sorry you don't understand much. Thermate is in existence. thermate is
thermite with sulfur added to specifically cut iron. Test from CNN's
scientist confirm that. so get your facts strait. if fire brought down
buildings 1 and 2 what brought down building 7 ???? humm lets see
nothing hit it. One other point fires don't pulverize material into
micro size particulates and that's what the dust cloud was. in any
hand full of dust had you could find on the site it had all the
elements from the entire tower in every hand full we tested...
yeah I don't think so... your should go back to school...or do real
research like we are doing.
blackbrandon@gmail.com wrote:
> I think he/she meant Thermite.
>
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article <1155227364.955607.187030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
> > "Regensburg" <z444y@yahoo.com> smoked some dope, sniffed a chemtrail,
> > wet the bed, howled at the moon and scribbled:
> >
> > > If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> > > that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> > > "piloted"
> > > the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> > > way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> > > we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> > > collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
> > > thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
> > >
> > > So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> > > not unlike the Miami-group scare.
> > >
> > > Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
> >
> > The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown the planes into the
> > buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no "chemical trail"; the
> > planes caused major structural damage, finished off by the raging fires
> > where the planes hit.
> >
> > It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no knowledge of aviation,
> > structures or anything else useful, who fuel the idiotic conspiracy
> > notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing hoaxes, "9/11
> > conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real threat to freedom.
: > > The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown
the planes into the
: > > buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no
"chemical trail"; the
: > > planes caused major structural damage, finished
off by the raging fires
: > > where the planes hit.
: > >
: > > It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no
knowledge of aviation,
: > > structures or anything else useful, who fuel the
idiotic conspiracy
: > > notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing
hoaxes, "9/11
: > > conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real
threat to freedom.
:
This is a guy with a real wealth of information. I bet
he has proof that Jesus is living in his pocket though.
<detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156254503.656228.18780@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> sorry you don't understand much. Thermate is in existence. thermate is
> thermite with sulfur added to specifically cut iron.
Bullshit.
Thermate is basically 2/3 Thermite and 1/3 barium nitrate, it contains
less that 2% of suphur and is used as an incendiary to start fires and melt
stuff.
In demolition its typically used to melt complex pieces of machinery into
a fused lump, a good example is a the breech mechanism on
a gun
You would NOT use either Thermite or Thermate to bring down
a building. Instead you used shaped charges or detcord to
slice through the steel. The effects of thermite/thermate are
very hit and miss in a large structure while properly placed
explosives are very effective.
Having seen demolitions and building collapses the experts
in the field are sure that what brought down the towers was
fire.
> Test from CNN's
> scientist confirm that. so get your facts strait. if fire brought down
> buildings 1 and 2 what brought down building 7
Fire you cretin - it burned for several hours - Sheesh
> ???? humm lets see
> nothing hit it. One other point fires don't pulverize material into
> micro size particulates and that's what the dust cloud was.
Gravity does that numbnuts. Buildings contain huge amounts of
plasterboard that crumble when buildings fall down, been there
done that got the bloody T shirt
>in any
> hand full of dust had you could find on the site it had all the
> elements from the entire tower in every hand full we tested...
> yeah I don't think so... your should go back to school...or do real
> research like we are doing.
>
You wouldnt know real research if it bit you in the ass.
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
paul are you really a person or just a computer bot? man a 9 year old
could not fly the plane. One of the most decorated combat pilots said
he could not have flown the plane that good and he has been flying 45
years. So if you think a 9 year old could fly the plane your just a
dumb ass uneducated person go back to school if you ever went. or a
computer bot that programmed to type shit in these blogs. to everybody
else listen most of the post are by bot or people that have no
education at all. when a person says a 9 year old could fly a 747 on
one of the hardest flight paths... that not a real person...and IF it
is I feel sorry for you.
Paul Revere wrote:
> : > > The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown
> the planes into the
> : > > buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no
> "chemical trail"; the
> : > > planes caused major structural damage, finished
> off by the raging fires
> : > > where the planes hit.
> : > >
> : > > It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no
> knowledge of aviation,
> : > > structures or anything else useful, who fuel the
> idiotic conspiracy
> : > > notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing
> hoaxes, "9/11
> : > > conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real
> threat to freedom.
> :
>
> This is a guy with a real wealth of information. I bet
> he has proof that Jesus is living in his pocket though.
>
> peace
> Paul Revere
Keith W wrote:
> <detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156254503.656228.18780@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > sorry you don't understand much. Thermate is in existence. thermate is
> > thermite with sulfur added to specifically cut iron.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Thermate is basically 2/3 Thermite and 1/3 barium nitrate, it contains
> less that 2% of suphur and is used as an incendiary to start fires and melt
> stuff.
>
> In demolition its typically used to melt complex pieces of machinery into
> a fused lump, a good example is a the breech mechanism on
> a gun
>
> You would NOT use either Thermite or Thermate to bring down
> a building. Instead you used shaped charges or detcord to
> slice through the steel. The effects of thermite/thermate are
> very hit and miss in a large structure while properly placed
> explosives are very effective.
>
> Having seen demolitions and building collapses the experts
> in the field are sure that what brought down the towers was
> fire.
>
> > Test from CNN's
> > scientist confirm that. so get your facts strait. if fire brought down
> > buildings 1 and 2 what brought down building 7
>
> Fire you cretin - it burned for several hours - Sheesh
>
> > ???? humm lets see
> > nothing hit it. One other point fires don't pulverize material into
> > micro size particulates and that's what the dust cloud was.
>
>
> Gravity does that numbnuts. Buildings contain huge amounts of
> plasterboard that crumble when buildings fall down, been there
> done that got the bloody T shirt
>
> >in any
> > hand full of dust had you could find on the site it had all the
> > elements from the entire tower in every hand full we tested...
> > yeah I don't think so... your should go back to school...or do real
> > research like we are doing.
> >
>
>
> You wouldnt know real research if it bit you in the ass.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
name one building that was brought down by fire dumb ass. the madrid
building in spain burned for two day and at twice the temp as the trade
towers and it didn't fall so you dont know shit.
Keith W wrote:
> <detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156254503.656228.18780@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > sorry you don't understand much. Thermate is in existence. thermate is
> > thermite with sulfur added to specifically cut iron.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Thermate is basically 2/3 Thermite and 1/3 barium nitrate, it contains
> less that 2% of suphur and is used as an incendiary to start fires and melt
> stuff.
>
> In demolition its typically used to melt complex pieces of machinery into
> a fused lump, a good example is a the breech mechanism on
> a gun
>
> You would NOT use either Thermite or Thermate to bring down
> a building. Instead you used shaped charges or detcord to
> slice through the steel. The effects of thermite/thermate are
> very hit and miss in a large structure while properly placed
> explosives are very effective.
>
> Having seen demolitions and building collapses the experts
> in the field are sure that what brought down the towers was
> fire.
>
> > Test from CNN's
> > scientist confirm that. so get your facts strait. if fire brought down
> > buildings 1 and 2 what brought down building 7
>
> Fire you cretin - it burned for several hours - Sheesh
>
> > ???? humm lets see
> > nothing hit it. One other point fires don't pulverize material into
> > micro size particulates and that's what the dust cloud was.
>
>
> Gravity does that numbnuts. Buildings contain huge amounts of
> plasterboard that crumble when buildings fall down, been there
> done that got the bloody T shirt
>
> >in any
> > hand full of dust had you could find on the site it had all the
> > elements from the entire tower in every hand full we tested...
> > yeah I don't think so... your should go back to school...or do real
> > research like we are doing.
> >
>
>
> You wouldnt know real research if it bit you in the ass.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
sorry for your stupidity gravity or fire will not crush things into
micron size particles dumb ass. man what school did you go to LOL
Keith W wrote:
> <detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156254503.656228.18780@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > sorry you don't understand much. Thermate is in existence. thermate is
> > thermite with sulfur added to specifically cut iron.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Thermate is basically 2/3 Thermite and 1/3 barium nitrate, it contains
> less that 2% of suphur and is used as an incendiary to start fires and melt
> stuff.
>
> In demolition its typically used to melt complex pieces of machinery into
> a fused lump, a good example is a the breech mechanism on
> a gun
>
> You would NOT use either Thermite or Thermate to bring down
> a building. Instead you used shaped charges or detcord to
> slice through the steel. The effects of thermite/thermate are
> very hit and miss in a large structure while properly placed
> explosives are very effective.
>
> Having seen demolitions and building collapses the experts
> in the field are sure that what brought down the towers was
> fire.
>
> > Test from CNN's
> > scientist confirm that. so get your facts strait. if fire brought down
> > buildings 1 and 2 what brought down building 7
>
> Fire you cretin - it burned for several hours - Sheesh
>
> > ???? humm lets see
> > nothing hit it. One other point fires don't pulverize material into
> > micro size particulates and that's what the dust cloud was.
>
>
> Gravity does that numbnuts. Buildings contain huge amounts of
> plasterboard that crumble when buildings fall down, been there
> done that got the bloody T shirt
>
> >in any
> > hand full of dust had you could find on the site it had all the
> > elements from the entire tower in every hand full we tested...
> > yeah I don't think so... your should go back to school...or do real
> > research like we are doing.
> >
>
>
> You wouldnt know real research if it bit you in the ass.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
yeah the difference is, building 7 was the third strongest building in
the usa 17 x stronger than both towers. and once fire will not bring
down a modern building
Leythos wrote:
> In article <1156255976.921447.179380@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
> detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > name one building that was brought down by fire dumb ass. the madrid
> > building in spain burned for two day and at twice the temp as the trade
> > towers and it didn't fall so you dont know shit.
>
> 32 stories, different internal structure, not built with the same
> infrastructure. Didn't have hundreds of gallons of fuel spilled into it.
>
> Try finding a building with the same stats and then you might have a
> claim, but as it is, you're just proving how uneducated/ignorant you
> are.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
sorry one more time for your stupidity. pressure from falling buildings
WILL not crush elements into a very consistent mixture of all the
elements in the tower in one hand full of dust we found iron, all the
makeup of computers, furniture, concrete, and many other elements
copper aluminum and thermate as well as cordite nitrocellulose and
nitroglycerin the list goes on and it was all in perfect micron
particulates sorry pressure from falling material will not do this.
only explosives.
Leythos wrote:
> In article <1156256152.479788.256690@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > sorry one more time for your stupidity. pressure from falling buildings WILL not crush elements into a very consistent mixture of all the elements in the tower in one hand full of dust we found iron, all the makeup of computers, furniture, concrete, and many other elements copper aluminum and thermate as well as cordite nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin the list goes on and it was all in perfect micron particulates sorry pressure from falling material will not do this. only explosives. gravity or fire will not crush things into
> > micron size particles dumb ass. man what school did you go to LOL
>
> Pressure does, but I suppose you've dismissed all the pressure the
> towers were under due to their own weight.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
nice answer dumb ass you didn't name even one buliding. you just talk
shit. just name one i can name every building.... well i give you that
answer NONE have fallen from fire.
Leythos wrote:
> In article <1156255976.921447.179380@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
> detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > name one building that was brought down by fire dumb ass. the madrid
> > building in spain burned for two day and at twice the temp as the trade
> > towers and it didn't fall so you dont know shit.
>
> 32 stories, different internal structure, not built with the same
> infrastructure. Didn't have hundreds of gallons of fuel spilled into it.
>
> Try finding a building with the same stats and then you might have a
> claim, but as it is, you're just proving how uneducated/ignorant you
> are.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
LOL .....No, the difference is that you don't really know what
happened, other
than speculation on your part and other conspiracy types.
Have you seen the "As-Built" structural drawings for the buildings?
yes
Have you worked in the building, on these types of buildings, trade?
yes
Do you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a degree in yes
metallurgy and a secondary in mechanical failure?
we are a team a professors from MIT, Stanford and Cornell
maybe you should ask yourself the same questions LOL
Show me/the world some FACTS instead of your speculation.
Leythos wrote:
> In article <1156256607.294626.304710@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > yeah the difference is, building 7 was the third strongest building in
> > the usa 17 x stronger than both towers. and once fire will not bring
> > down a modern building
>
> No, the difference is that you don't really know what happened, other
> than speculation on your part and other conspiracy types.
>
> Have you seen the "As-Built" structural drawings for the buildings?
>
> Have you worked in the building, on these types of buildings, trade?
>
> Do you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a degree in
> metallurgy and a secondary in mechanical failure?
>
> Show me/the world some FACTS instead of your speculation.
>
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
we have put in 4500 hours of work on this research! have you did one
hour?
detroitbiodie...@gmail.com wrote:
> LOL .....No, the difference is that you don't really know what
> happened, other
> than speculation on your part and other conspiracy types.
>
> Have you seen the "As-Built" structural drawings for the buildings?
> yes
>
> Have you worked in the building, on these types of buildings, trade?
> yes
>
> Do you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a degree in yes
> metallurgy and a secondary in mechanical failure?
>
> we are a team a professors from MIT, Stanford and Cornell
>
> maybe you should ask yourself the same questions LOL
>
> Show me/the world some FACTS instead of your speculation.
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <1156256607.294626.304710@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> > detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > > yeah the difference is, building 7 was the third strongest building in
> > > the usa 17 x stronger than both towers. and once fire will not bring
> > > down a modern building
> >
> > No, the difference is that you don't really know what happened, other
> > than speculation on your part and other conspiracy types.
> >
> > Have you seen the "As-Built" structural drawings for the buildings?
> >
> > Have you worked in the building, on these types of buildings, trade?
> >
> > Do you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a degree in
> > metallurgy and a secondary in mechanical failure?
> >
> > Show me/the world some FACTS instead of your speculation.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > spam999free@rrohio.com
> > remove 999 in order to email me
just name any that has fallen from fire..... And yes there have been
buildings that have burned longer and at must hotter temp... can you
name them..? probably not LOL have you even seen the towers when they
fell all the fuel had burned off the buildings where smoldering there
was no giant flames just black smoke which is indicative of the lack of
oxygen in fire no fire sorry and building 7 had fires in 15 room hardly
enough to bring it down that's what we have sprinklers for man.
> In article <1156257329.518653.117900@74g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>,
> detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > nice answer dumb ass you didn't name even one buliding. you just talk
> > shit. just name one i can name every building.... well i give you that
> > answer NONE have fallen from fire.
>
> And you've not named a single building that was on fire under the same
> situation.
>
> Face it, you can't find a single example where another building in the
> history of the world was subjected to the same threat with the same
> structural build.
>
> When you really want people to listen to your argument to the facts,
> you'll need to provide a specific example, one with matching factory,
> that proves your case.
>
> Now, don't get bent out of shape, just try and prove your case, as
> stated above, with facts.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
i will tell you soon as i see you can't answer the building question ..
sorry cant give our personal info. it will be out as soon as we are
done with our documentary
detroitbiodie...@gmail.com wrote:
> just name any that has fallen from fire..... And yes there have been
> buildings that have burned longer and at must hotter temp... can you
> name them..? probably not LOL have you even seen the towers when they
> fell all the fuel had burned off the buildings where smoldering there
> was no giant flames just black smoke which is indicative of the lack of
> oxygen in fire no fire sorry and building 7 had fires in 15 room hardly
> enough to bring it down that's what we have sprinklers for man.
> > In article <1156257329.518653.117900@74g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>,
> > detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com says...
> > > nice answer dumb ass you didn't name even one buliding. you just talk
> > > shit. just name one i can name every building.... well i give you that
> > > answer NONE have fallen from fire.
> >
> > And you've not named a single building that was on fire under the same
> > situation.
> >
> > Face it, you can't find a single example where another building in the
> > history of the world was subjected to the same threat with the same
> > structural build.
> >
> > When you really want people to listen to your argument to the facts,
> > you'll need to provide a specific example, one with matching factory,
> > that proves your case.
> >
> > Now, don't get bent out of shape, just try and prove your case, as
> > stated above, with facts.
> >
> > --
> >
> > spam999free@rrohio.com
> > remove 999 in order to email me
> You made the claims, please provide the facts to back your claims.
>
> I've already show, factually, that you've not provided a single case of
> a building that survived the same type of threat with the same
> structural build.
It's pointless, when he won't even understand what you're saying.
Waiting for the comeback, about how no building ever collapsed from just
a fire, or whatever.
<detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156255976.921447.179380@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> name one building that was brought down by fire dumb ass.
OK here's 4 that I know of without even thinking about it
The St. George Hotel in NYC collapsed during a fire in 1995
The York Hotel - a 12 story steel framed building in northern
England collapsed after a fire in the late 70's. I personally
saw that one.
The Morborne transmitter tower near Peterborough in England
caught fire and collapsed on the evening of Saturday 30th October 2004
Literally dozens of steel framed buildings in the City of London
were destroyed by the fires started during the Blitz of 1940
Steel is VERY vulnerable to collapse during a fire and structural
designers are well aware of the risks which is why they install
fire protection systems and sprinklers. The usual risk assumption
is a fire starting on one floor and spreading slowly.
Now if you destroy those fire protection systems (by flying a
160 ton aircraft into the core of the building) before starting a
fire that simultaneously involves several floors (using 30 tons
of dispersed kerosene) its hardly surprising if that building
fails.
This is especially likely when you realise that WTC 1,2 and 7 were
extremely unusual designs. They used a steel core and external shell
linked by lightweight steel trusses that not only held up the walls
but were necessary to prevent failure of the building by buckling.
Firemen HATE trusses. They have VERY poor fire resistance
and collapse rapidly in any large scale fire. In the UK fire fighters
will not enter a truss floor building unless life is imminently
at risk. They have a saying ' Never trust a truss'
> the madrid
> building in spain burned for two day and at twice the temp as the trade
> towers and it didn't fall so you dont know shit.
The concrete core was left standing but the steel outer sections
and floors collapsed
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
<detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156257591.068967.149650@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> LOL .....No, the difference is that you don't really know what
> happened, other
> than speculation on your part and other conspiracy types.
>
> Have you seen the "As-Built" structural drawings for the buildings?
> yes
>
> Have you worked in the building, on these types of buildings, trade?
> yes
>
> Do you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a degree in yes
> metallurgy and a secondary in mechanical failure?
>
> we are a team a professors from MIT, Stanford and Cornell
>
Sure you are, academics from MIT normaly post anonymously via an
ISP in Naperville Illinois - NOT !
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
<detroitbiodiesel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156257096.866326.106660@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> sorry one more time for your stupidity. pressure from falling buildings
> WILL not crush elements into a very consistent mixture of all the
> elements in the tower in one hand full of dust we found iron, all the
> makeup of computers, furniture, concrete, and many other elements
> copper aluminum and thermate as well as cordite nitrocellulose and
> nitroglycerin the list goes on and it was all in perfect micron
> particulates sorry pressure from falling material will not do this.
> only explosives.
Bullshit
1) I am very aware of how explosives function when used for demolition
and a building demolished using them will not produce the effects
you claim
2) Demolishing a large structure is usually accomplished using very small
amounts of explosive. Of the thousands of tons of material in such
a building less that 0.01 % will be affected by the explosive charge.
You are clearly clueless about explosive demolition happens.
You use gravity to the work for you
3) There is absolutely no evidence from any of the researchers
that points to the conditions you claim were found. I have read
several published reports on the collapse and NONE report
uniform reduction to micron size for the ample reason it
didnt bloody happen.
The report published in the American Chemical Society
on the dust analysis in fact flatly contradicts your claims
and states that the particle size primarily found in the dust
was 10 microns and larger in size.
See the article published in the Feb 1 edition of Environmental
Science & Technology, a peer reviewed journal of excellent
reputation
<Quote>
In morphologic analyses we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and
composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos,
wood, paper, and cotton) . The particles were separated into size
classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 µm in
aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass
concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter.
</Quote>
<Quote>
The smaller particles (< 75 µm in diameter) included asbestos, soot, lead,
and other trace elements. This is consistent with the dual nature of the
event--the collapse of two buildings overlaying intensely burning structures
</Quote>
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Leythos wrote:
> In article <p_EGg.1759$y61.39@fed1read05>, jmcgill@email.arizona.edu
> says...
> > Leythos wrote:
> >
> > > You made the claims, please provide the facts to back your claims.
> > >
> > > I've already show, factually, that you've not provided a single case of
> > > a building that survived the same type of threat with the same
> > > structural build.
> >
> > It's pointless, when he won't even understand what you're saying.
> >
> > Waiting for the comeback, about how no building ever collapsed from just
> > a fire, or whatever.
>
> Isn't it amazing how kooks always run from facts when they prove they
> have no valid claims.
>
This is especially ironic coming from you, given how you can't cite a
single source to back up your claims about how America is "better off"
under Bush in the economy compared to Clinton nor can you cite anything
showing those Iraqi WMDs. Despite having hard numbers thrown in your
face to the contrary, you simply hand wave it away (without saying why)
as being "left wing."
Leythos wrote:
>
> In article <1156317172.778369.13970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
> hayes12@fadmail.com says...
> >
> > Leythos wrote:
> > > In article <p_EGg.1759$y61.39@fed1read05>, jmcgill@email.arizona.edu
> > > says...
> > > > Leythos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You made the claims, please provide the facts to back your claims.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've already show, factually, that you've not provided a single case of
> > > > > a building that survived the same type of threat with the same
> > > > > structural build.
> > > >
> > > > It's pointless, when he won't even understand what you're saying.
> > > >
> > > > Waiting for the comeback, about how no building ever collapsed from just
> > > > a fire, or whatever.
> > >
> > > Isn't it amazing how kooks always run from facts when they prove they
> > > have no valid claims.
> > >
> >
> > This is especially ironic coming from you, given how you can't cite a
> > single source to back up your claims about how America is "better off"
> > under Bush in the economy compared to Clinton nor can you cite anything
> > showing those Iraqi WMDs. Despite having hard numbers thrown in your
> > face to the contrary, you simply hand wave it away (without saying why)
> > as being "left wing."
>
> You've not posted any numbers from a source that shows anything
> reputable covering the ending period of Clinton through now.
>
> >
> > In fact, kook is a word that fits you quite well.
>
> No, I've already said you didn't care to look for the facts. In the case
> above, I asked for the credentials the person claimed, and I also got
> them to out that fact they are doing this to make money....
>
> The only money I'm making is from all our customers and the growing base
> in the Economy that was falling as clinton left office and has grown in
> the last 4 years under Bush.
Numerous people have done well, business wise, under the Bush administration.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:02:44 GMT, in alt.atheism
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in
<8N7Hg.67657$vl5.44092@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
>In article <44ED02A7.1FB9DB84@ddress.thatcanbespammed>,
>notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <1156317172.778369.13970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
>> > hayes12@fadmail.com says...
>> > >
>> > > Leythos wrote:
>> > > > In article <p_EGg.1759$y61.39@fed1read05>, jmcgill@email.arizona.edu
>> > > > says...
>> > > > > Leythos wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > You made the claims, please provide the facts to back your claims.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I've already show, factually, that you've not provided a single case of
>> > > > > > a building that survived the same type of threat with the same
>> > > > > > structural build.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's pointless, when he won't even understand what you're saying.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Waiting for the comeback, about how no building ever collapsed from just
>> > > > > a fire, or whatever.
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't it amazing how kooks always run from facts when they prove they
>> > > > have no valid claims.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > This is especially ironic coming from you, given how you can't cite a
>> > > single source to back up your claims about how America is "better off"
>> > > under Bush in the economy compared to Clinton nor can you cite anything
>> > > showing those Iraqi WMDs. Despite having hard numbers thrown in your
>> > > face to the contrary, you simply hand wave it away (without saying why)
>> > > as being "left wing."
>> >
>> > You've not posted any numbers from a source that shows anything
>> > reputable covering the ending period of Clinton through now.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > In fact, kook is a word that fits you quite well.
>> >
>> > No, I've already said you didn't care to look for the facts. In the case
>> > above, I asked for the credentials the person claimed, and I also got
>> > them to out that fact they are doing this to make money....
>> >
>> > The only money I'm making is from all our customers and the growing base
>> > in the Economy that was falling as clinton left office and has grown in
>> > the last 4 years under Bush.
>>
>> Numerous people have done well, business wise, under the Bush administration.
>>
>> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
>
>I am Middle American and all Middle America I know has done well, at
>least better than Clinton left them.
Your experience is not consistent with the general evidence.
>>> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
>> I am Middle American and all Middle America I know has done well, at
>> least better than Clinton left them.
>
> Your experience is not consistent with the general evidence.
This is the point of the argument where, in real life, we ask to see
CPA-audited financial statements supporting the claims.
Leythos wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> According to what I read in the Business section of my newspaper, what I
> see in unemployment stats, what I see in how easy it is to get a job for
> all of my neighbors and their kids that want jobs.... For all of the
> businesses that come to us for services... For the fact that the stocks
> I own have increased in value every year since Bush came into office...
>
> Seems like you are falling for the media hype that reports voodoo
> instead of looking at the economic indicators.
The jobs that America is losing aren't the ones that "their kids" want,
i.e., minimum wage, can't-support-a-family type jobs.
They're the 10s of thousands that we read about almost every day... The
layoffs from major corporations.
Your little "I don't believe anything the media says" shelter is a great
way to insulate yourself from what is really happening in this country.
In addition, the "I'm doing well, and all of my friends are doing well"
is nothing but a minuscule segment of the population and, in no way
representative of reality.
Personally, I'm doing well in SPITE of Bush and his good-old-boy cronies.
Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>>
>> In article <1156317172.778369.13970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
>> hayes12@fadmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> In article <p_EGg.1759$y61.39@fed1read05>,
>>>> jmcgill@email.arizona.edu says...
>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You made the claims, please provide the facts to back your
>>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've already show, factually, that you've not provided a single
>>>>>> case of a building that survived the same type of threat with
>>>>>> the same structural build.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's pointless, when he won't even understand what you're saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Waiting for the comeback, about how no building ever collapsed
>>>>> from just a fire, or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it amazing how kooks always run from facts when they prove
>>>> they have no valid claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is especially ironic coming from you, given how you can't cite
>>> a single source to back up your claims about how America is "better
>>> off" under Bush in the economy compared to Clinton nor can you cite
>>> anything showing those Iraqi WMDs. Despite having hard numbers
>>> thrown in your face to the contrary, you simply hand wave it away
>>> (without saying why) as being "left wing."
>>
>> You've not posted any numbers from a source that shows anything
>> reputable covering the ending period of Clinton through now.
>>
>>>
>>> In fact, kook is a word that fits you quite well.
>>
>> No, I've already said you didn't care to look for the facts. In the
>> case above, I asked for the credentials the person claimed, and I
>> also got them to out that fact they are doing this to make money....
>>
>> The only money I'm making is from all our customers and the growing
>> base in the Economy that was falling as clinton left office and has
>> grown in the last 4 years under Bush.
>
> Numerous people have done well, business wise, under the Bush
> administration.
>
> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
Oh bullshit, most obviously with the big boom in property values.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:19:55 GMT, in alt.atheism
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in
<f18Hg.78923$Eh1.44495@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
>In article <7V7Hg.8042$cw.6636@fed1read03>, jmcgill@email.arizona.edu
>says...
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>> >>> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
>> >> I am Middle American and all Middle America I know has done well, at
>> >> least better than Clinton left them.
>> >
>> > Your experience is not consistent with the general evidence.
>>
>>
>> This is the point of the argument where, in real life, we ask to see
>> CPA-audited financial statements supporting the claims.
>
>Just look at the public records on the Economic indicators, it's all
>there for anyone to read.
The problem for you is that your claim is not consistent with the
economic evidence.
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote
>
> >>> Numerous people have done well, business
> >>> wise, under the Bush administration.
>
> >>> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
>
> >> Oh bullshit, most obviously with the big boom in property values.
>
> > Are you saying that most Americans own property?
>
> Nope, and they dont need to to prove that claim is a bare faced lie.
I'm sorry, but are you currently on something?
Your posts appear to be nothing more than flights of ideas.
Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Notan <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote
>>>>> Numerous people have done well, business
>>>>> wise, under the Bush administration.
>>>>> Most, however, including middle America, haven't.
>>>> Oh bullshit, most obviously with the big boom in property values.
>>> Are you saying that most Americans own property?
>> Nope, and they dont need to to prove that claim is a bare faced lie.
> I'm sorry,
Liar.
> but are you currently on something?
> Your posts appear to be nothing more than flights of ideas.
Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.
Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone is
actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.
Re: It's a fake terrorist scare, folks 