After reading the paragraph below...

...to what degree would you say George Orwell's term from Nineteen Eighty-Four, "Crimestop" is rightly applied as the explanation for the OCTer narratives repeatedly put forth in this forum?

This was the commentary of Rawstory poster, Stewart: http://www.rawstory.com/comments/43848.html


Jonathan Schwartz quotes George Orwell, whose main points, especially in 1984 are glaringly relevant today: A Party member…is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline…called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

clearly no one will surpass this OP before Sunday.

Congratulations!!!!!!!

Cracks me up. You claim that people who disagree with you are "repelled" or "bored" by your arguments, and then you get upset that those people read and respond to them.

Too funny.

...that people who disagree with me are "repelled" and/or "bored" by my arguments?

I think you might have me confused with somebody else.

If I post the words of Person A, and say that I believe that Person A's words are highly accurate, then it is safe to assume that I endorse those words.

So, for better accuracy - You claim that the statement "people who disagree with me are 'repelled' and/or 'bored' by my arguments" because of "crimestop" applies to those people to a high degree (provided that was your vote).

Enjoy your word games.

BTW, I gather you lost interest in the I-35 bridge collapse since there are some investigative results. You don't care anymore, or was it more interesting when there was some mystery in which to project one's usual suspicions?

and the most delicious irony is the OP doesn't even understand the unintended irony.

...to brother Lared, why not go the extra mile and enlighten me -- help me understand, Sdude.

...the state of denial induced by the State -- not an insult, but merely the desired effect of propaganda and aggressive fear mongering. The fact that some are highly susceptible to this does not mean they are weak, stupid, or incapable of thought and reason, but only that these processes are somehow suspended/overridden in them for, not all, but certain specific facts and truths -- in this case, facts and truths that would support or lead to the conclusion that 9-11 was an inside job.

I certainly don't consider myself immune to Crimestop. I think the best any of us can do is attempt to use our intellect to understand, recognize, and try to guard against it.

I know you won't believe me when I tell you this, but I wanted to accept the official story, and did for about three years -- I wouldn't even look at or read CT on 9-11, didn't want it in my face at all. Then in early 2005 I started paying more attention to detailed accounts of the official story and it just seemed so utterly implausible I simply couldn't accept it anymore.

The collapse videos of 1,2, & 7 alone should be more than sufficient for anyone to conclude that 9-11 had to be an inside job. There's simply no way, NO WAY skyscrapers come crashing down into their own footprint, at roughly free fall speed, with concrete being pulverized, and all kinds of heavy debris being shot outward, and identifiable squibs ahead of the collapses for 1 & 2, ALL this visible as they come down, because of fire and/or plane impacts -- it HAD to be CD.

To sincerely reject this because of the fact that it leads to the inescapable conclusion of inside job is...well, Crimestop -- no insult intended.

Why you may think "it HAD to be CD" is well summarized above.

I'll stipulate your sincerity, but I have no idea why you consider yourself an authority on how skyscrapers must collapse. You certainly haven't given the rest of us any reason to trust your authority in the matter.

...I merely refuse to ignore/deny what is manifestly obvious.

In regards to the collapse of the WTC's I would imagine nearly every so called OCT'er would agree that they

"merely refuse to ignore/deny what manifestly obvious. that the towers collapsed from a combination of damage and fires brought on by jets crashing into the buildings.

As a mechanical engineer with 20 plus years of experience, there truly is nothing rational to discuss about the root cause of the failure.

...Then why are you still here? What's so important about the 9-11 forum that you would feel the need to show up every day (for many months now), posting in virtually every thread, the same nuisance/distraction spam over and over? Gotta be a reason, and it must be pretty important to you.

I used to spend considerable time trying to persuade people away from the 9/11 mythologies of CD, DEW, vaporization,no planes, pods, dusticfiatation, etc, using science and logic, but most CT'er seem to enjoy being willfully ignorant as critical thought and educating themselves about concepts outside of their knowledge base seems to be a bothersome task.

The bottom line is that truth matters. That is why I hang around. Plus the irony of the CT'er is truly a wonder to behold, also I find the CT'er an interesting lot.

