Speaking of WTC, Osama didn't make it fall down!
Speaking of WTC, Osama didn't make it fall down!
I totally agree. Physics did.
Speaking of WTC, Osama didn't make it fall down!
I totally agree. Physics did.
LOL, I would have been dissapointed if you hadn't of said that! ;)
Any way, I am saying that the US used demolition charges to make the WTC fall.
Speaking of WTC, Osama didn't make it fall down!
I totally agree. Physics did.
LOL, I would have been dissapointed if you hadn't of said that! ;)
Any way, I am saying that the US used demolition charges to make the WTC fall.
I know. I am making fun of how stupid you are for thinking that.
lol @ Americans
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/2/2d/World_Trade_Center.gif)Fgt.
Fgt.
as a greater man than you once said "Die in a fire"
Probably. Also I wasn't offended. I just wanted my sentiments felt.Fgt.
as a greater man than you once said "Die in a fire"
I hear that method of death had a brief moment of popularity about seven years ago.
Speaking of WTC, Osama didn't make it fall down!
I totally agree. Physics did.
Speaking of 9/11 (please don't shoot me down for this; I have a right to my opinion), I really think people should let that shit go. I mean, yeah, it was a horrible thing done to my country, but it was seven fucking years ago, and my government is doing just as horrible stuff to other people today. Plus, it's made all the ignorant rednecks hold a grudge against pretty much all foreigners. Do you know how fucking small the extremist Muslim population is? Very. And out of that tiny percentage, how many of those people do you think are actually plotting to obliterate America and all other infidels? That's just how they were fucking taught. If you were taught your entire life to shoot a puppy every time you saw one, you'd do it happily. If someone thought that what you were doing was wrong, you'd probably just say a big, "FUCK YOU!" too. So there.
Man I keep having to tell myself your only 14, to keep me from ripping you a new asshole.Relax...
Would you have the same sentiment if you lost your Father,Mother, Brother,Sister,Aunt,Uncle in thoses airplanes or buildings? Or either war that ensued afterward? I don't think so. The fact that you were seven when this happened means you don't get to have an opinion about it. STFU.
Speaking of 9/11 (please don't shoot me down for this; I have a right to my opinion), I really think people should let that shit go. I mean, yeah, it was a horrible thing done to my country, but it was seven fucking years ago, and my government is doing just as horrible stuff to other people today. Plus, it's made all the ignorant rednecks hold a grudge against pretty much all foreigners. Do you know how fucking small the extremist Muslim population is? Very. And out of that tiny percentage, how many of those people do you think are actually plotting to obliterate America and all other infidels? That's just how they were fucking taught. If you were taught your entire life to shoot a puppy every time you saw one, you'd do it happily. If someone thought that what you were doing was wrong, you'd probably just say a big, "FUCK YOU!" too. So there.
Man I keep having to tell myself your only 14, to keep me from ripping you a new asshole.
Would you have the same sentiment if you lost your Father,Mother, Brother,Sister,Aunt,Uncle in thoses airplanes or buildings? Or either war that ensued afterward? I don't think so. The fact that you were seven when this happened means you don't get to have an opinion about it. STFU.
To anyone who was genuinely offended, allow me to explain something to you:
This may not be 4chan, but it is still the Internet. Nothing is sacred. Nothing. I believe that 9/11 was a real tragedy, as I'm sure most everyone else does. I think what Osama posted was hilarious, but I don't go around cracking jokes about 9/11 in public. There's a difference between making fun of something on the Internet and making fun of something IRL. This subforum was designed to be obnoxious and random. Just relax.
No the worst thing that has ever happened in the world was your birth. Although this is a close second.
I'm not a victim here. But I will be God dammed if I'm going to let her down play its importance or call us as bad as the terrorists.
September 11th isn't important. Americans like to make it out like it is, fuck knows why... oh wait, I do know why: you like being the "victim".
USA: Poor, poor us americans. September 11. :(
Let's invade Afghanistan!
Rest of the world: gee, okay. But only because of Sept 11.
USA: That was fun, let's invade Iraq.
Rest of the world: I don't think so.
USA: Sept 11!
Rest of the world: well I suppose you are quite pathetic, go ahead.
So pathetic that the rest of the world couldn't have stopped us if they wanted to. They "let us" do stuff. wink wink.No the worst thing that has ever happened in the world was your birth. Although this is a close second.
haha, you really do think it's that terrible.I'm not a victim here. But I will be God dammed if I'm going to let her down play its importance or call us as bad as the terrorists.
But you are as bad as the "baddies". For somebody who "isn't" the victim you sure do a good job of acting like one.
September 11th isn't important. Americans like to make it out like it is, fuck knows why... oh wait, I do know why: you like being the "victim".
USA: Poor, poor us americans. September 11. :(
Let's invade Afghanistan!
Rest of the world: gee, okay. But only because of Sept 11.
USA: That was fun, let's invade Iraq.
Rest of the world: I don't think so.
USA: Sept 11!
Rest of the world: well I suppose you are quite pathetic, go ahead.
Iraq on the other hand. Despite the reason we first when in there, which I agree was a mistake due to improper intelligence, is going to be for the better in the long run. That place now has water and electricity and schools and hospitals now where they were not there before.
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/2/2d/World_Trade_Center.gif)
(http://i35.tinypic.com/25tw9ed.gif)
It was 7 years ago.
This happened eight years ago
Iraq on the other hand. Despite the reason we first when in there, which I agree was a mistake due to improper intelligence, is going to be for the better in the long run. That place now has water and electricity and schools and hospitals now where they were not there before.
Personally, I believe that you can't look at the way things were in Iraq before we went in and say that the job didn't need to be done . I'm just not sure that we should have been the ones to do it.
Doesn't matter if it happened yesterday, there are still going to be people traumatized by it for a long time. It also doesn't matter that it happened in America, if it happened in your (whoever you may be) country you might be just as sensitive as some Americans are about it.
