BBC Blog Network

User Profile

vteclimey

Listed below are comments made by vteclimey between Friday, 11th July 2008 and Monday, 3rd November 2008.

«Newer
Older»

"Felipe Massa is world champion - NO!" 12:50pm on 03 Nov 2008 Funny how no one moans about David Coulthard not living in the UK, he hasn't done so for years.

So what if he wants to leave this country and live elsewhere. I would too!

Seems like moaning about those who are better than yourself is still the Englishmans favourite pastime.
Is blogging dead? 07:50am on 23 Oct 2008 I must confess to wondering about the future of blogging myself.

The current US election is a good example. Many of the blogs I have read are just a copy and paste of an existing news article. Including some BBC items.

This is not blogging by any stretch.

Worse still is the nonsense that is pandered about, I have seen Obama accused of being a hypnotist and even the Anti-Christ, such is the depths of dirt some bloggers are prepared to go to.

And then there is the comments, oh boy. The dross that you sometimes have to wade through in order to read an intelligent post.

It does make me wonder what the future does hold because currently the vast majority of blogs are average at best and gutter bound at worst.
Facebookers are narcissists 12:53pm on 25 Sep 2008 I must as I am very unimpressed with this study.

I would strongly suggest that rather than those who sign up are being narcissistic, its facebook itself promotes narcissism by its very nature. As a result the vast majority of members will appear narcissistic.
Bolt makes the impossible real 4:22pm on 21 Aug 2008 sanquirico: since you are happy to admit to not being an expert and leave the drugs comments to the experts.

Thanks to his wins, Bolt will be tested at least twice, probably more. Feel free to be smug if he is guilty, but until then, please be free to abstain from unhelpful insinuation.

Micheal Johnston managed 19.32 12 years ago without drugs, its not so hard to believe that Bolt can do 19.30 without drugs!

Bolts performance in the 200 was inspirational, you could see how much he wanted that record and you could see he was going for it with all he could give. A truely fantastic performance.
Impossible conspiracies 9:25pm on 13 Jul 2008 "How large a source of heat for such a burst at 3000 degrees and covering what volume would be needed to weaken the whole thousands of tons of steel structure? Yes, let us think logically."

You are going to have to expand on the point you are trying to make. You don't need to weaken the whole structure to bring it down.
Impossible conspiracies 6:49pm on 13 Jul 2008 97 Vierotchka2:

I could not disagree with you more strongly. The official story has been reached from the evidence and published. It is not their duty or obligation to go chasing every crackpot idea and suggestion in an effort to disprove them all.

If someone thinks they know better, its up to them to prove it.
Impossible conspiracies 6:30pm on 13 Jul 2008
91 frenchplasticenemice:

Your Home Secretary comment is a classic example of internet rumors and poor application of critical thinking. It smacks of 'I read it on the internet so it must be true' sort of logic. It is precisely this sort of comment that aids the spread of untruths and conspiracy.

It helps no one.

98 ynda20:

The WPI link you posted states that the swiss cheese effect seen in the steel could be caused by something as simple as acid rain. It also states that they are unable to state if the odd effects seen were cause before or after the building collapse.

This is not evidence for CD.

I also quote "phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity". The steel does not need to be at melting point to fail!

After the collapse, fires burnt for a long time and at a very high temperature. Longer and higher than any office has or could burn for. Just because an office fire can not do the damage seen, it does not mean that the post collapse fire did not.

Yes there are some strange things in the steel. That on its own does not prove anything other than exposure to heat.

Now think logically about heat and temperature for a second. What is going to have a greater effect on the surface of steel? A very short burst (less than a second) of very high temp (3000 deg) or a very long time (several weeks, maybe even months) of a high temp (over 1000 deg). Think about it logically.
Impossible conspiracies 4:03pm on 11 Jul 2008 I found the BBC programme quite poor. It didn't do enough work on examining the conspiracies to properly qush them.

I have spent the last couple of days searching and reading several sites on the WTC7 subject and there is much out there that is good information that the BBC should have presented.

A good example being the claim that the building would be the first steel framed building to fall due to fire weekening. At least 2 sites I saw listed several examples of this being false. Even mentioning the building example that the BBC used in the programme, which burned for a long time and still stood. The key issue with that building is it was differantly constructed and the steel did in fact fail, it was the concrete that kept it up.

Anyway, having much more about the WTC7 issue its plain it could not have been CD (yes I did read the two page PDF that someone posted up there ^^^ ).

Failed buildings don't just fall over, they collapse in a heap, they have a lot of air space inside them and its not until all that space is filled that the rest of the building has nowhere to go but sideways.

Looking at the face of WTC7 that was damaged it is clear there is very significant damage and that the fire was also very significant.

The valume of smoke coming from the building so clearly indicates a highly fire, its a shame it also blocked the true extent of the damage to the building.

Its also interesting that the BBC programme did not mention that vast amount of diesel fuel stored in the basement of the building and one site I read drew a parallel between the fuel distribution system and the damage. So maybe there was more fuel for the building fire than many appreciated.

It is also clear, looking at the after pictures, that the building did not actually fall in a neat pile on itself. There was a lean during the fall and debris damaged a building over the road, hardly a controlled demolition I'd say.

Of course given the damage and the fire, no charges layed out for demolition would have been reliable, amazing how that fact is overlooked so much.

And as for the Thermite suggestion, its just not as reliable as a charge, when it come to cutting through steel, Thermite melts the steel, this take time. To perform a controlled demolition you need split second accuracy in timeing. A charge gives this, Thermite does not.

When you get to the detail of how it could be done, nothing stands up. Its a shame the conspiracy theorists can't see that.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

vteclimey