Re: WTC Redux
At 10:34 AM Friday 7/14/2006, Dan Minette wrote: Dear All, I IM'd with Gautam, and he said he'd be willing to ask a couple of questions concerning 9-11 and the conspiracy theories of his friend who worked on the report. But, he won't pepper her with a laundry list of questions, she's rather sick of the various conspiracy theories. As I mentioned, she's a liberal Democrat, so she wouldn't have political motivation to protect GWB et. al. So, what couple of questions would help people understand the official report better? I suppose "What _really_ happened?" is too general . . . Thought So Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Dear All, I IM'd with Gautam, and he said he'd be willing to ask a couple of questions concerning 9-11 and the conspiracy theories of his friend who worked on the report. But, he won't pepper her with a laundry list of questions, she's rather sick of the various conspiracy theories. As I mentioned, she's a liberal Democrat, so she wouldn't have political motivation to protect GWB et. al. So, what couple of questions would help people understand the official report better? In particular, I'd be interested in seeing questions that would assure people that the matter was studied carefully. With all due respect to the fact that a lot of people are sick and tired of the various conspiracy theories, I do not think it is unfair to assert that no small number consider the official version to be just another theory, albeit a well-researched and -funded one. I haven't read the complete report, but I don't think that it addresses the competing theories the way that the others address the official report. For me, questions that compare the official report's explanation of the attack and its aftermath with the major common elements of the top couple of conspiracy theories (how is it that WTC 1 & 2 fell at very near free-fall-in-a-vacuum speeds; what _exactly_ was the mechanism by which WTC 7 fell -- a building which did _not_ have thousands of gallons of burning Jet-A in it; and so forth) would go a long way towards taking energy out of the competing theories. Thanks for asking, Dan! Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On 14/07/2006, at 11:31 PM, Dave Land wrote: For me, questions that compare the official report's explanation of the attack and its aftermath with the major common elements of the top couple of conspiracy theories (how is it that WTC 1 & 2 fell at very near free-fall-in-a-vacuum speeds; Estimates range from 8.4 to 15+ seconds. That's a huge range, and if you take anything in the upper half of that range, it's not even vaguely "mysterious". And watching it again on some program the other night, it definitely wasn't anywhere near the lower estimates. what _exactly_ was the mechanism by which WTC 7 fell -- a building which did _not_ have thousands of gallons of burning Jet-A in it; and so forth) "Mechanism"? For goodness sake. It had a burning 400+m tower collapse about a hundred metres away - and WTC6 was destroyed during the collapse. Surrounding buildings had to be condemned too. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 14/07/2006, at 11:31 PM, Dave Land wrote: For me, questions that compare the official report's explanation of the attack and its aftermath with the major common elements of the top couple of conspiracy theories (how is it that WTC 1 & 2 fell at very near free-fall-in-a-vacuum speeds; Estimates range from 8.4 to 15+ seconds. That's a huge range, and if you take anything in the upper half of that range, it's not even vaguely "mysterious". And watching it again on some program the other night, it definitely wasn't anywhere near the lower estimates. what _exactly_ was the mechanism by which WTC 7 fell -- a building which did _not_ have thousands of gallons of burning Jet-A in it; and so forth "Mechanism"? For goodness sake. It had a burning 400+m tower collapse about a hundred metres away - and WTC6 was destroyed during the collapse. Surrounding buildings had to be condemned too. So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. I think we've already heard quite enough from those who have read a couple of web sites and seen a couple of videos (yes, and in some cases, posses doctorates in physics and so forth). The purpose of Gautam's kind offer through Dan was to learn from someone who was not the dilettante that the rest of us are. I am not going to debate this with you. I /am/ interested in hearing the informed conclusions of a person who was on the panel that actually wrote the report. Dave Who Asked You Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. I think we've already heard quite enough from those who have read a couple of web sites and seen a couple of videos (yes, and in some cases, posses doctorates in physics and so forth). The purpose of Gautam's kind offer through Dan was to learn from someone who was not the dilettante that the rest of us are. Sure. Does that suddenly exclude the rest of us from pointing out that we think the premise of your question is deeply flawed, and would be wasting the time of a professional who has heard these same things over and over? I am not going to debate this with you. I /am/ interested in hearing the informed conclusions of a person who was on the panel that actually wrote the report. Then do so. But stop being a primadonna. Anything you post onlist is up for discussion. You choose not to debate it further with me, that's your choice. But don't try to pull some sort of "only certain people can talk about this" shit, 'cause that's what that is: shit. If you really think your first question, that is easily refuted, is worthy then fine. I think you're wrong to ask it, and have said so. I do think your second question is interesting, but the way you framed it isn't. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Excellent.