Personally, I actually agree with Muffz. What's done is done, and when you look at the statistics, the invasion by the West hurt more innocent bystanders than 9/11 itself. Wardogg, chill the fuck out. Shit happens, people die. People are still dying in New Orleans, and not from Gustav. Katrina is gone, but still killing and nobody gives a flying fuck, nobody's trying to help because 9/11 happened. This happened seven years ago, and thinking about it and bitching on the Internet changes nothing. Also, that's one win OP.
Doesn't matter if it happened yesterday, there are still going to be people traumatized by it for a long time. It also doesn't matter that it happened in America, if it happened in your (whoever you may be) country you might be just as sensitive as some Americans are about it.
The Blitz? It certainly didn't happen yesterday, and does crippled count as traumatized? If so, we've got that too, if not, sorry for being stronger people. Roughly the same amount of casualties across the whole country almost every night? People could be killed, wounded or made homeless if they were lucky? That was like the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 on a daily basis, but do we have remembrance every day? No, we got on with our lives. The problem is, this hasn't ever happened before, the closest was Pearl Harbour, so I'd see why Americans would be shit-scared, but not all bitchy like Wardogg.
How come no one ever remembers July whatever it was, with the bombs in London? Oh right I know, thats because America doesn't give a toss about anywhere else.Because a lot less people died. The world trade center had the most civilian deaths in america from any attack. So it seems to have stuck.
Just because extremist Afghans killed innocent Americans doesn't give extremist Americans the right to kill innocent Afghans.The invasion of Afghanistan happened because Afghanistan was controlled by a group of extremists with close ties to Osama who refused to stop giving him shelter. Average life for Afgan citizens is much, much better now then it was under the Taliban.
How come no one ever remembers July whatever it was, with the bombs in London? Oh right I know, thats because America doesn't give a toss about anywhere else.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.
All jokes aside, as a pacifist I feel that the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq were all wrong. Just because extremist Afghans killed innocent Americans doesn't give extremist Americans the right to kill innocent Afghans.That's sounds funny coming from someone who doesn't live in America.
If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
How come no one ever remembers July whatever it was, with the bombs in London? Oh right I know, thats because America doesn't give a toss about anywhere else.
Because a lot less people died. The world trade center had the most civilian deaths in america from any attack. So it seems to have stuck.
The invasion of Afghanistan happened because Afghanistan was controlled by a group of extremists with close ties to Osama who refused to stop giving him shelter. Average life for Afgan citizens is much, much better now then it was under the Taliban.
That's sounds funny coming from someone who doesn't live in America.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
The ends don't always justify the means.Vauge statements make shitty arguments.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
Wrong date...its the 8th of November.
Vauge statements make shitty arguments.
I remember remember the 5th of November.
Wrong date...its the 8th of November.
What are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
lurk harder
I remember remember the 5th of November.
Wrong date...its the 8th of November.
What are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
lurk harder
Did you watch the video? That's what I'm talking about.
This video is not available in your country... :-\
tl;dw
Besides, it didn't fit the joke... that's why tossing it in there makes no sense.
Silly butt.
This video is not available in your country... :-\
This video is not available in your country... :-\
Please, tell me when killing civilians were a part of NATO's plans.
tl;dw
I lost interest after "Operation Hump". Sorry.
Holy shit, just read the last however many pages. Jesus, people take things way too seriously for the internet. Guys, I'm not saying I'm ok with terrorists. And I know alot of people lost loved ones. I can't find the video for it, but remember when Bill O'Reilly attacked the 9/11 victim's son? He had almost the same attitude I did. Like I said earlier, 9/11 does not make all Muslims bad. It's actually a very peaceful religion if followed correctly. I mean, fuck, they pray like what, 5 times a day? It's just the very small population of extremists who are fucked up like that, and that's how they were taught to be. And, like I also said earlier, America (I live in America, so don't get mad, Americans) is doing shit just as bad today. There's been stuff at least a hundred times worse going on in Darfur for decades that no one is paying attention too. So, don't get me wrong, I am not downplaying 9/11 in the slightest, I'm just saying there's way more crappier stuff going on in the world and people should try to let 9/11 go. Also, Wardogg, I'm a girl.
Hurf durf smartass, I never said it was. I said the primary purpose of the invasion wasn't to kill people, Osama killed people simply for being American. Or are you one of those retards who think war is never justified?Please, tell me when killing civilians were a part of NATO's plans.So because it wasn't in their plans, it justifies the fact that it happened?
Also, Wardogg, I'm a girl.
Also, Wardogg, I'm a girl.
Where did I say you were not?
The Twat changed his last post but my statement still stands.
Holy shit, just read the last however many pages. Jesus, people take things way too seriously for the internet. Guys, I'm not saying I'm ok with terrorists. And I know alot of people lost loved ones. I can't find the video for it, but remember when Bill O'Reilly attacked the 9/11 victim's son? He had almost the same attitude I did. Like I said earlier, 9/11 does not make all Muslims bad. It's actually a very peaceful religion if followed correctly. I mean, fuck, they pray like what, 5 times a day? It's just the very small population of extremists who are fucked up like that, and that's how they were taught to be. And, like I also said earlier, America (I live in America, so don't get mad, Americans) is doing shit just as bad today. There's been stuff at least a hundred times worse going on in Darfur for decades that no one is paying attention too. So, don't get me wrong, I am not downplaying 9/11 in the slightest, I'm just saying there's way more crappier stuff going on in the world and people should try to let 9/11 go. Also, Wardogg, I'm a girl.
Speaking of 9/11 (please don't shoot me down for this; I have a right to my opinion), I really think people should let that shit go. I mean, yeah, it was a horrible thing done to my country, but it was seven fucking years ago, and my government is doing just as horrible stuff to other people today. Plus, it's made all the ignorant rednecks hold a grudge against pretty much all foreigners. Do you know how fucking small the extremist Muslim population is? Very. And out of that tiny percentage, how many of those people do you think are actually plotting to obliterate America and all other infidels? That's just how they were fucking taught. If you were taught your entire life to shoot a puppy every time you saw one, you'd do it happily. If someone thought that what you were doing was wrong, you'd probably just say a big, "FUCK YOU!" too. So there.?
Muffs, he was talking about the username "Pretentious Twat", not you.