...from this accumulation of years of well reasoned argumentation using logic and science in support of OCT, I'm sure we'd all love to see them -- all I ever see you posting is nuisance/distraction spam.

be it compelling eyewitness accounts, peer-reviewed engineering articles, indisputable pictures/video evidence or unassailable logical thinking (for example, how in the world would the "plotters" have known where the towers would be struck so they could "coordinate"?). You just demonize anyone who can't "see" how brilliant the "truth" movement is by labeling our efforts "nuisance/distraction spam" because you can't stand a real debate.

...by posting nuisance/distraction spam -- and now claim that I'm demonizing you?

You're the poster child for crimestop -- no demonization intended.

:rofl:

instead of taking issue with what I'm arguing, you attempt what is called psychic foreclosure by labeling my argument "nuisance/distraction spam" again. The irony is you made my point without even knowing it. Pathetic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=190867&mesg_id=190925

I find it interesting that you didn't try to respond to this in any way.

...of logic and science -- one post?

Why is it interesting that I wouldn't take the time to sift through links to OCTer sites shilling for the government's fictional account of 9-11?

See post #32.

so you just use words like "shilling", "fictional", etc. to avoid the debate. Pathetic.

and the occasional chemtrail car-wreck.

Sid

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sometime I just grab my laptop, throw a steel beam on the fire to get it nice and hot and sit back and enjoy.

you always post hysterical stuff like this when I'm trying to drink something. You owe me a new laptop.

.....and there ya go.:hi:

It's hard to believe it's been a whole year...:cry: ...sfiff......they grow up so fast.



Other classics:

I'm stealing a copy for myself :)

Cheers.

Sid

say it ain't so -- say it ain't so -- NOT the KING!!!!!

:cry:

Here's to you King:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zab6DH_ViD8

ever posted in the dungeon. And, given some of the comedy gold that this forum has seen, that's no small feat.

Cheers.

Sid

As though that was the only evidence ever provided of complicity.

No one even implied that was the only evidence. No one is focusing on it. Some folks are have some giggles reminiscing about what is possibly the dumbest post(s) ever.

I used to love witnessing CDs, or watch them on TV. All kinds of fanfare, fireworks, music, anxious CD witnesses at the ready - it's all quite exciting, actually. And in a matter of a few seconds, the big monster-of-a-building that was once standing in front of me is GONE. Poof. One big cloud of dust that spreads down the city blocks - and once the cloud fades out, all that's left is a pile of chunky rock and a snowy film of concrete that envelopes anything that was in the dustcloud's path.

The collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7 are an identical match to every other CD I've witnessed/watched on TV. IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY.

We've seen buildings that have been bombed; we've seen building that have been on fire for hours, even days. We've seen buildings that planes crashed into. And not a single one of them fell the way 1,2 & 7 did. NOT ONE.

I sat in my home, absolutely stunned, jaw-dropped, as I watched the live coverage. My husband was at work, preparing to hop on a plane that afternoon to head to the UK for a business conference. I called him, and I was explaining everything that was going on as it was happening. I was trying to explain to him how the south tower had collapsed "like a pancake" "like those controlled demolitions" - and as I was describing what I had seen with the south tower, the north tower collapsed. I was screaming into the phone to him, and the whole time he kept saying "WHAT? WHAT? They can't fall that way!"

His boss sent everyone home that day to be with their families. When he got home, he sat down in front of the TV to watch the replay. He was absolutely dumbfounded. He grabbed the phone and started calling all his coworkers. They, too, couldn't believe what they were seeing - it made no sense to any of them.

My husband (former husband now) is a structural engineer. The coworkers he called were other structural engineers, and union ironworkers that he hands the work to. He kept barking into the phone "Where the hell are the fucking beams? We should be able to see them!" He told me that even if the concrete "gave", the beams would still be standing. He said that it's possible the beams would be warped, bowed, bent....but not GONE.

My former husband has been part of projects such as the Borgata casino (Atlantic City), Tropicana casino (Atlantic City), Citizens Bank Park (Philly), Lincoln Financial Field (Philly), and currently the Comcast building in Philly. He knows his metals - and he knows what their strengths and weaknesses are. He knows how metal responds to heat. He, and all his coworkers, collectively agreed that those WTC buildings could have burned all day and the next day before collapsing, and the beams would still be standing for all of us to see.

