+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: How about that Ken Rockwell (/showthread.php?tid=143330)
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - Carnos Jax - 10-24-2012
ztirffritz wrote:
[quote=decay]
i agree with him.
there has never been a good, believable explanation.
You're kidding, right? Two of the tallest buildings in the city collapse and you don't think that a third building next to it might be affected? The fact that it didn't liquify the ground at Ground Zero and bring down several blocks is a miracle in my opinion.
I always assumed debris from one of the other towers took out WTC 7. But I never thought deeply about it. The ground 'liquifying' as a result of the collapse of the other two towers (and hence the 'earthquakes' they might have generated) seems plausible, but has anyone actually looked into it? Now that i think about it, why didn't WTC 7 collapse immediately as a result of the liquefaction (I assume it was some time afterwards).
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - decay - 10-24-2012
my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.
the 2nd is the skeptic site.
posted both for balance.
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - Carnos Jax - 10-24-2012
decay wrote:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
http://www.wtc7.net/
Interesting decay. So NIST (which is a respected organization) says it was fire initiated by debris from the collapse of WTC's 1 & 2? Considering they're reputation, I can accept that...it seems plausible to me. But it seems they're suggesting WTC 7 is almost unique (compared to other tall buildings around the world) in its vulnerability to collapse due to fire (needless to say that was what (primarily?) caused WTC's 1 & 2's collapse).
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - Uncle Wig - 10-24-2012
decay wrote:
my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.
the 2nd is the skeptic site.
posted both for balance.
In your first statement you say that there has never been a good, believable explanation. But you post a link to exactly that. Why you'd believe a conspiracy site without a shred of evidence and no expertise over a thorough engineering-based study is baffling to me.
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - vision63 - 10-24-2012
Uncle Wig wrote:
[quote=decay]
my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.
the 2nd is the skeptic site.
posted both for balance.
In your first statement you say that there has never been a good, believable explanation. But you post a link to exactly that. Why you'd believe a conspiracy site without a shred of evidence and no expertise over a thorough engineering-based study is baffling to me.
Because -
Milhouse:The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people.
Bart: Thank You!
Milhouse: Under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early, in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass here, people.
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - decay - 10-24-2012
don't you think that a thorough study could be biased in any way?
that the 'powers that be' have no influence on the official explanation?
ever hear of the Kennedy Assassination?
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - hal - 10-24-2012
There was a quite a large contingent within this group that suspected the bush admin of complicity in 911 - good thing that most of the archives are lost now. Decay wasn't alone - many are still here... they're just quiet about it now...
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - pRICE cUBE - 10-24-2012
Believe what you will but I certainly wouldn't get my 9/11 news from a guy who is known for "reviewing" lenses he doesn't actually have in his possession for testing.
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - M A V I C - 10-24-2012
pRICE cUBE wrote:
Believe what you will but I certainly wouldn't get my 9/11 news from a guy who is known for just making stuff up and calling it true.
Fixed.
Re: How about that Ken Rockwell - Lew Zealand - 10-24-2012
decay wrote:
don't you think that a thorough study could be biased in any way?
Yes. Bias is everywhere. You are implying fabrication and conspiracy, though, which is different.
decay wrote:Yes. Influence is different than fabrication and conspiracy.
that the 'powers that be' have no influence on the official explanation?
decay wrote:Yes. He apparently was assassinated but that was before my time so I have to assume that his presidency was also fabricated. In fact, I've never been to Dallas so Dallas is fabricated, too.
ever hear of the Kennedy Assassination?
Probably out of concrete and glass.