Way2Fail
I least someone understands my ramblings. ;)
Oops...:P
I meant to say "At least"
No.
So it's morally correct to invade another country and start blowing up civilians in America, and people who live elsewhere aren't allowed to comment?
If you don't start anything there won't be anything.
Or are you one of those retards who think war is never justified?
Also don't act like you know whats best for America. You know jack shit.
Why?Or are you one of those retards who think war is never justified?
Yes.
Why?
Come now, Steve. So long as countries exist, there will be war. Even the most pacifistic socialist admits that much.Why?Because I think that supposedly civilised nations can settle their differences using less destructive methods.
Do you seriously consider the Second World War unjustified (crimes against humanity aside)?
Surely you believe that some things are worth fighting for?
Provide all the evidence you have the US brought them down, and I will refute it. One at a time to please to keep from things getting forgotten.
BTW Robosteve, not cool man.
I suspect all the hard evidence in the world couldn't convince you.
Some nations are not civilized. Like I said before, the Taliban were horrible leaders.Why?Because I think that supposedly civilised nations can settle their differences using less destructive methods.
Some nations are not civilized. Like I said before, the Taliban were horrible leaders.
How are Americans supposed to ignore September 11th? (I don't mean the yearly Sept 11.. who cares about memorials besides those who've lost someone?) It was a major attack against our country.. that would be like ignoring a virus as it eats the files on your computer.
How are Americans supposed to ignore September 11th? (I don't mean the yearly Sept 11.. who cares about memorials besides those who've lost someone?) It was a major attack against our country.. that would be like ignoring a virus as it eats the files on your computer.
I don't mean ignore it completely, I mean not go parading uninvited into somebody else's country and start blowing up their citizens.
Bush's response to 9/11 actually gave him the highest presidential rating ever in American history (~90%) until the Iraq War.
Even if the U.S. government didn't orchestrate 9/11, it was definitely still Bush's negligence which let it happen. August 11th, 2001. Bush receives his daily briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." At the time, Bush was taking the entire month of August off on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. So how does Bush leap in action? He does nothing.He also received warnings from the European countries that Bin Laden will strike the U.S. some time in September, based on the information gathered through their intelligence network. Again, Bush thinks, "who gives a shit, America has the most advanced communication network ever. We will know they will strike us before they even start planning it!"
Exactly, we trusted the govt to do the right thing. We (most of us) supported Bush because we didn't know he was a self-serving asshole. Some of the most seemingly trustworthy govt officials were on TV telling us there were WMDs in Iraq. I still remember Colin Powell holding that little vile of white powder! Since then Bush's administration has done everything it can to take our basic freedoms away. I hope like hell the next president, whether it's McCain or Obama, does his best to restore confidence in our govt.Bush's response to 9/11 actually gave him the highest presidential rating ever in American history (~90%) until the Iraq War.That's exactly right. We supported him while he was trying to do something and turned on him when he practically abandoned that effort in favor of a meaningless war in a part of the world we'd be wiser to just stay out of over imaginary weapons of mass destruction. And that's on top of all the other awful things he's done during his administration. We hadn't gotten much of a taste of his presidency before 9/11.
Also, this (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=airport) was written just months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
-You said you would fight for your own freedom.Some nations are not civilized. Like I said before, the Taliban were horrible leaders.Then it should be up to the people of Afghanistan to revolt, and not for another country to decide what is best for them.
If you don't start anything there won't be anything.
Can you not badly quote "Bad Boys"?
-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.
-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.
Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.
If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!
the evidence:
-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building
someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try
If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!
the evidence:
-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story buildings
someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news1.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news3.gif)
I've been getting a lot of email lately from people sending me this stupid 9/11 conspiracy video called "Loose Change." I've tried to ignore it for months now, but you morons keep forwarding it to me, and I keep having to add more email addresses to my spam filter. The ironic part is that I'm a huge conspiracy nut, and even I can't stomach this bullshit. For example, I believe that there is a small, reptile-like creature called Chupacabra that sucks the blood of goats in Mexico. Area 51? Hell yes. Roswell? Pass me the Kool-Aid. But "Loose Change" elevates bullshit to an artform. Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.
Unlike others who debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, or "cons" for short, I'm not going to bother with going through intricate point-by-point (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons#FURTHER_READING) rebuttals, or pointing out the hundreds of factual inaccuracies and outright lies in this "documentary," because I don't need to. In fact, I can debunk the entire story with one simple observation:The fact that this man is alive...
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/dylan_avery_big.jpg)
...is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit.
Here's why:
1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.
2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: "BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL." Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down "in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision." Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?
I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers.
The other type of 9/11 conspiracy email you dipshits keep sending is the $20 dollar WTC conspiracy. Glenn Beck--a loud-mouthed, fat-faced asshole on CNN--has a copy of it on his website:The new U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks!1st) FOLD A NEW $20 BILL THIS WAY:
Yes! see for yourself...(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill1.gif)2nd) CONTINUE TO FOLD THIS WAY
Compare your fold precisely to this picture.(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill2.gif)3rd) FOLD THE RIGHT SIDE UNDER,
exactly as you folded the left side.
You'll immediately see the Pentagon ablaze! (red circle)(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill3.gif)4th) NOW FLIP IT OVER AND SEE OTHER SIDE
The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are hit and smoking.(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill4.gif)What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?
What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of a $20 bill with elements of design that were conceived in 1928 by a committee of treasurers, a full 42 years before the World Trade Center even existed, could accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? Pretty good, apparently.
The article on Beck's page goes on to ask: Need even more proof? No, you cock! You had me at "the U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center." As if a folded picture of shrubbery on a bill that kind of looks like smoke wasn't convincing enough of a conspiracy, Beck offers this gem on his site to sway those few remaining skeptics:(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill5.gif)
This is followed by the fact that 9+11 = 20, and in big red letters:COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE!