Every time I hear these "explanations" that support the 9/11 commission report, I just shake my head. Don't these people realize that they are making all kinds of concessions, and supporting special circumstances? When you look at the main focus of 9/11 - Tower One, Tower Two, Shanksville, The Pentagon, Tower Seven......think about how these events have been explained away using all kinds of coincidence and "special circumstances". People have dissected the shit out of each individual situation to the point where the event isn't recognizable anymore. They are shelving everything they witnessed that day, and in exchange, are willing to accept all of these unprecedented "special circumstances".

Think about what you SAW. Think about how those buildings - ALL THREE OF THEM - fell PERFECTLY. Think about how quickly they disintegrated into dust so quickly after impact. Think about the govt's reluctance in providing information. Think about the govt's secrecy and lies. Think about what they've done to the world since 9/11. Think about who benefitted from that day. THINK ABOUT IT. Has everybody forgotten the exercise of "getting back down to basics"?

What scares me the most is the increasing lack of common sense in our society. As my Pop (a WWII vet) used to say, "The apathy, ignorance and stupidity of Americans will guarantee its downfall."

...I think many of us had that same reaction.

One comment on your usage of the term "beams," I think you mean columns -- and yes, they certainly should've still been standing if the collapse were do to fire and/or impact from planes.

you're right - it was columns. My bad.

My X husband's work involves beam and column work (also rails and posts). Sometimes I get them confused.

Thanks for the correction. :)

I would also add that since 9/11, I have looked at dozens of CD videos and I haven't seen any that look at all like the WTC towers. All the ones I've seen begin at the bottom and use the structure's weight to crush it from the bottom.

Here are the beams you're looking for. They're scattered for many hundreds of feet in every direction. The towers did not collapse anything like 'into their own footprint', as is commonly repeated.

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

The WTC towers clearly began to collapse exactly where the airplanes struck. Building 2 even tilted exactly towards the corner that had been clipped off. I haven't heard any even remotely rational theories as to how airliners could be crashed precisely into the floors that had been pre-wired for CD (unless one is a no-planer, which requires a whole 'nother level of self-delusion).

No disrespect intended, but I must ask you if you've read the NIST report, or the many summaries and FAQs that are out there? And again, respectfully, my brother is also a structural engineer with a PE in most states and over 40 publications. When he saw those buildings in flames on TV, he said "They'll be collapsing in about one hour if they can't get those fires out".

Obviously different people had different reactions to what they saw that day. When I watched the towers collapse, I could not for the life of me understand what I was seeing. As I later came to understand the construction of the towers, the collapses made perfect sense to me.

As an aside, and not as an appeal to authority, I am a degreed mechanical engineer with 30 years experience. I also have a very good understanding how metals react to heat and combined stresses.

My x-husband is the engineer, I am not - but I'll try to answer your points the best I can:

As for the controlled demolition to be wired precisely where the planes hit, isn't is reasonable to think that if there was CD involved, that the whole building was wired for it, but because of where the plane cut into the buildings, the wiring was cut off at that point and upward? I dunno.

As for how a CD is orchestrated, I'm not arguing with you on "where" it starts (bottom)....I'm speaking more of watching how it falls from top to bottom. Here's a great video of your basic CDs from all over the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1qgx95SFds

From all I've seen, the WTC collapses fall exactly the same way.....very even and flowing - graceful, almost. No slowing down or stopping before it was completely gone. Flawless. I failed to mention in my last post that the fact that the WTC buildings fell so quickly after impact is just mind-blowing. Wasn't WTC 2 completely gone in less than an hour after impact? No disrespect to anyone here, but c'mon.

My best friend's aunt (Marge) worked in WTC2 on the 71st floor. When the first plane hit WTC1, she and a bunch of her coworkers ignored the intercom recommendation to stay in their offices (thank goodness). As she and her friends were taking the long way down via the stairs, they felt the blow of the plane hitting their building. Nobody knew it was a plane, though....they thought that WTC1 fell on their building. She believes that she was on or around the 58th floor at that point. Firemen who were going up were telling her and her colleagues that they need to be careful once they got outside from the chunks of glass, rock, etc that were falling. Needless to say, they hauled ass out of there. She told us that once she got to around the 20th floor, they all heard "pops" or "explosions". They assumed, like alot of us, that it was transformers blowing. And maybe it was. Who knows.

When they got outside, they were quickly directed to get their asses out of the way - and it was at that moment that they found out that their building had been hit with a plane as well. She and her friends were walking and walking, turning around every now and then to see what was going on. She had turned around at one point to see that her building's top was leaning. She thought FOR SURE that the damn top was going to fall off and onto the streets, killing everybody on the ground. Well, we know what happened next.

That's what I can't forget, Flatulo.....the uninterrupted freefalling of these buildings. Perfect synchronicity. If one of them had fallen that way, I probably could have written it off as it just being one of those weird things that happens every now and then; but all three? And one of which that was never impacted or stressed by anything of substance? Nope.

It's a sealed deal for me. Look at who was inhabiting WTC 7. A perfect location for them to be headquartered if this was, in fact, an organized event orchestrated by the govt. It would also explain why their building came down as well. Nothing like "pulling" the very building where the details were being handled - in order to keep their asses outta trouble.

Let me preface by stating that what I don't know about CD would fill volumes. But it's my understanding that CD professionals let gravity do most of the work.

They sever key components low in the structure and let the collapse propogate through the action of the weight above. They also rig the structure so that the walls collapse inward, not outward, as the WTC towers clearly did. They photographic record clearly shows that the tower walls splayed outward as the floors collapsed more or less straight downward. Most of this was obscured by the dust cloud created by pulverizing millions of pounds of glass and concrete.

Personally, I think the problem people have is that they compare what they saw that day to other things that they have seen. The problem with that linkage is that absolutely *nothing* like the tower strikes/fires have ever occured, anywhere, at any time in recorded history. These events were completely unique. How then can they be compared to any other events?

you say, "We've seen buildings that have been bombed; we've seen building that have been on fire for hours, even days. We've seen buildings that planes crashed into. And not a single one of them fell the way 1,2 & 7 did. NOT ONE.". The problem with your thinking is that you equate all buildings together, assuming a unitary method of construction, I suppose (fallacy of division) and you compare situations which are only partially similar in causes, then expect them all to behave the same way (fallacy of composition). In other words, you're literally comparing apples to oranges. Let's take WTC 7, for example. If you want to compare apples to apples, fine. Do all of the following:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

I would also argue that your claim that "The collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7 are an identical match to every other CD I've witnessed/watched on TV. IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY." is also seriously flawed. Of the three, WTC 7 looks most like a controlled demolition (however, "looking like" and actually being are two different things). Look at videos of any controlled demolition and compare it to the collapse of wtc 1 & 2 and you'll see obvious and substantial differences. For starters, CD is typically bottom down (i.e., the collapse initiates in the lower floors and gravity does the rest) as opposed to the collapse of the towers which were essentially top down collapses. Additionally, CD seeks to minimize collateral damage by collapsing the building into its own footprint. The collapse of the towers was substantially outside there footprints, as evidence to the significant damage caused to adjacent buildings.

If you doubt what I'm saying, Google Brent Blanchard and Mark Loizeaux, both of whom are experts in CD and see what they have to say.

...misdirection, when all you have to do is LOOK at the videos of how the towers came down. That's ALL that's required.

Arguing with you is pointless, it's like trying to convince somebody that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west who refuses to acknowledge this truth no matter what. You can take them out in the morning with a compass and show them that the sun is rising in the east, and then wait until evening and demonstrate that it sets in the west, and they'll STILL deny it.

And where 9-11 is concerned, unless you're engaged in deception, that can only mean one thing: crimestop.

why are you completely unable to explain what you saw in engineering or scientific terms? You say that you don't need to be an expert to figure it out yet all the experts vehemently disagree with you - don't you think that is incredibly arrogant on your part to make such definitive statements on things you admit (and demonstrate) you know nothing about?

That's quite a departure from the truth, and what a shocker coming from Hack89 :

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=richard+gage&total=268&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4995319675737766037&q=proof+of+controlled+demolition+911+part+2&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7686303663508827383&q=proof+of+controlled+demolition+911+part+2&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

A more accurate statement would have been: ALL crimestop victims vehemently deny CD because it means inside job.