I welcome this opportunity.
Apologies for my own intermittent involvement on this. I don't mean to
throw argument bombs into the room and then exit - I just don't have
the spare cycles to weigh in as often as I would like, yet.
Mr Bell, if selective bloviating was enough then this would be resolved
already. Your growling impatient diatribe doesn't appear to add
anything and I certainly resist bully-boy tactics even if only verbal.
There are real anomalies throughout this topic that we are all
interested in sorting through - or I thought we were.
Someone once put forth that perhaps conspiracy theorists around this
issue suffer a form of delayed Post Traumatic Stress. Perhaps this is
true although I rather doubt it, but I could say in return that
adherence to the official explanation may be akin to Stockholm
Syndrome.
So. Besides the other questions posed around this opportunity I have a
few I'll try to boil down for brevity:
- In the interest of scientific open-source inquiries, why are the
models and initial data and data sets generated kept secret?
- Why does the NIST report essentially stop at the point of Collapse
Initiation without delving into any of the mechanism postulated to
cause successive failure across the entire structure{s}?
- Related: why was the "Piston Mechanism" never modeled and only made
mention of in passing at the end of the report?
- What causes steel members to fall apart throughout and across the
entire building systemically such that a straight vertical moment of
inertia is maintained even as ton after ton of steel and concrete
should offer significant compressive resistance and start moving such a
mass off-center? WTC1+2 are the exception to history at this point.
- What of the Underwriters Labs studies of paint chips showing very low
temperatures were actually demonstrable on the South Tower, and only
some exceedingly small amount was exposed to even this temperature?
- Why was NIST selected when it has no regulatory or enforcement power
that other governmental and civil bodies must thus pay attention to &
alter codes and procedures to accommodate any revealed structural
flaws?
- What is the timeline for the WTC7 report and why was this selectively
delayed in the first place - resources were apparently plentiful as
compared with the FEMA report so decisions on where and how to spend
this should be in the realm of Gautam to explain.
On the topic of weariness, I am sorry your friend has grown tiresome on
the subject. I applaud her going at this with us. Perhaps if the
report was more complete these gaping holes in the presentation would
not beg such questions. The public contracted for an explanation and
it has been found wanting.
My own further thoughts do not need to be sent along to our weary
contactee:
There are amazingly detailed presentations from fires spreading to
people dying to airplane impact down to turbofan blades, yet nothing
about the structural integrity of this massive building failing. At a
very basic common-sense level of civil & structural engineering such a
failure requires serious review for possible retrofit action across the
entire built world - I have heard nothing of such thinking nor warnings
to come from government agencies that set such standards. All of us
here are throwing our own 2¢ in trying to understand what should have
been made clear by such a report. This double-failure is unprecedented
in history and flies in the face of multiple documented firestorms
raging for days w/o steel failure in modern construction.
The volume and detail we see up to the Collapse Initiation is
overwhelming, but paltry and notably sparse {I'm being generous here:
sentances/paragraphs -vs- whole chapters} as compared with the money
spent staging our understanding of events.
Pardon my beating a dead horse, but the estimates of of slightly over
one second per floor requires a significantly longer period than a free
fall. The calculated estimate for a crushing floor to have upon the
one below it has been apx 1 second, which would then start the clock
again for that floor to begin to the next buckle... and then start the
clock again... granted it could reduce the time per floor when enough
momentum {TBD} is generated, but this still runs up against the growing
body of steel and concrete piling up below. Only human demo-squad
intervention causes this vertical alignment to my knowledge and as
mentioned, if it was thus easily done then landlords would loosen bolts
and spread kerosene for the insurance all the time. I'm still waiting
for examples of sturdy time-tested buildings suffering progressive
collapse that mimic what we see w/o human attention. NIST side-steps
this conundrum without offering anything plausible.
