Comment by GrandPoobah

Entered on: 11/28/2010 6:04:44 PM

I always skip this mans rants since his main, if not only, rhetorical technique is name calling and bad spelling: 

If I were as utterly stupid and ignorant as you, I would not be broadcasting it to others.

If temperatures in the towers were of sufficient  heat to weaken steal such that there was uniform collapse, paper, in file cabinets or not (the flimsy cabinets themselves would have melted), would have reached combustion temperatures long before the steel weakened. I don't know why such ignorant, utterly stupid, totally brainwashed low grande morons like you dare to write to someone who knows what he is talking about.  Where do such total dumbshits like you come from?

--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Doug Nusbaum wrote:

From: Doug Nusbaum
Subject: 911
To: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Cc: "Ernest Hancock"
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 3:30 PM

I have yet to see any evidence presented to me by a so-called truther that was not obfiously stupid, false, doctored etc.

Here is but one example:

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

1. the fires occurred only on about 8 to 10 floors of a 100 story building. Now this may come as a shock to you, but by the time of the collapse any such pieces of paper would have been entirely consumed. The rest of the 90 stories that were not touched by fire would have a lot of paper that was not touched by fire. In addition, most paper would have been in file cabinates. I would think that even someone with an IQ of 70 would understand how 90 stories could easily contribute the equivelant of 50+ boxes of paper per floor of financial offices.

As to the collapse. IT WAS NOT AT FREE FALL SPEED. It was about 15% greater. Anybody with a basic degree in physics would understand that this is exactly what would happen.

You did not cite the " demolition experts". All the ones that I found on the internet think that truthers are idiots. Perhaps you have others. And by demolition experts, I do not mean someone trained in the military to blow up buildings, but those few that actually bring down large buildings.

Let me say this again. I have not seen a single piece of evidence --- and by evidence I do not mean words or testimony which I have also found to be weak --- but actual evidence that was not false on its face.

I particularly love the nano thermite idea. Was this put in place at the time of construction before any nano-technology actually existed, or was it done by that swarm of invisible agents who went into the building opened up walls, placed the wires and timers and "nano thermite" and then covered everything up without anybody seeing them. I would love to see a timeline on that.

The best description of your believing the big lie is this
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies


Again, please just one piece of evidence that supports controlled demolition that is not false on its face.

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 11/28/2010 11:40:43 PM

Poohbah, you've got a little spittle on the corner of your m...no, the right side. 

The other right. 

Nevermind.