Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Make7

(8,543 posts)
117. Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period.
Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:54 AM
Dec 2011

I started a thread with an excerpt from a website I wasn't familiar with and didn't scroll down all the way to notice there was a link to WRH on it. Greyl pointed it out but I thought all the posts during the testing period were going to be erased so I never bothered editing my post. So I guess your reply was beneficial in that it reminded me to go back and edit my own thread.

No links for you but a documentry zeemike Dec 2011 #1
Clear? pinqy Dec 2011 #3
My answers and some questions to you. zeemike Dec 2011 #10
Not really an answer pinqy Dec 2011 #15
It would be even harder to convince that Osama hijacked a cruz missil don't you think? zeemike Dec 2011 #39
jesus! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #142
Flight 77 was itself the missile. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #148
I think you missed my point! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #149
I took a glance at the video "In Plane Sight" cpwm17 Dec 2011 #5
Explain why there are no viedo of the plain hitting the Pentagon zeemike Dec 2011 #11
Explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #16
I asked you first. zeemike Dec 2011 #17
Did I know anyone personally on those planes? No, I didn't. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #20
The only power "they" have is the power you have fictiously ascribed to "them" Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #22
You don't have to be omnipotante to manipulate people and things. zeemike Dec 2011 #27
You're arguing in circles; question-begging Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #28
Well you understand the power of a straw man don't you? zeemike Dec 2011 #31
A straw man is when you assign a fallacious argument to someone that they did not make Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #33
You ,keep saying there is ZERRO evedence. zeemike Dec 2011 #44
it's ZERO evidence...and yes, you have none. zappaman Dec 2011 #45
So there we have it...we are at an impass zeemike Dec 2011 #51
Even the NIST had to finally admit freefall occured! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #143
And even Gage and Chandler had to admit ... William Seger Dec 2011 #147
The evidence presented that the fall started 1.75 seconds before the freefall component is poor. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #152
WTC7 was in freefall for the first 100 feet Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151
You present assertions that have already been thoroughly debunked cpwm17 Dec 2011 #46
Well that would be hard to do. zeemike Dec 2011 #50
Then there is no amount of evidence that can change your mind. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #58
And no amount will change yours zeemike Dec 2011 #61
So what if it fell in "free fall"? I wouldn't expect otherwise. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #48
The only way it could have fallen like that strait down is if ALL the suprot structures failed zeemike Dec 2011 #49
You really pin this entire idea on the notion that structural failures dont spontaneously occur? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #52
Well the building could have collapsed from damage zeemike Dec 2011 #55
Your belief in a "sustained pummeling" of WTC7 is a fantasy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #54
No you are wrong there zeemike Dec 2011 #99
you make me laugh when you say "our evidence"! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #144
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #146
Large buildings do tip over. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #155
Freefall is not a natural occurrance for buildings. The law of conservation of energy Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153
There is one poor frame from one of their low speed cameras. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #26
So they only have low speed cameras and only released 5 frames? zeemike Dec 2011 #29
You didn't address the evidence presented cpwm17 Dec 2011 #32
Well I used WTC7 as my smoking gun zeemike Dec 2011 #37
Could I request that you please remove that link from your post(s)? Make7 Dec 2011 #64
I didn't look at the site closely cpwm17 Dec 2011 #87
Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period. Make7 Dec 2011 #117
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #2
Oh, my God. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6
Sory but I don't know what any of that means... zeemike Dec 2011 #12
It may be a reason to believe in God. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #13
Don't know what that means eather zeemike Dec 2011 #18
Where did the plane parts go that hit the pentagon? liberal N proud Dec 2011 #4
Here's more evidence for the plane that hit the Pentagon: cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9
There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon hack89 Dec 2011 #21
All the competing theories Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #7
The truth is out there zeemike Dec 2011 #14
So the Truthers are part of the lies Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #19
no they are bieng manipulated. zeemike Dec 2011 #30
So which ones are bing manipulated? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #34
oh my zappaman Dec 2011 #35
Well that is what Journalist used to do zeemike Dec 2011 #36
So what you're saying is Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #38
utter absence of genuine evidence? zeemike Dec 2011 #40
"I show you that there is plenty of it?" Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #41
So basicly you just want to run me round and round zeemike Dec 2011 #43
The only evidence in the videos is of a burning, wrecked building that collapses. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #47
I guess that is true zeemike Dec 2011 #53
What laws are you referring to? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #56
The law of gravity for one. zeemike Dec 2011 #57
Here's a brief video that shows WTC7 didn't all collapse at the same time cpwm17 Dec 2011 #59
I have seen it and it is consistant whith what I said zeemike Dec 2011 #60
Thermal expansion and weakening of steel can explain the structural failure cpwm17 Dec 2011 #62
Well what I don't believe is that this thermal expansion was distributed evenly zeemike Dec 2011 #65
It wasn't. No one claims that it was. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #66
i am not protesting anything...I am questioning the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #68
Protesting, questioning, whatever. You need to find out what the official story is. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #70
Well sory to disapoint you but I have seen the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #72
No, you haven't, not with that straw man claim you made about thermal expansion. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #73
What a statement... zeemike Dec 2011 #75
I agree. Your post 75 is some statement, indeed. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #77
So I am hearing you say that because it is not part of the official story zeemike Dec 2011 #80
No, you are hearing me say, "Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7." Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #81
So if it is not in the offical report then it does not exist. zeemike Dec 2011 #84
"we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion" - No, we have not. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #86
Well then present it as evedence zeemike Dec 2011 #88
Here's a short presentation of the NIST report Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #94
Yep seen it. zeemike Dec 2011 #96
Seen it? And still you were here saying that the report claimed uniform thermal expansion was Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #97
Because it said that thermal expansion caused the iner part to fail zeemike Dec 2011 #101
Large massive objects don't behave like small light objects. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #102
All good points....and demolition experts use these facts in their work. zeemike Dec 2011 #106
WTC7 didn't fall straight down cpwm17 Dec 2011 #107
Are you saying that the shell was suported by the inside of the building? zeemike Dec 2011 #108
By the way here is a photo of the framework of WTC7 zeemike Dec 2011 #110
Something DID happen simultaneously Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158
I just showed you with the video of the collapse on comment 59 that there wasn't a uniform collapse. cpwm17 Dec 2011 #82
So expalin where I am not telling the truth zeemike Dec 2011 #85
I am not saying that you are a liar. Not at all. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #91
Well I admit I have not read the report zeemike Dec 2011 #92
The beams in WTC7 didn't warp. If they had, then they couldn't have pushed the girder. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #157
That's an engineering question cpwm17 Dec 2011 #63
And Arcitects and Engineers have addtessed it zeemike Dec 2011 #67
In the latest holy book in their online store? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #69
You can dismiss anthing can't you? zeemike Dec 2011 #71
I've dismissed the arguments of AE911Truth after nine years of examining 9/11 Truth arguments Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #74
Funy but after 9 years of doing the same thing I came to a diferent conclusion zeemike Dec 2011 #76
9 years of avoiding the actual statements of NIST? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #78
Questioning is not avoiding. zeemike Dec 2011 #79
The way you are questioning is avoiding. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #83
That is just the same thing said in a deferent way zeemike Dec 2011 #89
But you are misrepresenting what the report says. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #90
If you then take the oposing view it is up to you zeemike Dec 2011 #93
You might have that backwards Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #95
And he is sayint that the "proper explanation" is the "official one" zeemike Dec 2011 #98
But neither Boffin or the report he cites claims the building fell straight down Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #100
Well nothing is perfict. zeemike Dec 2011 #103
Sorry, but the evidence presented by Boffin convinces me it was NOT uniform Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #104
Are you saying that all buildings should behave the same while collapsing? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #105
not too suprising sense they were very close togather to beguin with zeemike Dec 2011 #109
WTC7 fell straight down at first--as you can see by watching the videos. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #159
"Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collaps wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #145
That the penthouse collapsed does not prove that the interior of the building collapsed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #156
bombs in the bldgs. going off plus ensho Dec 2011 #8
For me, it was the spike in options trading in United and American airlines coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #23
The willful destruction of the FAA recordings for that time. kickysnana Dec 2011 #24
MercutioATC explained that. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #25
There isn't one corner of the Government and media ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #42
No Black Boxes ever recovered Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #111
Not true. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #112
Good to know Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #113
In a movie theater, links will have to wait Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #114
Here, do some reading...... Logical Dec 2011 #120
More BS, The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. Also.... Logical Dec 2011 #119
The attacker's passport that survived the explosion, FourScore Dec 2011 #115
Show us how you know zappaman Dec 2011 #116
Government protection of fraudulent workers in basement levels. melonkali Dec 2011 #118
firemen and policemen said wtc7 was going to come down tiny elvis Dec 2011 #121
But the reasons for fearing a collapse are on record. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #122
That's apples and oranges cpwm17 Dec 2011 #123
someone with some authority said tiny elvis Dec 2011 #124
I have posted why firefights though the building would fall Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #125
Already asked and answered cpwm17 Dec 2011 #126
nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation tiny elvis Dec 2011 #127
Here's a real time video of a firefighter predicting WTC7's collapse cpwm17 Dec 2011 #128
the national institute of standards and technology disagrees with you tiny elvis Dec 2011 #129
Clearly the collapse was "expected" the day of 9/11 Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #130
Here's the link to the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 cpwm17 Dec 2011 #132
i thought maybe you read it tiny elvis Dec 2011 #133
Obviously you don't know what you're talking about cpwm17 Dec 2011 #139
Hmmm, I seriously doubt that claim William Seger Dec 2011 #131
Hmmmm... Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #141
Who says WTC7 was leaning? FEMA doesn't say it was leaning. NIST doesn't say it was leaning. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160
Message deleted by the DU Administrators Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #134
I don't think you've got that quote right. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #135
Yes, my recollection was..... Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #136
No, not at all. There's enough intent AFTER seeing the towers attacked to document it. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #137
One can split hairs over.... Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #138
Actually, it is resolvable. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #140
just around 911 there was a story about stock trading for American Airlines Whisp Dec 2011 #150
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»What is the thing about 9...»Reply #117