to be emplaced for more than one day. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Better yet, add a transmitter so you could check for life of the unit. Why? There may have been up to 240 x 100 = 24000 detonators emplaced. Who cares, considering such redundancy, if some of them do not function? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Oops...now you need a bigger battery. No, you do not. Because one does not check for the life of the unit. What batteries? Do you have any proof that batteries were used? The detonators may have been powered by the building's electricity supply. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Oops, now you need a bigger transmitter to make it through the walls What walls? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy and now you have a hazard to the detonator itself. Why? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 4) You'd need an antenna with pretty damn good gain Why? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 5) If your receivers only wake up sporadically to check for messages, you'd never get the precision required for demolition. Why would anyone want to wake them up sporadically? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 6) You wouldn't want any big transmitters nearby for safety reasons (which would be a problem since WTC 1 had kilowatts of power on the roof due to all the broadcasting gear.) Why would one not want any big transmitters nearby? If each detonator is triggered by a specific frequency code, there is no likelihood within the two weeks that the detonators are emplaced that any will be erroneously triggered by nearby transmitters that each function at their own specific, easily avoided, frequencies and that cannot possibly accidentally transmit the code.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Each detonator would require it's own receiver and power supply. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Not easy to hide. Depends on the detonator and the power supply, not so? It seems to me that there was plenty of power available in the towers themselves, as for example the emergency electrical power supplies. I do not need to know how it was set up precisely. I only need to realize that in principle it can be done in various ways. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 3) Even with very low power receivers (superregenerative) you'd have to replace the battery (say if you wanted to keep the box down to 3x3x4) in a year or so. I do not think that the detonators were present in the towers for more than two weeks, and the last ones to be emplaced for more than one day. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Better yet, add a transmitter so you could check for life of the unit. Why? There may have been up to 240 x 100 = 24000 detonators emplaced. Who cares, considering such redundancy, if some of them do not function? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Oops...now you need a bigger battery. No, you do not. Because one does not check for the life of the unit. What batteries? Do you have any proof that batteries were used? The detonators may have been powered by the building's electricity supply. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Oops, now you need a bigger transmitter to make it through the walls What walls? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy and now you have a hazard to the detonator itself. Why? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 4) You'd need an antenna with pretty damn good gain Why? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 5) If your receivers only wake up sporadically to check for messages, you'd never get the precision required for demolition. Why would anyone want to wake them up sporadically? quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 6) You wouldn't want any big transmitters nearby for safety reasons (which would be a problem since WTC 1 had kilowatts of power on the roof due to all the broadcasting gear.) Why would one not want any big transmitters nearby? If each detonator is triggered by a specific frequency code, there is no likelihood within the two weeks that the detonators are emplaced that any will be erroneously triggered by nearby transmitters that each function at their own specific, easily avoided, frequencies and that cannot possibly accidentally transmit the code. hey thorn has been told that shit how many times now? trying to get her to understand electronics is as futile as trying to get ron to understand physics

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:52:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth I already have, I was looking for your explanation, which you neatly dodge every time you are asked for it. Simply read this thread and study the video that RealOne linked to. Also consider whether I am stupid.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:53:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Careful RO you're sounding a bit "us vs them". All I'm asking for is his view on what brought down the WTC nothing more. I'm just curious, don't read into it what isn't there. On second thought, it's what you specialize in....seeing what isn't there. well your question is inappropriate since we the people did not do the "official" investigation which made the "official" claim there was a conspiracy before any investigation was completed. If you dont want to get framed in with the propagandists then done use their tactics. Wait....asking for someone's opinion is inappropriate. You really have let go of any semblance of reality haven't you? How is asking for an opinion using anyone's tactics let alone the "propagandist"?

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth I already have, I was looking for your explanation, which you neatly dodge every time you are asked for it. Simply read this thread and study the video that RealOne linked to. Also consider whether I am stupid. Oh I know you aren't stupid which is why I'm interested in your opinion. I have read this thread, most of it anyway and I'm not interested in the videos RO has posted, he has more than one screw loose, I stopped watching the videos he posts a long time ago.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 8:59:21 AM)
This thread has reached an entirely new level of humor. Now you even have the lunatics arguing amongst themselves, telling one another their crazy theories are full of shit, and they still don't see the irony.

Rule -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 9:01:55 AM)
RealOne posted the link to the video in his post 126.

pahunkboy -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 9:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Ha! Very convincing. Smart man. What is his name? I knew from the first moment that those pieces were trailing smoke. It is excellent that it has now been established that some of them moved under thermite power. Yep the government sanctioned conspiracy theorists have been one again reduced to calling names and correcting spelling errors! BBWWHAHAHAHA I love it! Rule if you liked that one this one buries them in china with a grave dug in the US! LMAO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5sljqUnUQs&feature=response_watch Take a look at the shadow above the well lit alum oxide on the upper left. You dont see that much fireworks on the 4th of july celebrations! many people know how they did it but you dont mention it on a public board or they swoop down you like starving maggots on shit if you dare say it out loud! LOL Do yo usee what I am talkihg about? scripted out? Next I might ponder that everything anymore is scripted right down to Bush pausing a few minutes looking dumb during a debate. or Obamas teleprompter.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 9:18:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule RealOne posted the link to the video in his post 126. Okay, so you think it was controlled explosions. Then what are the objects seen hitting the towers?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 9:26:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth I already have, I was looking for your explanation, which you neatly dodge every time you are asked for it. Simply read this thread and study the video that RealOne linked to. Also consider whether I am stupid. Your postings on this subject have undoubtedly caused many people to ponder that very question. Unlike most, I don't believe you are. Its clear that you're mentally ill, and I think your mental illness causes you to think and say stupid things. Same with a couple of other conspiracy people in this thread (not all of them but a couple). That's not necessarily the same thing as being stupid. At any rate, your arguments make no sense at all. You just make up whatever you need to make up in order to believe whatever you want to believe. I think you genuinely believe your arguments make sense, but the only people who agree are other people who are mentally ill. No offense. You're a great guy and I really like you. Same with PA, and Mister Rodgers and Mister Mister - they're nice people too. But you're all nuts.

Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (3/7/2010 9:28:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: yeh they always want to hear your "theory" hence you become a conspiracy "theorist" at which point you have one. Careful RO you're sounding a bit "us vs them". All I'm asking for is his view on what brought down the WTC nothing more. I'm just curious, don't read into it what isn't there. On second thought, it's what you specialize in....seeing what isn't there. well your question is inappropriate since we the people did not do the "official" investigation which made the "official" claim there was a conspiracy before any investigation was completed. If you dont want to get framed in with the propagandists then done use their tactics. Wait....asking for someone's opinion is inappropriate. You really have let go of any semblance of reality haven't you? How is asking for an opinion using anyone's tactics let alone the "propagandist"? you didnt ask for an opinion you asked for a fucking theory. Apparently you dont know the difference.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875