Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

9/11 Conspiracy Proof?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 26, 27, 28 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:46 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

As stated before, Joo (so why repeat the links here?), 911myths is itself poorly put together. Almost nothing they have there is anything but their own poorly argued suppositions. The site is almost worthless except as a source of some links.

On to you: Your link in no way addresses the question.

if they are so poorly put together then you ought to have no problem answering them/

Joo, you're a dolt. This is why I do not interract with you. You have zero ability to apply logic in your arguments.

Clearly stated previously: I asked nothing about the lengths of any pieces of anything at Ground Zero. I DID ask about the "breaks" that are straight-line with no twisting or distortion of any kind, but that occurred at angles exactly like you'd find after shaped charges had been used in demolition and have molten material all along the "breaks", both inside and outside the column.

Deal with the question, or shut up. I don't care what your opinion is. You are welcome to it. I do object to you wasting bandwidth, space and time with utter stupidity. Clean up your act, or I will simply begin ignoring you again. That tack led to a loooong period of more peaceful posting for me previously.

Also, don't misrepresent my stance. Its lying, and its chickenshit.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:44 am Post subject:

could you like do me a favor and show me where they say that is the case?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:16 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Clearly stated previously: I asked nothing about the lengths of any pieces of anything at Ground Zero. I DID ask about the "breaks" that are straight-line with no twisting or distortion of any kind, but that occurred at angles exactly like you'd find after shaped charges had been used in demolition and have molten material all along the "breaks", both inside and outside the column.

Or, alternatively, at angles exactly like you'd find after the clean-up crews came in and started hacking up the remains to be trucked away.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:33 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Or, alternatively, at angles exactly like you'd find after the clean-up crews came in and started hacking up the remains to be trucked away.

Please do explain. I've never seen molten metal flow from a blowtorch burn. Have you? I've also never seen anyone cut a beam at an angle to break it down. Have you? Especially one standing up vertically... which would make it highly unstable, i.e. dangerous to any working on it or nearby.

Do you even know the pics I'm referring to? Are you even **trying** to answer the question?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Or, alternatively, at angles exactly like you'd find after the clean-up crews came in and started hacking up the remains to be trucked away.

Please do explain. I've never seen molten metal flow from a blowtorch burn. Have you?

Seriously now. How many blowtorch burns have you seen period?

Quote:

I've also never seen anyone cut a beam at an angle to break it down. Have you? Especially one standing up vertically... which would make it highly unstable, i.e. dangerous to any working on it or nearby.

How many people have you seen cut beams?

Quote:

Do you even know the pics I'm referring to? Are you even **trying** to answer the question?

Considering how repetitive your arguments are, I'm assuming it's this picture:

Now, what proof do you have that the above cuts were formed by thermite or other nefarious means and were not the result of the clean up process?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Or, alternatively, at angles exactly like you'd find after the clean-up crews came in and started hacking up the remains to be trucked away.

Please do explain. I've never seen molten metal flow from a blowtorch burn. Have you?

Seriously now. How many blowtorch burns have you seen period?

Quote:

How many people have you seen cut beams?

Quote:

Do you even know the pics I'm referring to? Are you even **trying** to answer the question?

Considering how repetitive your arguments are, I'm assuming it's this picture:

Now, what proof do you have that the above cuts were formed by thermite or other nefarious means and were not the result of the clean up process?

Huff, you're getting to be like Joo: nonsensical. I have made no argument here. Or do you not understand the difference between a question and a statement?

I have an explanation, do you? Offer one. The one offered is nonsense. Watch even one acetylene torch being used and you will know what I mean. Watch several and you'll be certain. How many have I seen? Don't embarrass yourself with such tripe, eh? They don't leave flows of molten metal. Period. Additionally, metal from a girder like the one pictured has been analyzed and found to have residue exactly as would be expected from thermite/mate.

Can you give a sufficient explanation? If not, you are all wet on the topic. And this is just ONE question. I'm more than happy to have a logical alternative to thermite/mate. Give me one.

This is an important question because, as stated before, some points about 9/11 can be argued ceaselessly, thus pointlessly. The only questions worth asking are those that clear the air rather than cloud it. This is one of those. Those who say it all just fell down due to an airplane hitting it have no explanation for those beams. Until you do, you have zero legitimacy in claiming there isn't an alternate explanation possible.

Give us an explanation.

Notice that only one beam looks like it was cut with thermite. The others are breaks/ends of girders that are clean, as one could expect as girders do have open ends, no? So, if the failure was where the beams are connected, this seems reasonable, no? Even expected. For MOST of the beams. IF the building was brought down with the aid of thermite/shaped charges, not all girders would ahve been cut. In fact, a quite small proportion of them would have been cut in this way. (This is a point the Gov't conspircy advocates, i.e. you, ignore. They always ask how could an entire building be fit with explosives? The whole building need not be. And don't forget the entire building that was retrofitted while occupied... But I digress...) So, we should find only SOME cut ends like this.