I'd be glad to revise this opinion. For instance, I take those of us
who have direct metal working knowledge seriously as my own training
was more high-falutin' and
Re: WTC Redux
On 16/07/2006, at 5:03 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Mr Bell, if selective bloviating was enough then this would be resolved already. Your growling impatient diatribe doesn't appear to add anything and I certainly resist bully-boy tactics even if only verbal. Like, um, "I think we've already heard quite enough from those who have read a couple of web sites and seen a couple of videos..." and the email equivalent of covering the ears and going "lalalalala I can't hear you"? I'm no bully. But I do call it as I see it, and I reserve the right, as we all have, to reply to any on-list post. And if I think it's stupid, I'll say so. If you don't want your questions critiqued, as Dave apparently didn't, send them to Dan offlist, and let him decide what to pass on. Just 'cause I'm not American and don't live in the States doesn't mean I don't have a strong interest in this, both for intellectual and personal reasons. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Gibson Jonathan wrote:
> Excellent.
> I welcome this opportunity.
>
> Apologies for my own intermittent involvement on this. I don't mean
> to throw argument bombs into the room and then exit - I just don't
> have the spare cycles to weigh in as often as I would like, yet.
Understandable.
>
> Mr Bell, if selective bloviating was enough then this would be
> resolved already. Your growling impatient diatribe doesn't appear
> to
> add anything and I certainly resist bully-boy tactics even if only
> verbal. There are real anomalies throughout this topic that we are
> all
> interested in sorting through - or I thought we were.
Johnathan, we have always stood on a first name basis (or even
nicknames) here on the Brin-L collective love farm. Addressing
people by surnames and with titles attached has traditionally been
seen as a form of aggressiveness.
Even with people that we frequently find ourselves diametrically
opposed to during discussion, it helps to keep in mind that we are all
friends here. We attack ideas, but not people.
In general the people I argue with most vigorously are often my best
friends on the list. The free and open exchange of ideas really has
little to do with how much one values another. It is not personal and
it is bad form, that only increases the difficulties one encounters
when trying to communicate ideas, to make it so.
I hate it when I sound like I am lecturing, so I am going to quit now
while I am ahead.
> Someone once put forth that perhaps conspiracy theorists around this
> issue suffer a form of delayed Post Traumatic Stress. Perhaps this
> is
> true although I rather doubt it, but I could say in return that
> adherence to the official explanation may be akin to Stockholm
> Syndrome.
Isn't Stockholm a form of PTSD?
I don't see why both propositions could not be true. I am sure there
are limitations to the applicability of such disorders, so it is a
matter of degree coupled with propensity.
[SNIP official questions]
>
> My own further thoughts do not need to be sent along to our weary
> contactee:
> There are amazingly detailed presentations from fires spreading to
> people dying to airplane impact down to turbofan blades, yet nothing
> about the structural integrity of this massive building failing. At
> a
> very basic common-sense level of civil & structural engineering such
> a
> failure requires serious review for possible retrofit action across
> the entire built world - I have heard nothing of such thinking nor
> warnings to come from government agencies that set such standards.
ISTR some rumblings along this line but nothing I can specifically
recall.
> All of us here are throwing our own 2¢ in trying to understand what
> should have been made clear by such a report. This double-failure
> is
> unprecedented in history and flies in the face of multiple
> documented
> firestorms raging for days w/o steel failure in modern construction.
> The volume and detail we see up to the Collapse Initiation is
> overwhelming, but paltry and notably sparse {I'm being generous
> here:
> sentances/paragraphs -vs- whole chapters} as compared with the money
> spent staging our understanding of events.
I agree that the fire was probably insufficient.
My attention is now turned to structural integrity after the impact.
We were told (even as the even was in progress) that the impacts were
not enough to bring down the buildings, that they were designed with
just such an occurence in mind.
So now I question the design. Was it actually sufficient to withstand
such an impact?
