mike3 wrote:
> On May 3, 7:22 pm, The Great Attractor
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 3 May 2007 08:53:39 -0700, malibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 3, 12:18 am, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On May 2, 10:14 pm, malibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 2, 9:46 pm, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On May 2, 7:10 pm, Midex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > [...]
>>
>> >> > > I guess the explanation that people were looking at the building
>> >> > > and watching its' structure deform is too rational.
>>
>> >> > Also, that was a Larry Silverstein impostor who
>> >> > said they were going to 'pull it'.
>>
>> >> ...maybe if you read the context, it would make a little more rational
>> >> sense. Fucking nutter.
>>
>> >> > And the only reason he took out huge amounts
>> >> > of extra insurance on the buildings two months
>> >> > before this happened was because of global
>> >> > warming, because we all know a little bit of heat
>> >> > will bring down steel buildings.
>>
>> >> A little heat and major structural damage.
>>
>> >> > John
>>
>> >Gee, I'll bet all those explosions in the
>> >subfloors of WTC1 + WTC2 did some
>> >structural damage also!
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim. How do you
> know this claim is wrong?
>
>>
>>
>> >Come to think of it.
>>
>> Slugs do not think.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>>
>>
>> >When the firefighters got there, all the glass
>> >on the street floors was blown out.
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>> >Shock wave from the plane hitting
>> >80 floors up?
>>
>> You're a goddamned retard, boy. ARe you an islamic extremist by
>> chance?
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>>
>>
>> >Janitors and such coming up from the basement levels
>> >bleeding and dazed.
>>
>> You're full of shit.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Jet fuel trickling down the elevator shafts being ignited
>> >by someone's roach? And exploding?
>>
>> You're an ifiot.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>> >Severing the three-foot thick steel columns?
>> >All 5 dozen of them?
>> >(That's mighty fine primo, pardner!)
>>
>> The buildings collapsed WAY WAY UP on the floors where the planes
>> hit, and fell from there down, taking floors out as the large top
>> section of the building fell.
>>
>
> First good argument so far...
>
>> You could be a bit more retarded, just not in this life.
>>
>> >Your brain got structural damage?
>>
>> No, but your never was right from the moment your retarded felon
>> criminal mother shat you out of her ass and forgot to flush.
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>> >Dropped on your head as a kid?
>>
>> Got any more adolescent baby bullshit, little boy?
>>
>
> You did not refute the claim.
>
>> >Don't put that fire iron too close
>> >to the flames, honey. It'll melt
>> >and deform!
>>
>> You're an idiot. There was a tanker crash in Oakland a couple days
>> back (Sunday) that melted sections of the bridge it was on.
>
> Second good argument so far.
>
Not actually a good argument. Difference #1. The beams on the bridge were
not coated with fireproofing, thus were far more vulnerable. Difference
#2. The petroleum fire had hours to act on bare metal in a concentrated
way, WTC buildings #1 and #2 came down far less than an hour after impact;
not enough time to get through the fireproofing as demonstrated by the
comparison tests.
Down to one pro self-collapse argument.
> Two good arguments and eight non-arguments,
> but those two good arguments happen to clinch the thing
> anyway...
>
>>
>> Got Clue? You and Rosie are retarded.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Schiller
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
