EBHarvey

Administrators
  • Content count

    29,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About EBHarvey

Converted

  • About Me:
    handsome devil
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Kids, Work, Kids, Wife, Kids

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Killingworth, CT
  1. And you've ignored almost every question asked of you.
  2. Almost everything you've posted has been challenged, you just keep ignoring those posts.
  3. aka assault lures.
  4. Nobody needs treble hooks.
  5. You know you're wrong when dinghy, frankstar, me, and dude all agree on it.
  6. well that settles it.
  7. Little tip for ya Nicky: when you put something in quotes it means you're reciting what somebody actually said.
  8. I just watched about half a dozen videos of 7 coming down and all I see are windows blowing out in vertical succession as the structure fails from the ground up. I see little flashes when the windows go which appear to me to be sunlight reflecting off of shattering glass. The building coming down from the bottom is inconsistent with a controlled demolition. The propagation of exploding windows being in a line from the ground up, not simultaneous on a horizontal plane is inconsistent with a controlled demolition. It looks to me like a structure whose foundation was compromised, as would be expected after a pair of 100 story skyscrapers just fell down a few hundred feet away.
  9. I'm in SC. Red, text me directions to your "house".
  10. They seldom get into it with pets, despite what most people say. Unless your cat attacked it or was dressed up as a turkey poult he was probably pretty safe.
  11. Who paid for the reconstructive surgery?
  12. Simce you keep bringing them up.....I work exclusively with architects and engineers and have for nearly a decade, I kmow hundreds and hundreds of them......as a group, they're nuts.
  13. And why do you keep saying "at free fall speed"? Doesnt everything that falls down do so at its respective freefall speed? And the point about everything being pulverized somehow evidencing the use of explosives is just asinine. EVERYTHING in those towers was pulverized, everything. There were thousands of offices in the building and the rubble contained no recognizable computers, chairs, desks.... Most of the human remains were identified by a few teeth. So if explosives caused the pulverization of concrete it would have been localized to the places closest to the charges, right? The nature of the concrete debris does not support your stupid hypothesis, and, if anything, it refutes it.
  14. What "point" needs to be addressed? Even if those numbers are true, which I highly doubt unless they're counting the below-grade parts of the building like the parking garages, so what? Show me the mathematical calculations that prove it was impossible.
  15. How do you get people - probably hundreds of them between the engineers, welders, explosives experts, etc. - to go along with a plan to kill thousands of innocent people, not immedietely go running to the police or press about it, then stay quiet for almost 20 years afterwards? Answer that question and I will at least entertain the possibility that you are not a complete moron.