[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
OK. Let’ s try an analogy:
If I punch you VERY HARD in the stomach, will you,
a. Bend over double, groaning in agony. or
b. Crumble to the floor in a tidy heap.
I know which one my money’s on! Anyone betting with me? 
[/QUOTE]
That might be an anology if my body was 95% air and supported by a set of interior columns, external columns, and truss systems.
As it stands, I am made of meat. Thus invalidating this ‘analogy’.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
That might be an anology if my body was 95% air and supported by a set of interior columns, external columns, and truss systems.
As it stands, I am made of meat. Thus invalidating this ‘analogy’.
[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, if skyscrapers were designed to bend in the middle, like the human torso, his analogy might work. But I don’t recall them installing a giant hinge on the WTC, so I don’t think it works too well.
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
I bet 10 people could have done this, and 9 of them are dead now. So who’s blabbing?
[/QUOTE]
Are they superhuman, or just efficient beyond all dreams of man?
Oops, looks like Mr. CYPHERE has been banned. Wonder what happened?
Probably took a very hard punch in his buffer floors.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Probably took a very hard punch in his buffer floors.
[/QUOTE]
I recommend he take Bufferin for that.
[QUOTE=CurtC]
Oops, looks like Mr. CYPHERE has been banned. Wonder what happened?
[/QUOTE]
He knew too much.
[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
He knew too much.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, this statement is not even remotely true.
[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
Answer is C: Your midsection would burst into flames and black smoke would come billowing out of all your pores. Your internal organs would leap from your body via the nearest available orifice, regardless of how high off the ground.
After 20 or 30 minutes, your head would come crashing down through your body. Each section of your body would be pulverized by the weight of the crumbling sections on top. You would indeed end up as a pile of smouldering body parts on the floor.
Then George Bush would send Dick Cheney over to break LOUIS CYPHERE’s neighbor’s kneecaps and set his house on fire.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I’ve got nothing to add, except to say this post made me laugh. Thanks for making my day.
I can’t seem to edit my response…to clarify, I just think the post is well written. I didn’t mean any sort of disrespect to victims of 9/11. I thought of the possibility it could be taken that way after rereading my post.
[QUOTE=melvin coznowski]
I can’t seem to edit my response…
[/QUOTE]
Heh, heh, heh. First we lure you in, then we get your $14.95 USD, THEN we let you edit for five minutes.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
THEN we let you edit for five minutes.
[/QUOTE]
But only once, in 1960…
[QUOTE=Telemark]
But only once, in 1960…
[/QUOTE]
And only because he was deleting testimony that would have linked Oswald to Ruby …
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Heh, heh, heh. First we lure you in, then we get your $14.95 USD, THEN we let you edit for five minutes.
[/QUOTE]
Bastards! 
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Obviously, this statement is not even remotely true.
[/QUOTE]
OK how about this:
He “knew” too much.
[QUOTE=Wakinyan]
That’s why, if you listen to or read a debate between holocaust deniers and people who knows what they are talking about, you notice the same phenomena as you see here: How the denier (or CT guy) without much sentimentality just drops his original argument when debunked, and moves on to the next presumed weak spot, and the next, and the next, until the other side is weared down. OTOH, if the other side holds ground, the denier/CT guy silently moves to another forum.
(Of course, I’m not saying these CT guys are nazis, deniers, or in any other way [except method of argument] resembles them top of the line nutjobs, nor that they in any way share those kind of believes, etc.)
[/QUOTE]
Not to rain on your parade any, but I left the discussion because I was strongly persuaded by the evidence presented against the CT, and felt no inclination to defend it anymore…and also had nothing to add on the opposite side of the argument, either. My ‘weak concession’ post is here; it took me a few more hours of reading and stewing on the matter for the last of my stubbornness to dissolve, and since then I’ve been of the opinion that the collapse of the towers was caused solely and entirely by the airplane collisions. (Which were not missles, biplanes, or UFOs, either. :rolleyes: ) Consider my ignorance fought.
I did not ‘move on to the next weak spot’, or find another forum to post on. Sorry to disappoint you.
(Also, sorry for my lack of sentimentality. I’ll try to argue from emotion next time. :rolleyes: )
[QUOTE=begbert2]
I did not ‘move on to the next weak spot’, or find another forum to post on. Sorry to disappoint you.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe he was referring to you. You didn’t exhibit the behavior he was talking about.
[QUOTE=Telemark]
I don’t believe he was referring to you. You didn’t exhibit the behavior he was talking about.
[/QUOTE]
Hm, perhaps not. But I was the “conspiracy theorist” who started this thread, and I abandoned it shortly after having been ‘debunked’; so I was standing at least somewhat in front of the bullseye he was shooting at.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Hm, perhaps not. But I was the “conspiracy theorist” who started this thread, and I abandoned it shortly after having been ‘debunked’; so I was standing at least somewhat in front of the bullseye he was shooting at.
[/QUOTE]
But it would have taken one of those notorious magic bullets that zig-zag to actually hit you.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Hm, perhaps not. But I was the “conspiracy theorist” who started this thread, and I abandoned it shortly after having been ‘debunked’; so I was standing at least somewhat in front of the bullseye he was shooting at.
[/QUOTE]
Pfft. Everyone knows it wasn’t Wakinyan who was shooting at you, but an unidentified shooter on the grassy knoll.