The question mark at the end of "COINCIDENCE" is clearly there to denote a rhetorical question, as clearly, this is not a coincidence. To help out Glenn Beck, I sat down with a $100 bill and tried to find any hidden messages the bill might contain. Here's one that he hasn't found yet:
Step 1:
Fold the bill so that the "ON" of "ONE" is covered:(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gbeck1.gif)Step 2:
Fold again like so, covering "HU" of "HUNDRED:"(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gbeck2.gif)
Step 3:
Another fold covering part of "DOLLARS:"(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gbeck3.gif)
Step 4:
Finally make one last fold, and with a magic marker, add the following letters to reveal a hidden message!(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gbeck5.gif)
Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot1.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot2.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot3.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot4.gif)
Further Reading:
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Wardogg, that's the most impressive bias I've ever seen.
-Can you redirect me to a site that lists the WTC archetectural integrity specifications?
-You would think 70 years later buildings would be stronger.
-The effect of the plane crashing?
-Well there are secondary supports.
-It only "hints"
-Ok.
-No if the plane crashed like it did on tv the building would have toppled over not have fallen vertically
thankyou all for believing the conspiracy
Yup. I hate it when my bias to reality shows.
I am going to now quote from the best page in the universe: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?I didn't. Although it did spread down through a few floors. Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?
I am going to now quote from the best page in the universe: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
While I used to hold Maddox in high regard, upon viewing that page when he released it, it showcased his stupidity. It was truly unfortunate.
well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?I didn't. Although it did spread down through a few floors. Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?
well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?I didn't. Although it did spread down through a few floors. Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?
Ever heard of air pressure? Air pressure pushed that debris out those windows.
Ever heard of air pressure? Air pressure pushed that debris out those windows.
So, the building was airtight on every floor?
The funny thing is all your arguments do not work. Just like any conspiracy theory. The empire state building has a completely different structural support system. The planes that hit the twin towers had completely full fuel tanks. The metal lost all structural integrity, then the cement brought itself down. Guess how they demo a building? They blow out the supports, then let it's weight bring it down. Wow. That actually makes.... sense.well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?I didn't. Although it did spread down through a few floors. Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?
Also, how could it fall at free-fall speeds unless all of the supports in the building were gone.
Doesn't have to be. Just a path of least resistance for the air.
The funny thing is all your arguments do not work. Just like any conspiracy theory. The empire state building has a completely different structural support system. The planes that hit the twin towers had completely full fuel tanks. The metal lost all structural integrity, then the cement brought itself down. Guess how they demo a building? They blow out the supports, then let it's weight bring it down. Wow. That actually makes.... sense.Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? :-\
Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? :-\
Doesn't have to be. Just a path of least resistance for the air.
That's my point. The air ducts and dismantled structural chaos of every floor above it doesn't offer less resistance than the random point in a pane of glass on the airtight exterior?
Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? :-\
The theory is, their compounding weight crashing down, structurally collapsed each floor, attaining free-fall speed. My toothpick bridges in elementary school seem to discount this theory though.
also how do u explain the pentagon? the plane disapeared? LOLThe plane didn't (sic) disapear. Are you referring to the lack of pictures? Well public domain photos didn't happen until after cleanup was well underway.
I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.Well, the OP certainly belongs here.
I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.Well, the OP certainly belongs here.
Well I shall believe it is a missile until the Government releases the confiscated vids of it (being a missile.)Yes, all the witnesses that found airplane parts... Wouldn't it be more convenient for the government to run a third plane into the pentagon. Rather than fuck up their GIANT scheme. If they can steal two planes, why is a third one so hard. How did they get all these families to magically lose people that were on the flight that never happened. How did these people disappear. The plane makes 10 times more sense than the missile.
I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.Well, the OP certainly belongs here.
To be honest, I blame myself for turning this into a valid discussion. I had to explain to Wardogg about the "nothing is sacred" rule of the Internet. He took the OP way too seriously.
Hey it's true? :DNo, it isn't. Most are more along the lines of left wing.
If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!
the evidence:
-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building
someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try
Really? Enlighten us all.If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them? ???
Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!
the evidence:
-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building
someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try
It has been debunked long ago.
I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the conspiracy. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.
anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building.
Well the easiest one to debunk is the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. That is a true statement but steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength. I don't remember the real number but the steel in the WTC lost atleast 50 percent of its supporting strength.Your opinion is not enlightenment, sources?
anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building.
READ MY POST AGAIN.
"most are more along the lines of left wing"Bush is right wing..... Are you slow?
your saying that most of the people who support Bush think the WTC is a US Conspiracy?
I tried searching with google and couldnt find any.
anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building. the building fell in 15 seconds, for an object in a vacuum to fall the same distance it would take 10 seconds. The 5 seconds can be accounted for by airresistance, airpressure, and solid resistance, however it cannot be accounted for by strong building archetectural foundations)
"most are more along the lines of left wing"Bush is right wing..... Are you slow?
your saying that most of the people who support Bush think the WTC is a US Conspiracy?
I tried searching with google and couldnt find any.
anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building. the building fell in 15 seconds, for an object in a vacuum to fall the same distance it would take 10 seconds. The 5 seconds can be accounted for by airresistance, airpressure, and solid resistance, however it cannot be accounted for by strong building archetectural foundations)
Good God.....I cant believe this is actually still being debated.
Wardogg, you have been 100% right on with all your posts, even the one in response to Muffz original post. Muffz is basically talking about something she knows nothing about....she was 7 when 9/11 happened and is still too young and ignorant to provide any meaningful input.
Nightmare, youre a fool. Pissed off Muslims were behind 9/11. Two planes full of fuel hit the WTC causing severe fires and extraordinary heat which caused the buildings to collapse. The secondary "explosions" you refer to was pressure caused by the floors above pancaking as the building collapsed.
The Pentagon was also hit by a large plane. Missles leave a trail behind them (similar to the ones you see high-flying jets cause) and people probably would have noticed that. There are, however, many witnesses to a low flying jet headed towards the Pentagon though.
I really dont see how anyone can joke about 9/11 but, as Saddam said earlier, I guess nothing is sacred on the internet.
I really dont see how anyone can joke about 9/11 but, as Saddam said earlier, I guess nothing is sacred on the internet.
I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the conspiracy. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the reptilian overlords. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.
I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the conspiracy. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the reptilian overlords. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.