It's not arrogant to acknowledge what is obvious -- when the emperor's not wearing any clothes you don't need a slide rule to verify it -- one need only look and see for themselves.

people like you are the best thing to ever happen to the OCT. Keep up the good work.

...here in the 9-11 forum so often to ridicule/dinegrate the 9-11 Truth movement. If you really think that we're actually "the best thing to ever happen to the OCT," why don't you routinely offer us encouragement, or just stay away from this forum and let us continue to unwittingly help OCT?

You don't seem very honest, Hack.

I am under no illusion that anything that happens here amounts to a hill of beans in the big scheme of things. When I want to positively change things around me, I step away from the computer and deal with people face to face.

"You don't seem very honest, Hack".

Give me a moment while I stop laughing.

is Gage an expert? Because he's an architect??

Won't start rising in the north and setting in the south?

You want me to take your word for it, don't you?

Without a single piece of evidence PROVING that it will be rising in the east tomorrow.
Get me the proof and I might become a believer.:P

...somebody caught under the spell of crimestop.

are you unwilling to cosider the possibility that you're simply wrong?

if you can.

Dangerous, and if somthing is dangerous, it is possibly leading to a heretical direction.

...and that's about as heretically directed as you can get at DU -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

:D

I don't think our friend Mr. Jefferson got that.

First of all, I can only assume that you have not had much contact with people who've immigrated here from former communist or fascist states.

The technique Orwell describes is a survival mechanism to ensure that you are not taken out and SHOT in the middele of the night. My friends from the former Soviet Union and Poland tell me that it was always important to have just the right facial expression lest one be suspect of being insufficiently orthodox. Not too happy, not too sad, but just so.

So on that basis alone, your analogy is facile and sophmoric. No one in the US is getting taken out and shot for not having the correct opinion. I would submit Democratic Underground as Exhibit A in this argument.

Secondly, your argument cuts perfectly both ways. You, my friend, seem incapable of holding, for even the slightest instant, the thought that the WTC towers may in fact have been felled by airliners and fires. It is impossible for you to parse this thought. It is so glaringly obvious to you that the towers were felled by CD, even though you have absolutely no experience that would lead you to this conclusion, that you cannot comprehend how any sentient being could possibly think otherwise. It is just unimaginable to you. So anyone who holds this view is obviously brainwashed.

Sweet jeezus in a handcart, you need medical attention. You are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Help is available, but first you must acknowledge that you have a problem.

...What you describe are conscious planned behaviors performed by citizens intended to fool authorities into believing they pose no threat and are totally loyal to the State.

Crimestop is a form of denial, a self-deception if you will, induced by the State via propaganda and fear mongering.

If you do not grasp this fairly straight forward distinction, you miss the point of the OP entirely -- and in this case, missing a, not very difficult to grasp, point concerning 9-11 made in the OP is symptomatic of something. Can you tell me what that something is?

Without Crimestop, one can only fool the authorities while consciously willing the correct demeanor. When sleeping or otherwise distracted, different strategies are required to convince the state of true orthodoxy. Hence, Crimestop became required to obviate any need to *consciously* force one to appear orthodox.

As an aside, I've read 1984 probably 50 times. It is one of my favorite reads of all time. But dude, I really do resent the insinuations in the OP. Nothing personal, and we'd probably like each other if we met in person, but I would like to assure you that if objective data becomes available that conclusivly shows that that the towers were felled by CD, I will examine that data on its own merits. Not on the merits of the messenger.

All my life I have been an anti-authoritarian, and I have even limited my career growth by calling BS whenever and wherever I see it. So sorry, no sale on the pop psychology.

...crimestop in action. Failure to grasp simple points and make easy distinctions, as they may lead where you simply will not go: 9-11 was an inside job.

Where is yours? Without it, rational thought cannot follow.

by means other than massive structural damage followed by fire.

A peer-reviewed mathematical model verified by the video record might be compelling.

If CD is not your thing, but rather the 'inside job' aspect, then I'd like to see proof that would stand up in a court of law that US officials ordered the attacks.

...the court of popular crimestop opinion? As to a court of law, I think Richard Gage's presentation when combined with the testimony of numerous people who were there as to the multiple, loud, and earthshaking explosions would stand up in any fair legal proceeding.

http://911blogger.com/node/8079

That said, there's NOTHING you could be shown that you would accept as evidence of CD because CD means inside job and anything that leads you there gets crimestopped in its tracks.