The vertical support for the building was basically 2 concentric (an
inner and an outer) rings, one of concrete and steel and the other of
closely spaced steel columns. The closely spaced steel columns were
certainly damaged and in the south tower most of the damage was at one
end of the building, likely sparing the concrete and steel core.
I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load shifting,
with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the
affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of compressive]
forces or torsive forces beyond the rating of bolts and welds. One by
one members give way, transfering even more force to remaining members
until collapse is initiated.
Here is where my idea gets interesting.
Remember the vibrating shockwave I posited in an earlier thread? The
WTC towers were built on bedrock. When one tower collapsed a good
amount of that vibrational shockwave was transfered to surrounding
buildings. The nearest building, the north tower, was already
compromised and the shockwave does even more damage to the parts of
its structure that have already sustained damage and are supporting
increased loads.
The collapse of the south tower would have felt like an earthquake in
the north tower.
I'm hypothesizing that the south tower collapse caused the north tower
collapse.
It is just an idea, but one I think worth loo
RE: WTC Redux
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:04 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: WTC Redux
>
> Excellent.
> I welcome this opportunity.
>
> Apologies for my own intermittent involvement on this. I don't mean to
> throw argument bombs into the room and then exit - I just don't have
> the spare cycles to weigh in as often as I would like, yet.
>
> Mr Bell, if selective bloviating was enough then this would be resolved
> already. Your growling impatient diatribe doesn't appear to add
> anything and I certainly resist bully-boy tactics even if only verbal.
> There are real anomalies throughout this topic that we are all
> interested in sorting through - or I thought we were.
> Someone once put forth that perhaps conspiracy theorists around this
> issue suffer a form of delayed Post Traumatic Stress. Perhaps this is
> true although I rather doubt it, but I could say in return that
> adherence to the official explanation may be akin to Stockholm
> Syndrome.
>
>
> So. Besides the other questions posed around this opportunity I have a
> few I'll try to boil down for brevity:
> - In the interest of scientific open-source inquiries, why are the
> models and initial data and data sets generated kept secret?
> - Why does the NIST report essentially stop at the point of Collapse
> Initiation without delving into any of the mechanism postulated to
> cause successive failure across the entire structure{s}?
> - Related: why was the "Piston Mechanism" never modeled and only made
> mention of in passing at the end of the report?
> - What causes steel members to fall apart throughout and across the
> entire building systemically such that a straight vertical moment of
> inertia is maintained even as ton after ton of steel and concrete
> should offer significant compressive resistance and start moving such a
> mass off-center? WTC1+2 are the exception to history at this point.
> - What of the Underwriters Labs studies of paint chips showing very low
> temperatures were actually demonstrable on the South Tower, and only
> some exceedingly small amount was exposed to even this temperature?
> - Why was NIST selected when it has no regulatory or enforcement power
> that other governmental and civil bodies must thus pay attention to &
> alter codes and procedures to accommodate any revealed structural
> flaws?
> - What is the timeline for the WTC7 report and why was this selectively
> delayed in the first place - resources were apparently plentiful as
> compared with the FEMA report so decisions on where and how to spend
> this should be in the realm of Gautam to explain.
>
> On the topic of weariness, I am sorry your friend has grown tiresome on
> the subject. I applaud her going at this with us. Perhaps if the
> report was more complete these gaping holes in the presentation would
> not beg such questions. The public contracted for an explanation and
> it has been found wanting.
By a small number of peopleAmong the conspiracy theories on the web,
which are usually the first hits one gets, there are a number of sites which
give professional analysis of the collapse. A number of different
engineering teams at a number of universities analyzed this problem.
> My own further thoughts do not need to be sent along to our weary
> contactee:
> There are amazingly detailed presentations from fires spreading to
> people dying to airplane impact down to turbofan blades, yet nothing
> about the structural integrity of this massive building failing. At a
> very basic common-sense level of civil & structural engineering such a
> failure requires serious review for possible retrofit action across the
> entire built world - I have heard nothing of such thinking nor warnings
> to come from government agencies that set such standards. All of us
> here are throwing our own 2¢ in trying to understand what should have
> been made clear by such a report.
I have referenced numerous reports on this topic, so I'm not sure what
you're getting at.
This double-failure is unprecedented
> in history and flies in the face of multiple documented firestorms
> raging for days w/o steel failure in modern construction.
> The volume and detail we see up to the Collapse Initiation is
> overwhelming, but paltry and notably sparse {I'm being generous here:
> sentances/paragraphs -vs- whole chapters} as compared with the money
> spent staging our understanding of events.
> Pardon my beating a dead horse, but the estimates of of slightly over
> one second per floor requires a significantly longer period than a free
> fall.
That is not what the
Re: WTC Redux
On 16/07/2006, at 10:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Using the same calculations, tower 2, the first to fall, would collapse in 9.5 sec. Both of these numbers are consistent with the times observed. Bingo. Your Math-Fu is strong. Finally, I'm trying to incorporate your questions, Charlie's view, and David's questions into a couple of questions. I will post the wording here, and see if it makes sense to people. I'm perfectly happy to discuss "my view", or whatever, further, if you think it would help. Although, to be honest, I think your view, Dan, and mine are close enough on all the details we've actually thought about and discussed that I'd be perfectly happy for you to substitute your own for mine. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WTC Redux
> I'm perfectly happy to discuss "my view", or whatever, further, if > you think it would help. Although, to be honest, I think your view, > Dan, and mine are close enough on all the details we've actually > thought about and discussed that I'd be perfectly happy for you to > substitute your own for mine. Thank you. What I was thinking of was your view that there was a good question to be asked about the WT7 collapse, but that Dave's wording didn't present it. I was sorta fishing for you to present what you thought was a good question when I mentioned your name. :-) I have a hunch I'm going to edit the question(s) about WT1 and WT2, so I was hoping that you could provide a template for that question. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On 16/07/2006, at 11:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Thank you. What I was thinking of was your view that there was a good question to be asked about the WT7 collapse, but that Dave's wording didn't present it. I was sorta fishing for you to present what you thought was a good question when I mentioned your name. :-) I have a hunch I'm going to edit the question(s) about WT1 and WT2, so I was hoping that you could provide a template for that question. Basically, I think "chain of events" is a better route than "mechanism" for asking how WTC7 collapsed. It was another progressive collapse, there was a fire, but the assessment of how the structural damage was inflicted to WTC7 and when would help clear up some of the timeline of That Day. However, at this precise moment, I'm between beers (um, between my 15th and 16th, or so) at a farewell bbq, so i may come back to this later, if i'm unclear as to where i was heading. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Robert Seeberger wrote: Isn't Stockholm a form of PTSD? I don't see why both propositions could not be true. I am sure there are limitations to the applicability of such disorders, so it is a matter of degree coupled with propensity. Some poking around leads me to believe that no, they are not that closely related. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Robert Seeberger wrote: I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load shifting, with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of compressive] forces or torsive forces beyond the rating of bolts and welds. One by one members give way, transfering even more force to remaining members until collapse is initiated. Tensile? Was that the word you were looking for? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Julia Thompson wrote: > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load >> shifting, >> with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the >> affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of >> compressive] forces or torsive forces beyond the rating of bolts >> and >> welds. One by one members give way, transfering even more force to >> remaining members until collapse is initiated. > > Tensile? Was that the word you were looking for? > No, I think what I mean is more along the lines of elongational or expansive. xponent The Missing Vocabulary Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WTC Redux
The question I'd love to see asked is "are there really other videos of the crash at the Pentagon?" There are so many conspiracy sites that talk about a surveillance video from a gas station across the street. Do they really exist? I don't know if this person would or would not have any knowledge of those or if that would be an appropriate question or not... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I made it seem otherwise. Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. I apologize for acting like it. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WTC Redux