To be honest, I blame myself for turning this into a valid discussion.
Physics 101Well the easiest one to debunk is the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. That is a true statement but steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength. I don't remember the real number but the steel in the WTC lost atleast 50 percent of its supporting strength.Your opinion is not enlightenment, sources?
Physics 101Well the easiest one to debunk is the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. That is a true statement but steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength. I don't remember the real number but the steel in the WTC lost atleast 50 percent of its supporting strength.Your opinion is not enlightenment, sources?
Surely the situation was complex enough that just saying "Physics 101" isn't a good enough response.
Also popular mechanics busting it long ago.
-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.
Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.
This is very wrong.
Prior to 9/11 there was an uprising in Afghanistan. When the Taliban had taken control of about 90% of the country a group led by Ahmad Massoud (The Northern Alliance) formed in opposition. Massoud, and his followers, fought against the real oppressors (Taliban) and gathered hundreds of new followers every day. Massoud was assassinated by Al-Queda on 9/9/01 and is now viewed as a national hero.
Therefore, when the American arrived to overthrow the Taliban tens of thousands of Afghans, including Massouds army, joined to fight and took to the streets in joy. The Taliban was a brutal regime and the vast Afghan population were unhappy under their control. When the Americans arrived the Afghan people finally knew that the Talibans days were numbered.
7. The building fell exactly how it should if floors were dropping straight down upon each other adding its weight to the current floor weight and so on and so on until complete collapse.
-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.
Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.
This is very wrong.
Prior to 9/11 there was an uprising in Afghanistan. When the Taliban had taken control of about 90% of the country a group led by Ahmad Massoud (The Northern Alliance) formed in opposition. Massoud, and his followers, fought against the real oppressors (Taliban) and gathered hundreds of new followers every day. Massoud was assassinated by Al-Queda on 9/9/01 and is now viewed as a national hero.
Therefore, when the American arrived to overthrow the Taliban tens of thousands of Afghans, including Massouds army, joined to fight and took to the streets in joy. The Taliban was a brutal regime and the vast Afghan population were unhappy under their control. When the Americans arrived the Afghan people finally knew that the Talibans days were numbered.
Your post does not exclude mine. What makes you think they will happily trade one oppressive regime for another?
To be honest, I blame myself for turning this into a valid discussion.
Sig'd.
-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.
Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.
This is very wrong.
Prior to 9/11 there was an uprising in Afghanistan. When the Taliban had taken control of about 90% of the country a group led by Ahmad Massoud (The Northern Alliance) formed in opposition. Massoud, and his followers, fought against the real oppressors (Taliban) and gathered hundreds of new followers every day. Massoud was assassinated by Al-Queda on 9/9/01 and is now viewed as a national hero.
Therefore, when the American arrived to overthrow the Taliban tens of thousands of Afghans, including Massouds army, joined to fight and took to the streets in joy. The Taliban was a brutal regime and the vast Afghan population were unhappy under their control. When the Americans arrived the Afghan people finally knew that the Talibans days were numbered.
Your post does not exclude mine. What makes you think they will happily trade one oppressive regime for another?
Because were never built a regime there. Hamid Karzi is the president of Afghanistan.
Afghan leader Hamid Karzai (who formerly worked for Unocal) calls Unocal the “lead company” in building the pipeline.[BBC, 5/13/2002]
To some here, it looked like the fix was in for Unocal when President Bush named a former Unocal consultant, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan late last year .[Los Angeles Times, 5/30/2002]
You guys are retarded. See post below.Surely the situation was complex enough that just saying "Physics 101" isn't a good enough response.
I think the real problem here is that Sokarul has never even taken Physics 101.
I would hope that he would not have to cite a source that a metals resistance to deformation is reduced when heated. See blacksmithing.
How does that prove Robbj retarded and disprove that you have never taken Physics 101? GTFO.You guys are retarded. See post below.Surely the situation was complex enough that just saying "Physics 101" isn't a good enough response.
I think the real problem here is that Sokarul has never even taken Physics 101.I would hope that he would not have to cite a source that a metals resistance to deformation is reduced when heated. See blacksmithing.
He was using Robbj to prove he didn't need a source.How does that prove Robbj retarded and disprove that you have never taken Physics 101? GTFO.You guys are retarded. See post below.Surely the situation was complex enough that just saying "Physics 101" isn't a good enough response.
I think the real problem here is that Sokarul has never even taken Physics 101.I would hope that he would not have to cite a source that a metals resistance to deformation is reduced when heated. See blacksmithing.
He was using Robbj to prove he didn't need a source.
So funny and so original. Let's pick on sokarul. He has something new to make fun of every 5 seconds. If you can't find something new fucking give up.He was using Robbj to prove he didn't need a source.
He still hasn't taken Physics 101.
Whatever you say.He was using Robbj to prove he didn't need a source.
He still hasn't taken Physics 101.
He was using Robbj to prove he didn't need a source.How does that prove Robbj retarded and disprove that you have never taken Physics 101? GTFO.You guys are retarded. See post below.Surely the situation was complex enough that just saying "Physics 101" isn't a good enough response.
I think the real problem here is that Sokarul has never even taken Physics 101.I would hope that he would not have to cite a source that a metals resistance to deformation is reduced when heated. See blacksmithing.
Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
So what do you do to tighten its strength?
Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
So what do you do to tighten its strength?
You create better alloys.
That's is actually exactly what you do. If the WTC's support beams had around 10 percent of another metal(I can't remember which one) it would have been able to keep enough strength, at the same temperature, to keep the towers up.Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
So what do you do to tighten its strength?
You create better alloys.
Brilliant. ::)
That's is actually exactly what you do. If the WTC's support beams had around 10 percent of another metal(I can't remember which one) it would have been able to keep enough strength, at the same temperature, to keep the towers up.Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
So what do you do to tighten its strength?
You create better alloys.
Brilliant. ::)
Not titanium. The metal doesn't have to be strong to create a strong alloy.That's is actually exactly what you do. If the WTC's support beams had around 10 percent of another metal(I can't remember which one) it would have been able to keep enough strength, at the same temperature, to keep the towers up.Yes, because its common knowledge metal looses strength when hot.
