Crazy Talk
I remember when you were considered 'crazy' for suggesting the Preznit was lying about WMD's. I also have memories of people calling me crazy for suggesting that prisoner humiliation and degradation wasn't Ms. England's novel conception.
Am I still CRAZY for wondering exactly how two planes hitting high up on a couple of the world's largest skyscrapers started fires dozens of stories below ground and even covered by tons of debris somehow burned hot enough to keep rescuers at bay for weeks?
Just wondering cause I wouldn't want anybody to think I'm crazy.
Enjoy.
Am I still CRAZY for wondering exactly how two planes hitting high up on a couple of the world's largest skyscrapers started fires dozens of stories below ground and even covered by tons of debris somehow burned hot enough to keep rescuers at bay for weeks?
Just wondering cause I wouldn't want anybody to think I'm crazy.
Enjoy.
Advertisement
There is an incredible amount of material available to read about the "fire".
If you want to make an argument about it, more than pointing to the argument will be required.
April 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I left a comment here and spent a little time pulling up links to add, but then I saw that you had to "approve" my comment. That was a while ago.
I think if you really want a discussion going you need to open it up to comments. I haven't seen this before on here. Is there some reason you chose to do it that way? I would hesitate to spend the time commenting again, since I can't be sure my comment is going to see the light of day.
April 25, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, no Ramona
There is no such feature, still
This is the deal: if you have more than 2 links in a comment, TPM thinks it's spam and "holds" it.
It has nothing to do with the blog writer, it's an auto feature. If you want to leave a comment with more than a couple links, you have to do it in chunks.
=(
April 25, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, chicken...I didn't remember seeing that option, but I figured I just missed it!
April 25, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bwak, for that clarification. I have to say, this site is awfully complicated! All those rules. . .
So I guess this means my post is dust now. When they say "hold" is that a euphemism for "dumped"?
April 26, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've all lost some comments to the ether at times. When I write a long reply, I try to remember to copy it before submitting it, just in case.
April 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Miguelito, I've lost enough of them, too, that I should be wise enough by now to save them.
On some sites, I save any long posts automatically, but I've never had a problem here and let my guard down. Foolish me.
April 26, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's new to me too...I knew you could disable comments, but I didn't know there was a feature that allows you to "approve" them...yuck!
April 25, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me venture a guess, and then you can refute it regarding the fires.
Hundreds of gallons of jet fuel were aboard these planes that spilled all over the buildings, when the buildings fell, the fluid naturally flowed down to the lowest levels, i.e , lowest floors where, with ample hallways feeding air to them, burned intensely and came to ignite other "fuels" that required higher temperatures. I would bet those hallways had a fierce "wind" as the suction from the fires pulled the air into the base. I don't know, but I think this is possible.
BTW, I love a conspiracy so what are you suggesting? Would you be more specific?
April 26, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tim, I apologize for blaming you for holding my comment. I'll be more careful about adding links from now on. Had NO idea. . .
I personally don't believe in conspiracy theories--with one exception. I wholeheartedly believe there WAS a vast Right-wing conspiracy working feverishly to bring President Clinton down.
I've read many articles about the reasons why the Twin Towers fell. I've read the reasonable, the refutable, and the outright crazy, and my own conclusion is that there was no conspiracy. I base that on reports from civil engineers, structural stress experts, and others who have studied the events extensively and reported their findings truthfully.
I found plenty of articles looking at it from every angle, including the loony angle, by Googling "How the Twin Towers fell".
This is just one of them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
April 26, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink