|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: Michael Moore Gives a Short American History Lesson |
 |
|
I thought this was so interesting that I'd post it here. You have to wonder why these facts are not well known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtIddKIWpzA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Panda
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I really like his documentaries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Panda wrote: |
| I really like his documentaries. |
I like the fact that if they were university level essays the guy would score C's if he was lucky, yet he's fawned over by liberal intellectuals the world over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Panda wrote: |
| I really like his documentaries. |
I like the fact that if they were university level essays the guy would score C's if he was lucky, yet he's fawned over by liberal intellectuals the world over. |
+1
He's such a worthless excuse of an anti-establishment figure. His sole purpose is to vilify the GOP (no difficult task) to make the Dems look good and make people vote for them. He's a complete sell out, liar. His 9/11 documentary was particularly vile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Panda wrote: |
| I really like his documentaries. |
He made a documentary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Panda wrote: |
| I really like his documentaries. |
I like the fact that if they were university level essays the guy would score C's if he was lucky, yet he's fawned over by liberal intellectuals the world over. |
+1
He's such a worthless excuse of an anti-establishment figure. His sole purpose is to vilify the GOP (no difficult task) to make the Dems look good and make people vote for them. He's a complete sell out, liar. His 9/11 documentary was particularly vile. |
Did you even watch the clip? He is vilifying Obama there, or at least both Ds & Rs.
I really like all his docs. What did you not like about Fahrenheit 911? At least he is trying to expose the story of the official fiction there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Panda wrote: |
| I really like his documentaries. |
I like the fact that if they were university level essays the guy would score C's if he was lucky, yet he's fawned over by liberal intellectuals the world over. |
+1
He's such a worthless excuse of an anti-establishment figure. His sole purpose is to vilify the GOP (no difficult task) to make the Dems look good and make people vote for them. He's a complete sell out, liar. His 9/11 documentary was particularly vile. |
Did you even watch the clip? He is vilifying Obama there, or at least both Ds & Rs. |
Nah, he's a pro-Democrat shill, full stop. He criticizes them enough to make people nod their heads, then he comes right and says if we don't vote them back into power we'll all be doomed if the R's get back in (of course this is only half correct). It's the same old story: give the people 90% of the truth (leaving out the most important details, like the fact that both parties are directly controlled by the same private/globalist banking interests), just enough to fool their discernment, then offer them a phony solution based on said bogus premise (ie. that we need to choose the lesser of evils). Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire film maker; there's no way he's ignorant of the truth. He simply plays the role of gate-keeper for the left (much like Noam Chomsky), but is very much part of the establisment. Remember how he stabbed Ralph Nader in the back? The man is a complete sham.
| Quote: |
| I really like all his docs. What did you not like about Fahrenheit 911? At least he is trying to expose the story of the official fiction there. |
That documentary propagated the myth that Bush was merely an idiot whose handling of the attacks was bungled and self-serving. This despite the mountain of evidence that it was an inside job (Michael Moore of course never even touches on this as a possibility). It was white washing, plain and simple. Placing the blame on Bush's supposed "bungled response", and totally ignoring the globalist power structure behind him, which has a long history of false-flag attacks. He left out even the most obviously incriminating points. Compared to films like Loose Change, Farenheit is a joke... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nah, he's a pro-Democrat shill, full stop. He criticizes them enough to make people nod their heads, then he comes right and says if we don't vote them back into power we'll all be doomed if the R's get back in (of course this is only half correct). |
I think out of all the legitimate critcisms that could be made about Michael Moore, accusing him of being a partisan hack is a pretty weak one. He's attacked Clinton in several movies. Lately he's been stuck on Obama's case over health care and Afghanistan. In Capitalism: A Love Story he basically paints Chris Dodd and Barney Frank as criminals. Yes, he's encouraged people to vote Democrat over the past years, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that he's pro-Democrat. He's more than anything anti-Republican, and as rotten as the Democrats can be, lately they have been the only other party that has had a chance of winning.
| Quote: |
| It's the same old story: give the people 90% of the truth (leaving out the most important details, like the fact that both parties are directly controlled by the same private/globalist banking interests) |
If you really think he leaves that out, I can't help but be convinced that you haven't watched anything beyond Fahrenheit 9/11.
| Quote: |
| Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire film maker; there's no way he's ignorant of the truth. He simply plays the role of gate-keeper for the left (much like Noam Chomsky), but is very much part of the establisment. |
Elaborate on how he and Chomsky are "gatekeepers of the left," if you please.
| Quote: |
| Remember how he stabbed Ralph Nader in the back? The man is a complete sham. |
Thousands of people who supported Nader in 2000 "stabbed him in the back." That doesn't make them shams. Sometimes in life you need to balance long-term goals with short-term urgency. Having someone like Nader come to power is a sensible and noble long-term goal to have for the country. But it wasn't going to happen in 2004. So Nader supporters had a dilemma that year. Do we rally around Nader to get him 700,000 votes instead of 500,000 and hope that makes a statement to the country, or do we do what we need to do to keep Bush from serving another 4 years? Kerry was obviously a huge Washington insider and a friend of Wall Street, and voting him into the White House would certainly not have solved the major problems of the country, but to assume that the period of 2005-09 would have been equally bad with him in power I think shows a certain degree of ignorance.
| Quote: |
| This despite the mountain of evidence that it was an inside job (Michael Moore of course never even touches on this as a possibility). |
"The mountain of evidence"? Like what? Let's see it. Nanothermite, fire can't melt steel, pancake theory, WTC 7, Flight 93 impact, they've all been brought up by truthers, they've all been cleanly debunked. Why isn't any of this "evidence" able to get published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal (and no, Alex Jones' Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a legitimate source)? Loose Change has been torn apart by the experts on several occasions. Three hours of internet research does not a structural engineer or physicist make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Nah, he's a pro-Democrat shill, full stop. He criticizes them enough to make people nod their heads, then he comes right and says if we don't vote them back into power we'll all be doomed if the R's get back in (of course this is only half correct). |
I think out of all the legitimate critcisms that could be made about Michael Moore, accusing him of being a partisan hack is a pretty weak one. He's attacked Clinton in several movies. Lately he's been stuck on Obama's case over health care and Afghanistan. In Capitalism: A Love Story he basically paints Chris Dodd and Barney Frank as criminals. Yes, he's encouraged people to vote Democrat over the past years, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that he's pro-Democrat. He's more than anything anti-Republican, and as rotten as the Democrats can be, lately they have been the only other party that has had a chance of winning. |
Nice to see you missed the point entirely...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| It's the same old story: give the people 90% of the truth (leaving out the most important details, like the fact that both parties are directly controlled by the same private/globalist banking interests) |
If you really think he leaves that out, I can't help but be convinced that you haven't watched anything beyond Fahrenheit 9/11. |
I've watched all his crappy movies. He most certainly does leave it out. He's never once mentioned the private Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, etc. etc. His movies are superficial fluff, made for leftist types who enjoy being duped more than anything.
He occasionally criticizes Obama and Hillary Clinton for not being socialist "enough", then cheers them on come election time, beseeching them to do a better job (of ripping off and lying to the America people, that is)...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire film maker; there's no way he's ignorant of the truth. He simply plays the role of gate-keeper for the left (much like Noam Chomsky), but is very much part of the establisment. |
Elaborate on how he and Chomsky are "gatekeepers of the left," if you please. |
I think I already have...
| Quote: |
| Thousands of people who supported Nader in 2000 "stabbed him in the back." That doesn't make them shams. Sometimes in life you need to balance long-term goals with short-term urgency. Having someone like Nader come to power is a sensible and noble long-term goal to have for the country. But it wasn't going to happen in 2004. So Nader supporters had a dilemma that year. Do we rally around Nader to get him 700,000 votes instead of 500,000 and hope that makes a statement to the country, or do we do what we need to do to keep Bush from serving another 4 years? Kerry was obviously a huge Washington insider and a friend of Wall Street, and voting him into the White House would certainly not have solved the major problems of the country, but to assume that the period of 2005-09 would have been equally bad with him in power I think shows a certain degree of ignorance. |
Right back at you. Thinking that voting for the Dems would have changed the overall agenda at all shows a great deal of ignorance. What you've written above is mere excuses for throwing independent candidates out the window in favor of established ones. Typical.
| Quote: |
| "The mountain of evidence"? Like what? Let's see it. Nanothermite, fire can't melt steel, pancake theory, WTC 7, Flight 93 impact, they've all been brought up by truthers, they've all been cleanly debunked. Why isn't any of this "evidence" able to get published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal (and no, Alex Jones' Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a legitimate source)? Loose Change has been torn apart by the experts on several occasions. Three hours of internet research does not a structural engineer or physicist make. |
Oh and you are an engineer?  Talk about hypocrisy. If you're so knowledgeable about the topic, why not go ahead and show me where it has it been "cleanly debunked"? Specifically. In Popular Mechanics? (owned by the Hearst media empire, inventors of yellow journalism)... Loose Change has not been cleanly debunked - they have however released subsequent editions that included new evidence. If Popular Mechanics is the best you can come up with, then I'll suggest that your three hours of internet research has been quite insufficient.