Now, ask yourself why all the other beams seem to have clean, perpendicular ends and only the one with residue is cut at an angle? There is ZERO reason for that. ZERO. And this is not the only picture of such a beam. There is at least one other picture of a beam that looks exactly as this one does.

Explanation, please.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Huff, you're getting to be like Joo: nonsensical. I have made no argument here. Or do you not understand the difference between a question and a statement?

Yes, I understand the difference between a question and a statement. I also understand the difference between a genuine question and an obviously biased question.

Quote:

I have an explanation, do you? Offer one. The one offered is nonsense. Watch even one acetylene torch being used and you will know what I mean. Watch several and you'll be certain. How many have I seen? Don't embarrass yourself with such tripe, eh? They don't leave flows of molten metal. Period. Additionally, metal from a girder like the one pictured has been analyzed and found to have residue exactly as would be expected from thermite/mate.

And you've ruled out the use of thermite torches or something else which would contaminate the sample?

Quote:

Can you give a sufficient explanation? If not, you are all wet on the topic. And this is just ONE question. I'm more than happy to have a logical alternative to thermite/mate. Give me one.

Sure.

Looks a lot like our beam in question. Maybe it's not the exact same one. But it looks like we have a reasonable explanation for our clean cut. Notice the molten metal that has dripped from the cut shown.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero? Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:17 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero?

Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

why don't you debunk the debunking theory?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:54 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero?

Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

Who are you talking to? Who are you calling punk?

What hole? One what? Any what?

daskalos

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:28 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero?

Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

What a loathesome creature you are.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:09 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero?

Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

Tsk tsk. I once had respect for your debating style.

I guess even you are subject to emoting when faced with real facts.

Those photos disprove your whole argument.

Let's see a factual comeback and leave out the ad homin.

cbc

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:14 am Post subject:

cbclark4 wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was that hole made by one? Were any used at Ground Zero?

Let me know. And don't question my veracity, punk.

No facts presented. He questioned my motives for posting. That's bullshit and makes him a punk until he aplogizes. I've no need to put up with childish bullshit. When you have to call someone a liar to minimize their comments, you're a punk, pure and simple.

And don't feel bad: I've never respected your's. You stoop to ridicule in virtually every post. Sometimes trying to be clever just makes you rude. Note: if you have to *try* to be clever, you aren't.

Back on topic: if there is proof of thermite torches at Ground Zero, I'd be happy to see it. If not, that they exist is moot. The photos disprove nothing: they weren't taken from Ground Zero. And I have no theory, so you are making the same punk-ass mistake he made. I only have questions. I have no opinion on 911, only questions.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Who's "he"?

Quote:

Back on topic: if there is proof of thermite torches at Ground Zero, I'd be happy to see it. If not, that they exist is moot. The photos disprove nothing: they weren't taken from Ground Zero. And I have no theory, so you are making the same punk-ass mistake he made. I only have questions. I have no opinion on 911, only questions.

Thermite torches or no thermite torches, the photos show that pieces of molten metal can be left by the clean up process. Proving the use of thermite torches is secondary to the lack of chain of possession. i.e. To prove that thermite was used requires a clear chain of possession to verify the purity of the sample. Without that, the test results are meaningless.

The photos also show a logical explanation for the clean-cuts that exist in the undated photos. i.e. construction seams that were cut in the clean up process.

The claim that they aren't from ground zero is baffling. Please explain that.

Also, please explain your claim that you have no theory. All of your questions are obviously biased. Would my claim that I have "no opinion" hold equal weight?

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

No facts presented. He questioned my motives for posting. That's *beep* and makes him a punk until he aplogizes. I've no need to put up with childish *beep*. When you have to call someone a liar to minimize their comments, you're a punk, pure and simple.

And don't feel bad: I've never respected your's. You stoop to ridicule in virtually every post. Sometimes trying to be clever just makes you rude. Note: if you have to *try* to be clever, you aren't.

Back on topic: if there is proof of thermite torches at Ground Zero, I'd be happy to see it. If not, that they exist is moot. The photos disprove nothing: they weren't taken from Ground Zero. And I have no theory, so you are making the same punk-ass mistake he made. I only have questions. I have no opinion on 911, only questions.

I didn't see where someone called you a liar, certainly if they did then the punk comment was legit. You certainly are not a liar. I was not attempting to ridicule was merely suggesting a return to debate was in order.

cbc

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 26, 27, 28 Next
Page 27 of 28

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe