mike3 wrote: > On May 3, 7:22 pm, The Great Attractor > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3 May 2007 08:53:39 -0700, malibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On May 3, 12:18 am, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On May 2, 10:14 pm, malibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > On May 2, 9:46 pm, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > > On May 2, 7:10 pm, Midex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > > [...] >> >> >> > > I guess the explanation that people were looking at the building >> >> > > and watching its' structure deform is too rational. >> >> >> > Also, that was a Larry Silverstein impostor who >> >> > said they were going to 'pull it'. >> >> >> ...maybe if you read the context, it would make a little more rational >> >> sense. Fucking nutter. >> >> >> > And the only reason he took out huge amounts >> >> > of extra insurance on the buildings two months >> >> > before this happened was because of global >> >> > warming, because we all know a little bit of heat >> >> > will bring down steel buildings. >> >> >> A little heat and major structural damage. >> >> >> > John >> >> >Gee, I'll bet all those explosions in the >> >subfloors of WTC1 + WTC2 did some >> >structural damage also! >> >> You're an idiot. >> > > You did not refute the claim. How do you > know this claim is wrong? > >> >> >> >Come to think of it. >> >> Slugs do not think. >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >> >> >When the firefighters got there, all the glass >> >on the street floors was blown out. >> >> You're an idiot. >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >Shock wave from the plane hitting >> >80 floors up? >> >> You're a goddamned retard, boy. ARe you an islamic extremist by >> chance? >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >> >> >Janitors and such coming up from the basement levels >> >bleeding and dazed. >> >> You're full of shit. >> > > You did not refute the claim. > > >> >> >> >Jet fuel trickling down the elevator shafts being ignited >> >by someone's roach? And exploding? >> >> You're an ifiot. >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >Severing the three-foot thick steel columns? >> >All 5 dozen of them? >> >(That's mighty fine primo, pardner!) >> >> The buildings collapsed WAY WAY UP on the floors where the planes >> hit, and fell from there down, taking floors out as the large top >> section of the building fell. >> > > First good argument so far... > >> You could be a bit more retarded, just not in this life. >> >> >Your brain got structural damage? >> >> No, but your never was right from the moment your retarded felon >> criminal mother shat you out of her ass and forgot to flush. >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >Dropped on your head as a kid? >> >> Got any more adolescent baby bullshit, little boy? >> > > You did not refute the claim. > >> >Don't put that fire iron too close >> >to the flames, honey. It'll melt >> >and deform! >> >> You're an idiot. There was a tanker crash in Oakland a couple days >> back (Sunday) that melted sections of the bridge it was on. > > Second good argument so far. >
Not actually a good argument. Difference #1. The beams on the bridge were not coated with fireproofing, thus were far more vulnerable. Difference #2. The petroleum fire had hours to act on bare metal in a concentrated way, WTC buildings #1 and #2 came down far less than an hour after impact; not enough time to get through the fireproofing as demonstrated by the comparison tests. Down to one pro self-collapse argument. > Two good arguments and eight non-arguments, > but those two good arguments happen to clinch the thing > anyway... > >> >> Got Clue? You and Rosie are retarded. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