Anyway, here's a petition signed by 1372 (and counting) actual architects and engineers, who say you're full of it:
http://www.ae911truth.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| "The mountain of evidence"? Like what? Let's see it. Nanothermite, fire can't melt steel, pancake theory, WTC 7, Flight 93 impact, they've all been brought up by truthers, they've all been cleanly debunked. Why isn't any of this "evidence" able to get published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal (and no, Alex Jones' Journal of 9/11 Studies is not a legitimate source)? Loose Change has been torn apart by the experts on several occasions. Three hours of internet research does not a structural engineer or physicist make. |
The melting point of steel has been debunked? Even NIST admits that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. This has all been cleanly debunked? Let's see it, but on the 9/11 thread.
Prof. Niels Harrit is an associate professor in the Chemistry Department at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark - where he has taught for the past 35+ years. He was one of the leade scientists and authors of the important paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 911 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which was published in the peer-reviewed journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He says that the evidence for controlled demolition of the three buildings destroyed on 9/11 is overwhelming. It can be considered scientific fact. There is no doubt about it.
Listen to the second half of the program: http://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/2010/11/23/november-23-2010/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nice to see you missed the point entirely... |
I interpreted your point to be exactly what you wrote: "he's a pro-Democrat shill, full stop." As I said, campaigning for a Democrat under certain circumstances does not necessarily make one a pro-Democrat.
| Quote: |
| He most certainly does leave it out. |
Were you sleeping during Capitalism: A Love Story?
| Quote: |
| He's never once mentioned the private Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, etc. etc. |
That's because these (along with the Illuminati and contrails in the sky) are not stories to anyone outside of the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd.
| Quote: |
| He occasionally criticizes Obama and Hillary Clinton for not being socialist "enough", then cheers them on come election time, beseeching them to do a better job (of ripping off and lying to the America people, that is)... |
As I said, he doesn't cheer them on as much as he urges voters to make a decision that will give the country a better outlook in the near future as opposed to the Republicans.
| Quote: |
| I think I already have... |
You have not. Declining to fall for all the unsubstantiated conspiracy mumbo-jumbo does not make anyone a "gatekeeper of the left."
| Quote: |
| Thinking that voting for the Dems would have changed the overall agenda at all shows a great deal of ignorance. |
What do you mean by overall agenda? As I said, the major problems of the country will never be solved by voting for the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that 4 years with the Democrats (rather than the Republicans) in power isn't going to change some important factors. For example, I doubt that Gore would have launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq. He was clearly a Wall Street chum, but his ties to the energy industry were dwarfed by Bush. Certainly he would have continued the deadly sanctions against the Iraqis as well as the occasional bombings of Baghdad, but there's really nothing to suggest that the US would be in the same mess they're in now if he'd been President.
| Quote: |
| What you've written above is mere excuses for throwing independent candidates out the window in favor of established ones. |
You can call it whatever you want. Excuses? Sure, I guess, but they're certainly legitimate excuses. Furthermore, I'm not "throwing independent candidates out the window." As I've said, bringing independents into the debates and eventually voting one into power is a goal that the people of the country should be serious about. If that ever happens, it will be a HUGE benefit to the future of the country. But in 2004, giving a little push for Nader would not have be more beneficial for the country over the next few years than voting out Bush would have been.
| Quote: |
| Oh and you are an engineer? Talk about hypocrisy. |
That would be a major case of hypocrisy if I claimed to be an engineer or someone who's remarkably knowledgeable about engineering. So I will let you take as much time as you want to try to find one case where I made any claim even close to that.
You see, unlike most truthers out there, I understand that I myself am not qualified to make a judgment based on the physics or mechanics of the events that day. So instead of relying on my intuition or my high-school science experience, I look into what the experts have to say. Experts are those with such high qualification in the relevant area that they are able to carry out concise, methodologically-sound studies that pass the peer review process of accredited scientific journals. After almost 10 years, the truther side has not managed a single study of this calibre. All they have are these fanatic internet sites, "experts" who are unable to carry out any serious studies to support their positions, and videos with spooky music.
| Quote: |
| If you're so knowledgeable about the topic, why not go ahead and show me where it has it been "cleanly debunked"? Specifically. In Popular Mechanics? (owned by the Hearst media empire, inventors of yellow journalism)... Loose Change has not been cleanly debunked - they have however released subsequent editions that included new evidence. If Popular Mechanics is the best you can come up with, then I'll suggest that your three hours of internet research has been quite insufficient. |
Loose Change is a painful "documentary" to watch, full of quote mining and empty speculation. Whichever pieces of "evidence" they actually offer to support the demolition theory, there is peer reviwed evidence to refute it. To give one of many examples, check out the Purdue computer simulation demonstrating how, contrary to Loose Change's non-scientific speculation, an airliner was able to complete the damage that was made at the Pentagon: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuCISE03.pdf
| Quote: |
| Anyway, here's a petition signed by 1372 (and counting) actual architects and engineers, who say you're full of it |
And the higher that number grows, the more embarrassing it will become to the truther movement that not one of those thousand-something "actual architects or engineers" can produce an adequate scientific study to support their position.
| Quote: |
| The melting point of steel has been debunked? |
It doesn't need to be debunked because the official version never claimed that the steel melted. This is an old and worn strawman invented by the truthers. Steel does not need to melt to weaken. The fires inside the building were reported to reach a maximum of about 1000 degrees celcius. As this temperature, steel is reduced to about a tenth of its strength at room temperature.
| Quote: |
| Even NIST admits that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. |
That's simply false. "In the draft WTC 7 report, NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions."
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
| Quote: |
| He was one of the leade scientists and authors of the important paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 911 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which was published in the peer-reviewed journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal. |
I'll tell you what. I will let you go do some research on Bentham Science Publishers (the publisher of this journal), the lack of rigor in their peer-review process, their solicitation of authors to write articles in fields completely unrelated to their expertise, their complete lack of integrity, and then come back here and perhaps reconsider your citation. If not, I will be happy to do the honours.
| Quote: |
| It can be considered scientific fact. There is no doubt about it. |
Because of ONE article in a bogus journal? Really?
| Quote: |
| Listen to the second half of the program |
Is that Kevin Ryan?  The water tester from UL who pretended that UL certified the steel used in the WTC and that he was qualified to speak about the steel's durability on UL's behalf (for which he got fired), when it turns out that UL doesn't even certify steel components? How embarrasing... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Nice to see you missed the point entirely... |
I interpreted your point to be exactly what you wrote: "he's a pro-Democrat shill, full stop." As I said, campaigning for a Democrat under certain circumstances does not necessarily make one a pro-Democrat. |
"Under certain circumstances" = meaningless twaddle on your part. I'm surprised you even wasted the time to type such words.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| He most certainly does leave it out. |
Were you sleeping during Capitalism: A Love Story? |
No I managed to stay awake through all of it. It was crap. Disingenuous and manipulative.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| He's never once mentioned the private Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, etc. etc. |
That's because these (along with the Illuminati and contrails in the sky) are not stories to anyone outside of the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd. |
Wow. I see you like to parade your ignorance for all to see...
If you seriously can't take the 2 minutes required to google these subjects and verify them as 100% factual and completely relevant then you are a troll and not worth responding to further. Period.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| He occasionally criticizes Obama and Hillary Clinton for not being socialist "enough", then cheers them on come election time, beseeching them to do a better job (of ripping off and lying to the America people, that is)... |
As I said, he doesn't cheer them on as much as he urges voters to make a decision that will give the country a better outlook in the near future as opposed to the Republicans. |
Naive and foolish on your part. Calculating on MM's part.
| Quote: |
| What do you mean by overall agenda? As I said, the major problems of the country will never be solved by voting for the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that 4 years with the Democrats (rather than the Republicans) in power isn't going to change some important factors. For example, I doubt that Gore would have launched a full-scale invasion of Iraq. He was clearly a Wall Street chum, but his ties to the energy industry were dwarfed by Bush. Certainly he would have continued the deadly sanctions against the Iraqis as well as the occasional bombings of Baghdad, but there's really nothing to suggest that the US would be in the same mess they're in now if he'd been President. |
More ignorance. In the first place, no, Al Gore's connections to the energy industry were not dwarfed by Bush's. If you had taken even two minutes to research this matter, you'd know that Al Gore's family derived its wealth from the Occidental Petroleum company. Al Gore is also one of the most influential advocates for cap and trade in the world, as well as the chairman of GIM, which owns a substantial stake in the Chicago Carbon Exchange. He is about as connected with the energy industry as a person can get.
Regardless, your speculation as to whether or not Gore would have launched an invasion or not (I for one bet he would have) - he was not the heir apparent chosen by the powers that be. Bush was the man for the job at the time, which is why he was allowed to steal the election.
| Quote: |
| You can call it whatever you want. Excuses? Sure, I guess, but they're certainly legitimate excuses. Furthermore, I'm not "throwing independent candidates out the window." As I've said, bringing independents into the debates and eventually voting one into power is a goal that the people of the country should be serious about. If that ever happens, it will be a HUGE benefit to the future of the country. But in 2004, giving a little push for Nader would not have be more beneficial for the country over the next few years than voting out Bush would have been. |
Sorry, but repeating your excuses and attempting to rationalize them won't change the fact that people like yourself are the reason the political system is broken.
| Quote: |
| That would be a major case of hypocrisy if I claimed to be an engineer or someone who's remarkably knowledgeable about engineering. So I will let you take as much time as you want to try to find one case where I made any claim even close to that. |
Actually your not knowing about engineering was never really up for debate here...
| Quote: |
You see, unlike most truthers out there, I understand that I myself am not qualified to make a judgment based on the physics or mechanics of the events that day. So instead of relying on my intuition or my high-school science experience, I look into what the experts have to say. Experts are those with such high qualification in the relevant area that they are able to carry out concise, methodologically-sound studies that pass the peer review process of accredited scientific journals. After almost 10 years, the truther side has not managed a single study of this calibre. All they have are these fanatic internet sites, "experts" who are unable to carry out any serious studies to support their positions, and videos with spooky music. |
What a cop out. As if your "peer reviewed" make-belief means a thing (anthopogenic global warming mean anything to you)?? Which facts? Peer reviewed by whom?
| Quote: |
| Loose Change is a painful "documentary" to watch, full of quote mining and empty speculation. Whichever pieces of "evidence" they actually offer to support the demolition theory, there is peer reviwed evidence to refute it. To give one of many examples, check out the Purdue computer simulation demonstrating how, contrary to Loose Change's non-scientific speculation, an airliner was able to complete the damage that was made at the Pentagon: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuCISE03.pdf |
Oh man. There's no scientific proof contained there at all. They just make an animation. Haven't you ever seen a Hollywood movie?
| Quote: |
| And the higher that number grows, the more embarrassing it will become to the truther movement that not one of those thousand-something "actual architects or engineers" can produce an adequate scientific study to support their position. |
Not adequate in your eyes = irrelevant. Let's be honest, you've already admitted you don't know squat. Besides, there have been quite a few scientific studies. However, much of the "proof" (like camera footage, and debris) is being deliberately withheld by the government.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://stj911.org/
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The melting point of steel has been debunked? |
It doesn't need to be debunked because the official version never claimed that the steel melted. This is an old and worn strawman invented by the truthers. Steel does not need to melt to weaken. The fires inside the building were reported to reach a maximum of about 1000 degrees celcius. As this temperature, steel is reduced to about a tenth of its strength at room temperature. |
And yet countless other (weaker) buildings have been consumed by fires and never collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints. Debunk that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugo85
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
And yet countless other (weaker) buildings have been consumed by fires and never collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints. Debunk that... |
WTC wasn't only consumed by fire though. Well... if you accept that a plane crashed into it that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugo85 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
And yet countless other (weaker) buildings have been consumed by fires and never collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints. Debunk that... |
WTC wasn't only consumed by fire though. Well... if you accept that a plane crashed into it that is. |
A plane crashed into building 7?
Anyway, the twin towers were designed to withstand large aircraft collisions. As buildings go they were behemoths. The top section might have fallen off, but they don't just vaporize into dust... any explanation except a controlled demolition is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, Michael Moore...the Walter Duranty of our times...except Duranty actually won a Pulitzer!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