So what do you do to tighten its strength?
You create better alloys.
Brilliant. ::)
Are you thinking the ever expensive titanium? 10% titanium to 90% steel alloy can still be quite expensive to manufacture, and even more so to purchase, and in a set of buildings such as World Trade Center, I think it would have been out of the budget when they were being built in the 1970's.
Although, I did read they are using a much cheaper way to produce titanium now. Maybe in the near future buildings will be comprised of such alloys.
But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.
The reason the trade center fell is easy. There were main supports and tiny little joists connecting everything, distributing the weight. The heat resistant foam was knocked off by the impact of the plane. The burning jet fuel, and officer furniture and everything else on fire inside the trade center heated these joists up to a point where they had less ability to withstand a load. If you doubt this principle then a simply forge can show you that unmelted metal is severely weakened when heated.there was one other part I heard was involved. there was a gas line going up the tower. No one knew about it so it kept pumping the gas up to the fire. that is why the fire burned for so long.
The impact of the plane had destroyed some of these joists forcing the load to be redistributed to other joists. These joists are now heated so that their load bearing ability is lessened, but also they have a larger load than was intended. One or two give out increasing the load for others, until the entire weight is on the main supports collapsing them. This process no happens clear down the building at an increasing rate.
there was one other part I heard was involved.
A 9/11 conspiracy is far less plausible than a RE conspiracy. ::)
A 9/11 conspiracy is far less plausible than a RE conspiracy. ::)
Really? Where's the list of over 600 scientists who think something's fishy with RE? Because here's the list of architects and engineers who see through the bullshit:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.
But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.
Don't start.
And Crotchy stop trolling. You're as bad as Proleg.
But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.
Don't start.
And Crotchy stop trolling. You're as bad as Proleg.
I'm dropping it, Wardogg, but you know I'm not trolling. Planes and fires did not cause the towers (much less Bldg 5) to collapse.
But the explosions. From the videos we can obviously see that explosives were used.
Don't start.
And Crotchy stop trolling. You're as bad as Proleg.
I'm dropping it, Wardogg, but you know I'm not trolling. Planes and fires did not cause the towers (much less Bldg 5) to collapse.
I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit. :)
I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit. :)
I find it pretty funny that 911 truthers often cite witnesses as hearing loud bangs at the time the planes hit. :)
Actually, I think what you are attempting to belittle are the numerous (dozens) of firemen who are on radio and video during the events and just after describing secondary explosions throughout the towers, especially in the sub-levels, and huge series of explosions as the towers collapsed. Those lunatics must have been already forming ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Seriously, have you even watched Loose Change? Read any of the letters from engineers, architects, and scientists? Even seen what the fucking infrastructure of that building looked like?
It was designed and rated to hold half again its own weight under twice the heat at which kerosene and construction and office equipment could possibly have burned under ideal (non-pressurized) conditions. All the smoke makes it clear the conditions were extremely oxygen poor, meaning a fire not much hotter than one in your home bar-b-cue or kerosene lamp. Has your grill (made of cheap mild steel wire, by the way, not structural steel) ever collapsed on your bar-b-cue?
Where is the debris from the 'plane' that 'crashed' in PA? Where are the turbines from the 'plane' that was 'crashed' into the pentagon? Why have less than 30% of the experienced commercial pilots who have tried to crash the same type of planes into the same buildings in simulations been successful, while three supposed terrorists were able to do it after a few weeks of flight training?
What caused the other building to collapse again? I forget. It wasn't hit by a plane, and no skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has ever collapsed from a fire, even ones that burned for days. Was it built out of substandard materials?
I suppose you all buy the 'magic bullet' theory as well?
I believe some of the fuels that where being pumped up there could have burned hotter then kerosene. second my grill has never collapsed on me. however I never had near 1/4 the weight it would take to collapse it under normal temperatures. It can hold my 150 pounds and when we are cooking there is never more then a few pounds of beef on it at a time.The reason the trade center fell is easy. There were main supports and tiny little joists connecting everything, distributing the weight. The heat resistant foam was knocked off by the impact of the plane. The burning jet fuel, and officer furniture and everything else on fire inside the trade center heated these joists up to a point where they had less ability to withstand a load. If you doubt this principle then a simply forge can show you that unmelted metal is severely weakened when heated.there was one other part I heard was involved. there was a gas line going up the tower. No one knew about it so it kept pumping the gas up to the fire. that is why the fire burned for so long.
The impact of the plane had destroyed some of these joists forcing the load to be redistributed to other joists. These joists are now heated so that their load bearing ability is lessened, but also they have a larger load than was intended. One or two give out increasing the load for others, until the entire weight is on the main supports collapsing them. This process no happens clear down the building at an increasing rate.
Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.
Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.
Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.
Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.
Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.
Oh, no one bothered to actually read the article that was posted here. There were several sources on this fact and I don't feel the need to double post sources.
19 young Muslim extremists who were jealous of American freedom hijacked four American airliners using only box cutters and outwitted the most powerful government in the world. Using 2 of these airplanes they managed to destroy 3 skyscrapers that were designed to survive airplanes hitting them.
19 full grown men who were on a mission hijacked four American airliners with the only weapons on board and went unnoticed by the most powerful government in the world. Using 2 of these airplanes they managed to destroy 3 skyscrapers that were designed to survive much much much smaller, airplanes not loaded with fuel, hitting them.
I have yet to understand how you can hijack a plane with a box cutter.
Seriously though, if there were 5 jerkoffs trying to hijack my plane, with tiny ass knives, I would kick all of their asses. Do you know how hard it is to stab someone with that tiny thing when you have people ganging up on you? It had to have been the they thought they would live so they didn't do anything reason for why they just sat there and let people take over a plane.there were also plastic knives. which believe it or not are pretty good at stabbing with.
Hey proleg, I fixed the bias peace of shit you wrote.First of all, it was copypasta.
Because if it was at that low of altitude they assumed it was out of fuel. you know the type of situation if it was an accidental crash.Of course, because accidents always follow the official procedures. I forgot.
