Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha, you paranoid freak you! i was referring to "Feel free to rip on me PKC, you know I still love you bro"
so you can recant your silly argument you yourself created
...
As for the rest of the post, umm, we're going to repeat the same shit all over again LOL .
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-03-2007 06:16:
Re: Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You are way too high, way2hi lol. And yes, I laugh at the goverments conpiracy theory too, it's fucking ridiculous! "Be very scared of the man in the cave on dialysis!
well, at least we can agree on something. people of middle-eastern descent just aren't capable of very much Posted by shaolin_Z on May-03-2007 06:18:
Re: Re: Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, at least we can agree on something. people of middle-eastern descent just aren't capable of very much
When they're high lol, and I think that applies to all ethnicities "gringo" .
Posted by LazFX on May-03-2007 06:23:
Re: Re: Re: Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
When they're high lol, and I think that applies to all ethnicities "gringo" .
FYI for future ref: Only gringos call gringos gringos. Latino's call gringos gabachos," showing white people don't even know the common Latino slang term for themselves.
carry on Posted by shaolin_Z on May-03-2007 06:27:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
FYI for future ref: Only gringos call gringos gringos. Latino's call gringos gabachos," showing white people don't even know the common Latino slang term for themselves.
carry on
LOL, I didn't know that. You just burst my "gringo bubble" or something .
Posted by LazFX on May-03-2007 07:46:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, I didn't know that. You just burst my "gringo bubble" or something .
Don't feel Bad, I just learned it myself...... Posted by Marc Summers on May-03-2007 15:45:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Do you think? Critically? Have you ever taken a basic elementary logic course? Have you even studied basic newtonian physics?
No, I have taken higher level courses in physics, though I am not majoring in it. If I took BASIC courses, it must mean I have a right to speak in this, yes? If I took BASIC courses, it means that I know everything, and can call everything fact? YES?! YES?
Honestly, shut the fuck up. Unlike PKC, I don't like you. You probably took these BASIC courses and think you are the fucking bees knees. You can't take these courses and think you know shit, sorry.
I'm saying "Do you read" Because PKC posted some very good information, and culorut replies WITH AN ANIMATED GIF.
Seriously, mind your own business, I wasn't fucking talking to you. please continue to back up your stupid little friend culorut.
Posted by shaolin_Z on May-03-2007 17:07:
Your comment was rude and condescending. "Do you read?" That implies a lot more than what you claim to have been trying to communicate. The purpose of those questions was to demonstrate you don't exactly know what you're talking about, and to put you back in your place. Your neurotic ramblings don't qualify as arguments or something you'd expect from someone who you'd take seriously.
Posted by Marc Summers on May-03-2007 17:35:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Your comment was rude and condescending. "Do you read?" That implies a lot more than what you claim to have been trying to communicate. The purpose of those questions was to demonstrate you don't exactly know what you're talking about, and to put you back in your place. Your neurotic ramblings don't qualify as arguments or something you'd expect from someone who you'd take seriously.
I've done my fair share of debating in here. I actually typed my own thoughts, instead of posting a shit article. In return, I've gotten NOTHING but idiots posting links like it's a proper reply. I'm done in here, this debate is over. I actually keep forgetting that only geeks like us know anything about the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. People that don't use the internet know nothing about this "Conspiracy".
PKC, look on page 12. For some reason I thought you were a theorist. I think I didn't catch your sarcasm when you said, "it also seems remarkable that the planes hit the towers just above where the govt had placed the explosives!! or did they plant the explosives after the planes hit?"
sorry about that Posted by WM2 on May-04-2007 03:24:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
This is what happens when you do not research simple things like the melting points of structural steel. The fire weakened the steel but it did not melt anything which is obvious.
Question is where did all the molten metal come from under all 3 WTC towers if the fires where around the same temperature?
What does this have to do with the towers coming down? If we obviously didn't get to the bottom of the towers till a very long time after this happened, where is the relevance in finding metal that had melted at some point? I guarantee it wasn't even close to being "molten" as you claim as well. It was probably a different type of metal, and it was probably warped badly.
I said that the reason the towers came down in the first place was due to the steel weakening and expanding. Explosives don't cause metal to melt they don't create enough heat to cause that kind of damage. If you want something to create heat you don't design it to expand that rapidly. Rapid expansion leads to heat loss. Explosives like what you're talking about don't do any damage by heat. It's the rapid expansion that creates a concussive blast that does any kind of damage.
Now, you want to know why the building collapsed on itself, check this out it's really cool Issac Newton figured this out a couple hundred years ago. It's called inertia. It's this really cool part of physics that he talked about in his laws of motion. You see, everything is at some state of excitement whether we can see it or not. Even the computer screen you stare at while you find this crap is in motion. When given the chance, this stored up energy is released in some pretty cool ways.
However, there is only a point to how far this goes based upon the inertia of object in question. When talking about a good 30 floors of office building you have to realize there is literally tons of inertia there. It's so much in fact that it's only going to do one thing, and that is go straight down. The only problem with that is there is other stuff underneath it, so it tries to go but can't and starts to lean a little at first. Then when it's allowed to go, it goes and quickly. Some of it gets released straight down, some of it starts going through the building, and some of it gets scattered.
You could even set up your own little test bed at home and try this on some scale, but then that would be wasting your time finding more junk science bullshit other people like you that don't study this stuff make up. I find it funny because 1) I'm not even done with my engineering degree and I know this stuff and 2) I'm not even getting into that type of engineering (I'm doing mechanical) and I know this stuff. It would seem to me that more people would understand as simple to comprehend as this stuff is.
Posted by WM2 on May-04-2007 04:19:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
But it is hillarious as fuck! Jet fuel causing the buildings to "pancake" at virtually freefall speed, LOL. I think I smell waffles coming from the ministry of information next , don't forget the maple syrup... err.. jet fuel.
Here's a novel idea, explain how the inertia of the building suddenly being allowed to move does not create this "pancake" motion.
I know the thousands of pounds of office building above the breaking point would have enough inertia to do pretty much anything it wanted to, but being bound by the laws of gravity it did exactly what it would do and fell straight down really really fast. It's funny because this "pancake" motion is cited as a reason for why it had to be some kind of explosive device that took the towers down when it's really just physics playing out on a grand scale.
You have a structural support fail, the floor above that break falls into the floor below it and slows down, but because it fell that means supports above it have also failed which results in all the floors above that falling in a chain reaction that's bound by the inertia of each floor and the force of gravity. The inertia of each of these floors is so great that it starts to mess up the floor it's all falling on to, and suddenly that floor which wasn't designed to handle that kind of force fails and falls onto the one below with all the others on top. Then the one after that and the one after that all and so on fall when this force comes in contact with them, but with each passing second the speed at which it is happening grows exponentially as things tend to fall at 9.8 M per second squared.
That means after falling for two seconds it's already gone 64 ft and is increasing in speed. This also means the higher up something is the more potential it has to reach a greater velocity than something not as high. When the top of the building was just getting to where the initial break was it was easily falling at 100 ft. per second making it "pancake" with the other floors. This is really elementary stuff, we just typically don't take buildings down like this on purpose to show people what happens. There is no conspiracy theory to it. It's called physics.
Posted by shaolin_Z on May-04-2007 07:13:
Not to sound rude or anything, but have you bothered reading through the rest of this thread? But I guess I'll go ahead and make a quick comment...
Now factor in the law of conservation of momentum, and the fact that each succesive floor along with it's trusses would offer resistance to the fall. And I don't recall the exact numberm but there's well over 100 floors. Do you really expect all that to happen in [roughly] 13 seconds?!? So you're telling me that an apple dropped from the top of the WTC with no horizontal initial velocity would land approximately the same time as the collapse? Heh, ok, whatever. BTW, there's something posted earlier on this thread, and pancacking should have taken atleast 59 seconds, unless you really thing 9-11 was such a special event that it defied the fundamental laws of newtonian physics.
Posted by culorut on May-04-2007 22:36:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not to sound rude or anything, but have you bothered reading through the rest of this thread? But I guess I'll go ahead and make a quick comment...