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: WTC Redux > > On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > > > > On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: > >> > >> So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you > >> presumed > >> to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to > >> think so. > > > > Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. > > > > Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. > > > > Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I > made it > seem otherwise. > > Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. Definitely not. Sigourney Weaver is a lot hotter in the role than you could be. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WTC Redux On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I made it seem otherwise. Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. Definitely not. Sigourney Weaver is a lot hotter in the role than you could be. :-) Have you actually /seen/ me in a diaphanous robe? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WTC Redux On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I made it seem otherwise. Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. Definitely not. Sigourney Weaver is a lot hotter in the role than you could be. :-) Dan M. Thank you for beating me to the punch there, Dan Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Dave Land wrote: On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WTC Redux On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I made it seem otherwise. Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. Definitely not. Sigourney Weaver is a lot hotter in the role than you could be. :-) Have you actually /seen/ me in a diaphanous robe? Dave I've seen enough men in diaphanous robes to have a generalized opinion, and none of them have been as hot as Sigourney Weaver. I will conclude that you *probably* aren't as hot as Sigourney Weaver. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 18, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Dave Land wrote: On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WTC Redux On Jul 15, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to think so. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm clearly impersonating Gautam's friend. Or maybe I'm pointing out problems with your questions. Charlie: We're entitled to our varying opinions. I'm sorry that I made it seem otherwise. Listmates: You don't need me as a gate-keeper. Definitely not. Sigourney Weaver is a lot hotter in the role than you could be. :-) Have you actually /seen/ me in a diaphanous robe? Dave I've seen enough men in diaphanous robes to have a generalized opinion, and none of them have been as hot as Sigourney Weaver. I will conclude that you *probably* aren't as hot as Sigourney Weaver. On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of her mode of dress. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On 7/19/06 11:47 AM, "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself > in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as > Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of > her mode of dress. > You may be no Sigourney Weaver, but are you hotter than Rick Moranis? Almost Rhetorical Maru Matthew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 7/19/06 11:47 AM, "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of her mode of dress. You may be no Sigourney Weaver, but are you hotter than Rick Moranis? Gosh, I'd like to think so, but which of us keeps getting roles in movies? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 7/19/06 11:47 AM, "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of her mode of dress. You may be no Sigourney Weaver, but are you hotter than Rick Moranis? Almost Rhetorical Maru Matthew I'm tempted to say that the chubby guy who was somewhat drunk and in an evening gown, asking if it made him look too fat, was hotter than Rick Moranis. Not having seen Rick Moranis that close, though, I can't tell for sure. (The chubby guy in question is a real sweetheart, and the evening gown worked better on him than a kilt probably would have.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:50 PM Subject: Re: WTC Redux > Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: > > On 7/19/06 11:47 AM, "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself > >> in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as > >> Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of > >> her mode of dress. > >> > > > > You may be no Sigourney Weaver, but are you hotter than Rick Moranis? > > > > Almost Rhetorical Maru > > Matthew > > I'm tempted to say that the chubby guy who was somewhat drunk and in an > evening gown, asking if it made him look too fat, was hotter than Rick > Moranis. Not having seen Rick Moranis that close, though, I can't tell > for sure. > > (The chubby guy in question is a real sweetheart, and the evening gown > worked better on him than a kilt probably would have.) Hey! Some of us chubby guys look just fine in a kilt. (Actually, I've lost about 30 pounds in the past 4 months -- I'm sure the stress of looking for a job has nothing to do with it ;-) Reggie Re-Lurking Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Reggie Bautista wrote: - Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:50 PM Subject: Re: WTC Redux Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 7/19/06 11:47 AM, "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the strength of your reasoning (as well as recent views of myself in a mirror), I concede the point that I am nowhere /near/ as hot as Sigourney Weaver, who would be significantly hotter regardless of her mode of dress. You may be no Sigourney Weaver, but are you hotter than Rick Moranis? Almost Rhetorical Maru Matthew I'm tempted to say that the chubby guy who was somewhat drunk and in an evening gown, asking if it made him look too fat, was hotter than Rick Moranis. Not having seen Rick Moranis that close, though, I can't tell for sure. (The chubby guy in question is a real sweetheart, and the evening gown worked better on him than a kilt probably would have.) Hey! Some of us chubby guys look just fine in a kilt. (Actually, I've lost about 30 pounds in the past 4 months -- I'm sure the stress of looking for a job has nothing to do with it ;-) Reggie Re-Lurking Maru On this particular chubby guy, the evening gown was a better choice. And I'm sure you look better in a kilt than he does, and that he looks better in an evening gown than you do. :) Chubby guys in kilts are OK, in general. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