No however the chance of a plane with an empty tank is many magnitudes higher then the chance of a plane with a full tank hitting it by accident. there is a point where the chance of something becomes so small you don't bother with it. when you walk out you door you don't where a gas mask in case a tank of poisonous gas is accidentally released do you?Because if it was at that low of altitude they assumed it was out of fuel. you know the type of situation if it was an accidental crash.Of course, because accidents always follow the official procedures. I forgot.
No however the chance of a plane with an empty tank is many magnitudes higher then the chance of a plane with a full tank hitting it by accident.How do you determine that?
Seriously though, if there were 5 jerkoffs trying to hijack my plane, with tiny ass knives, I would kick all of their asses. Do you know how hard it is to stab someone with that tiny thing when you have people ganging up on you? It had to have been the they thought they would live so they didn't do anything reason for why they just sat there and let people take over a plane.And one plane did when they found out it was a suicide mission. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't rush someone with a knife given the limited knowledge you have in the situation.
Hey proleg, I fixed the bias peace of shit you wrote.First of all, it was copypasta.
Secondly, how does one not anticipate the chance of there being fuel in an airborne aircraft?
I can just imagine the commission for safety and design of the WTC...Is your car prepared to take a meteor. You can always up the doom. It is someones job to say one you get unlikely enough not to worry about it.
"So these buildings can withstand planes, Ted?"
"Yup. Pretty much."
"What do you mean by 'pretty much'?"
"Well, it's all contextual, innit?"
"Huh?"
"No need to worry; so long as it's not a big plane with fuel inside of it, there shouldn't be a problem."
"Uh...I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask what would happen in such a situation..."
"The hit towers would completely collapse in on themselves and also cause another random one to fall for no reason."
"Okay...shouldn't the worst case scenario be the one that we're specifically prepared for?"
"You lost me."
Is your car prepared to take a meteor. You can always up the doom. It is someones job to say one you get unlikely enough not to worry about it.Is it too much to expect a self-proclaimed "plane-proof" building to be plane-proof? Or do these kinds of assertions mean nothing in Amerikkka?
that would be like making something car proof and then being surprised when a tank breaks through the wall. I highly doubt any of the plane-poof buildings in Canada built before 9/11 could take a full jetliner.Is your car prepared to take a meteor. You can always up the doom. It is someones job to say one you get unlikely enough not to worry about it.Is it too much to expect a self-proclaimed "plane-proof" building to be plane-proof? Or do these kinds of assertions mean nothing in Amerikkka?
I am not aware of any "plane-proof" buildings in Canada. Maybe it's because we don't throw around empty designations like Ameripenguins do.that would be like making something car proof and then being surprised when a tank breaks through the wall. I highly doubt any of the plane-poof buildings in Canada built before 9/11 could take a full jetliner.Is your car prepared to take a meteor. You can always up the doom. It is someones job to say one you get unlikely enough not to worry about it.Is it too much to expect a self-proclaimed "plane-proof" building to be plane-proof? Or do these kinds of assertions mean nothing in Amerikkka?
Igloos are hard to target in any circumstances. Guiding a hijacked airliner into one, and doing so with little to no pilot training, is probably rather difficult.don't forget the little log cabins. although they would be hard to see in the middle of a forest.
I can just imagine the commission for safety and design of the WTC...
"So these buildings can withstand planes, Ted?"
"Yup. Pretty much."
"What do you mean by 'pretty much'?"
"Well, it's all contextual, innit?"
"Huh?"
"No need to worry; so long as it's not a big plane with fuel inside of it, there shouldn't be a problem."
"Uh...I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask what would happen in such a situation..."
"The hit towers would completely collapse in on themselves and also cause another random one to fall for no reason."
"Okay...shouldn't the worst case scenario be the one that we're specifically prepared for?"
"You lost me."
The building was made "planepoof" because a single engine plane ran into it due to fog. Airliners do not normally fly anywhere near the building so they were not a threat. The conversation was more like "could this building withstand a small aircraft running into it at normal speed" And they replied "Yes it could"I like to think my skit is more realistic.
Do you base realism off of movies with catchy titles such as "airplane?"The building was made "planepoof" because a single engine plane ran into it due to fog. Airliners do not normally fly anywhere near the building so they were not a threat. The conversation was more like "could this building withstand a small aircraft running into it at normal speed" And they replied "Yes it could"I like to think my skit is more realistic.
I base realism off of the earlier Stephen King novels before he went a bit whacky.Do you base realism off of movies with catchy titles such as "airplane?"The building was made "planepoof" because a single engine plane ran into it due to fog. Airliners do not normally fly anywhere near the building so they were not a threat. The conversation was more like "could this building withstand a small aircraft running into it at normal speed" And they replied "Yes it could"I like to think my skit is more realistic.
Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.
Doesn't it depend on what alloy is used? I'm sure there is some sort of steel that can withstand higher temperatures.
I believe some of the fuels that where being pumped up there could have burned hotter then kerosene. second my grill has never collapsed on me. however I never had near 1/4 the weight it would take to collapse it under normal temperatures. It can hold my 150 pounds and when we are cooking there is never more then a few pounds of beef on it at a time.
that would be like making something car proof and then being surprised when a tank breaks through the wall. I highly doubt any of the plane-poof buildings in Canada built before 9/11 could take a full jetliner.Is your car prepared to take a meteor. You can always up the doom. It is someones job to say one you get unlikely enough not to worry about it.Is it too much to expect a self-proclaimed "plane-proof" building to be plane-proof? Or do these kinds of assertions mean nothing in Amerikkka?
Here you go JC.
Check this out. A tanker truck carrying unleaded fuel causing a steel and concrete structure to collapse 6 years after 9/11. It has to be part of the conspiracy though right? Just to make us think that offical story of the towers is plausible.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tanker_truck_fire_causes_collapse_on_Oakland_Freeway
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E5DA133EF933A05757C0A9619C8B63
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003686711_freeway30.html
Just in case you were wondering. The flame from gas is about 471?-560?C whereas the flame from jet fuel is 600 all the way to 1300 C depending on the O2 flow.