Like most all rabid OCTers you screech for the 9-11 Truth movement to provide incontrovertible evidence, all the while clinging to an official storyline that cannot bear up to even the mildest scrutiny. But then, that's how crimestop works isn't it? Cling to the storyline that make you feel secure (no matter how big a fairytale), and reject anything that might make you face hard truths -- like the truth that 9-11 was an inside job.

Note: Inside job means there had to be people on the inside, within our own government who participated/cooperated with the 9-11 crimes -- not that government officials handed down an order through ordinary channels, if that's what your suggesting inside job means.

I would be far more likely to accept an LIHOP/inside job scenario than CD, if there was credible proof that this were the case. I hold fealty to no one, understand? I could care less if Mother Theresa ordered the attacks, as long as the data is solid.

> That said, there's NOTHING you could be shown that you would accept as evidence of CD because CD means
> inside job and anything that leads you there gets crimestopped in its tracks.

Um, a confession from someone who rigged the towers for CD would be nice. Or someone who ordered them to be rigged. Just one credible whistleblower or witness would go a long way.

By the way, your repitive claims that I am rabid and employing Crimestop are not impressing me.

...indicates that you still don't understand. Orwell's crimestop is the denial and self-deception effect/result seen in some people when subjected to the propaganda and fear mongering of the State.

It's not something one consciously plans to use/employ as a debate tactic -- again you fail to grasp what is just not that complicated, and again, where 9-11 is concerned, that is symptomatic of something.

Can you tell me what that something is?

You obviously are incapable of understanding that it is *you* who are refusing to allow certain thoughts to enter your stream of conciousness.

Discussing anything with you is a futile exercise in the triumph of hope over experience.

Welcome to my ignore button. I'm sure you've met before.

:rofl:

Are you seriously claiming that someomne cannot evaluate the evidence, arrive at a different conclusion than you without it being due to crimestop? I'll have to remember that when I go to my next "Impeach Cheney and Bush" meeting. I guess I have everyone there fooled.

Crimestop was not a latent ability. It was an acquired skill by which one could autonomously reject all unorthodox thoughts at all times. One had to train oneself in the art, and then forget the training, and also forget the act of forgetting.

Mr_Jefferson misses the irony that he himself bypasses rational, objective thought processes to marginalize anyone who may have come to different conclusions than himself using rational, objective thought processes.

I don't expect the OP to understand this.

It's really quite delicious when you think about it.

I bet Mr_Jefferson owns a bullhorn.

Zzzzzzz...

honest than that.

He says that squibs, or what appear to him to be squibs, appear *above* the collapse front. This is not the case, at least according to any of the collapse videos I have seen. All the 'squibs' that I have ever seen appear well ahead of the collapse front.

If you can find a video that shows squibs above the impacted floors, then I would find that very curious indeed.

I do acknowledge that the molten orange fluid presents a real dilemna. I have not seen an explanatioin for that that I find to be very credible.

I'll finish watching Gage's presentation later and get back to you.

if it's so obvious. Should be easy to do, no?

Where are the peer-reviewed ungineering studies?

So what the hell, I vote 'to a high degree'

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...discussion with him, but I'm afraid he's under a pretty strong crimestop spell.

Yes, he writes just fine.

He claims he's placed me on ignore, a typical crimestop reaction to dangerous truths.

:D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...here arguing disingenuously, with only the agenda of stifling discussion by littering every thread with nuisance/distraction. This is not crimestop.

You're doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing, in a weak attempt at psychic foreclosure. You're trying to close off debate by trivializing the important facts others try to educate you on. It's really pathetic.

...why is it you just can't seem to stay away?

Why are you here? Does the Truth movement make you feel threatened in some way? Gotta be a reason.

with your lack of criticsl thinking by asking you logical questions you can't seem to answer.

...via nuisance/distraction, to make sure no meaningful debate can take place in the 9-11 forum.

is hardly nuisance and distraction. Get real.

meaningful debate. You just don't like it because it exposes how absurd your claims are.

...with all that meaningful debate, Sdude.

if you were, you'd try to honestly answer legitimate logical questions, except you can't. What was I thinking?