I think we've run around in this circle before, wardogg. It's the overpass, right? Overpasses are made of steel-reinforced concrete, which means rebar. From wikipedia:
A rebar, or reinforcing bar, is a common steel bar, and is commonly used in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures. It is usually formed from carbon steel, and is given ridges for better mechanical anchoring into the concrete. It can also be described as reinforcement or reinforcing steel.
In contrast, the tower's core was built from structural steel - wiki again:
Structural steel is steel construction material, a profile, formed with a specific shape or cross section and certain standards of chemical composition and strength. Structural steel shape, size, composition, strength, storage, etc, is regulated in most industrialized countries.
Rebar will soften significantly at 500-700 F and is liquid at around 1400 F. The A441 and A572 structural steel used in the tower cores retains 90% of its high second moments of area (the type of strength required to hold up a building) at temperatures up to 2000 F. Plus, it's coated with fireproofing material. I've already mentioned all the thick, acrid smoke that can be clearly seen pouring from the tops of the buildings on every live feed that was running. Experts (fire investigators, engineers, etc) concur that based on the fuels present (kerosene, paper, drywall, dried paint, office furniture, electrical wiring, carpet, computers, etc.), the estimated wind speed at that elevation, the amount of smoke, and the visible fire, the best guess as to the heat of the fire was between 600 and 900 F, just right for grilling steaks, but not nearly enough to significantly impact the load-bearing capabilities of the superstructure core.
Also, the buildings' floors were not uniformly burning - there were significant areas of the burning floors that were not on fire, especially at the core of the building where no flammables were present. How and why, then, did the floors collapse straight down? Why didn't the steel on one side of the building stay up for a second or two longer, causing the floor to half-collapse and preventing pancaking? That's what the building was designed to do. Was the entire square footage of the burning floors completely engulfed, burning at 2000+ F, weakening all the structural steel at exactly the same rate? That is amazing - the most talented, coordinated, precise, intelligent fire since Og the caveman first rubbed a couple of sticks together. Maybe we should prosecute the fire??!!
Listen, I've had these arguments with people who spend more time on the 911 truth boards than Gayer spends here. They've spent years researching, and have way better stuff to throw at me. I have a 4 MB text file with sourced data, and about 30 more reasons why the story we've been told is a lie. You're bright people for the most part - take off the 9/11 lie goggles for an hour or two, and do some research. Watch Loose Change, and a rebuttal video, then research the salient facts for yourself. Read a couple of engineer/architect letters. Read the 9/11 Commission Report!
Try to find a demolitions expert, anywhere in the world, whose professional opinion is that the towers collapsed from fire. Go ahead - find one!
tl;dr
Ahh, the most interesting post you've made in weeks! Isn't tl;dr as the sole contents of a post a bannable offense under the new anti-spam rules? Hasn't a dingo eaten your liver yet?
Fuck off, bigot.
I have to say that I agree with Robosteve's professional opinion on this one.
Ahh, the most interesting post you've made in weeks! Isn't tl;dr as the sole contents of a post a bannable offense under the new anti-spam rules? Hasn't a dingo eaten your liver yet?
Fuck off, bigot.
The intent of that post was to provoke a response such as this. I see that I have been successful.I have to say that I agree with Robosteve's professional opinion on this one.
:-*
Rebar will soften significantly at 500-700 F and is liquid at around 1400 F. The A441 and A572 structural steel used in the tower cores retains 90% of its high second moments of area (the type of strength required to hold up a building) at temperatures up to 2000 F. Plus, it's coated with fireproofing material. I've already mentioned all the thick, acrid smoke that can be clearly seen pouring from the tops of the buildings on every live feed that was running. Experts (fire investigators, engineers, etc) concur that based on the fuels present (kerosene, paper, drywall, dried paint, office furniture, electrical wiring, carpet, computers, etc.), the estimated wind speed at that elevation, the amount of smoke, and the visible fire, the best guess as to the heat of the fire was between 600 and 900 F, just right for grilling steaks, but not nearly enough to significantly impact the load-bearing capabilities of the superstructure core.
Also, the buildings' floors were not uniformly burning - there were significant areas of the burning floors that were not on fire, especially at the core of the building where no flammables were present. How and why, then, did the floors collapse straight down? Why didn't the steel on one side of the building stay up for a second or two longer, causing the floor to half-collapse and preventing pancaking? That's what the building was designed to do. Was the entire square footage of the burning floors completely engulfed, burning at 2000+ F, weakening all the structural steel at exactly the same rate? That is amazing - the most talented, coordinated, precise, intelligent fire since Og the caveman first rubbed a couple of sticks together. Maybe we should prosecute the fire??!!
You've kind of lost me here. Obviously you're arguing in favor a 9/11 conspiracy (if I'm mistaken, let me know). If the building's very structure was designed to withstand such temperatures, how exactly was it engineered by the conspirators so the towers would fall as they did (you make a big deal out of the fact that they collapsed straight down)? Are you arguing that they set up powerful explosives on every level, at every point of strength, in each tower that fell?
Do you go so far as to think that the government was actively working with Al Qaeda? That seems to be the only way such a massive plot could be pulled off.
Thanks for getting back on topic.
Thanks for getting back on topic.
This is the Official Goatse Thread, in case you hadn't noticed. Nobody is on topic.
Wow. Where do you guys get this shit? Is there a gulliblesuckers.com that posts this crap to be respewed on message boards?
Steel loses half it's structural strength at 600 degrees F. With it's load bearing ability severely compromised by the giant hole in the building collapse was definitely imminent. As more of the structure gave out, more stress was transferred to other parts.
Bullshit. Find me a source. Mild steel might, but properly rated structural steel maintains the majority of its strength at much higher temperatures. Even trying to swallow this little turd, how could parts of the structure that were never heated, such as the floors below those on fire, collapse at free-fall speed? You're asserting that a structural steel superstructure core collapsed with nearly zero resistance under the weight of only a few of the floors above it impacting it after a drop of only 12 feet?
That's about as plausible as perpetual acceleration!
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800? to 1500?F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750?F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength ? and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100?F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800? it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832?F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."