Now factor in the law of conservation of momentum, and the fact that each succesive floor along with it's trusses would offer resistance to the fall. And I don't recall the exact numberm but there's well over 100 floors. Do you really expect all that to happen in [roughly] 13 seconds?!? So you're telling me that an apple dropped from the top of the WTC with no horizontal initial velocity would land approximately the same time as the collapse? Heh, ok, whatever. BTW, there's something posted earlier on this thread, and pancacking should have taken atleast 59 seconds, unless you really thing 9-11 was such a special event that it defied the fundamental laws of newtonian physics.
They do not read shaolin, they ignore the reality of what really happened that day. You had it right a few posts back, sheep.
Three buildings collapsed at almost free fall speeds due to fires and jet impacts, the problem like you just mentioned is that these collapses defied physics.
I wonder why no one has bothered to post up a video showing a similar building collapsing that resembles the collapse of WTC7?
They can't.
Posted by Philby on May-05-2007 05:51:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I wonder why no one has bothered to post up a video showing a similar building collapsing that resembles the collapse of WTC7?
They can't.
just because something has never happened in a certain way before doesn't mean there must be some kind of conspiracy or greater power behind it. that's a pretty weak line saying that because you can't show an example of this happening before there must be a problem. how many examples at all can you show of buildings being hit by 2 aeroplanes and then burning and then collapsing?
Posted by _Ocean_Drive_ on May-05-2007 11:46:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I wonder why no one has bothered to post up a video showing a similar building collapsing that resembles the collapse of WTC7?
They can't.
Ignore the commentary at the end, or listen to it if you want, but concenctrate on the demolitions...
Posted by culorut on May-05-2007 22:49:
quote:
Originally posted by Philby
just because something has never happened in a certain way before doesn't mean there must be some kind of conspiracy or greater power behind it. that's a pretty weak line saying that because you can't show an example of this happening before there must be a problem. how many examples at all can you show of buildings being hit by 2 aeroplanes and then burning and then collapsing?
World Trade Center Building #7 was not hit by a plane.
No building has ever come down (in history) in a similar fashion like WTC7 did due to fires.
The video in the above post sums it up nicely. Controlled demolition.
Posted by culorut on May-05-2007 23:03:
quote:
Ignore the commentary at the end, or listen to it if you want, but concenctrate on the demolitions...
I am agreeing with you, I was pointing out that no one can produce a video of a building collapsing the way WTC7 did due to fires. The problem which every individual has is that no building has ever collapsed in history due to fires.
The official report states that this building suffered damage from the collapses (controlled demolition) of WTC1 and WTC2, it also caught on fire and eventually came down controlled demolition style.
The video you posted is accurate and correct.
Posted by culorut on May-05-2007 23:09:
An Italian network aired the following a couple weeks ago, 1.5 million people watched it.
Ever wonder why you do not see these things on American TV?
Posted by Lira on May-05-2007 23:28:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Ever wonder why you do not see these things on American TV?
Because sensationalists in the US should be more careful, as they could certainly get sued more easily for saying non-sense.
Posted by culorut on May-05-2007 23:42:
quote:
Because sensationalists in the US should be more careful, as they could certainly get sued more easily for saying non-sense.
Or maybe freedom of speech does not really exist for saying the truth.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-06-2007 23:51:
fucken LOL. go to the 911truth site HERE and then click on the "home" link. hahahaha.
Posted by ogvh5150 on May-07-2007 11:38:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Ever wonder why you do not see these things on American TV?
Because people are too much into Britney's shaved head, Desperate Housewives, or their favorite DJ's set on gay night to understand their mind is being toyed with.
It's normal to be lied to. Abnormal if someone tells you the truth. People believe in aliens but don't believe the WTC was demolished.
Posted by LazFX on May-07-2007 11:51:
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
Because people are too much into Britney's shaved head, Desperate Housewives, or their favorite DJ's set on gay night to understand their mind is being toyed with.
It's normal to be lied to. Abnormal if someone tells you the truth. People believe in aliens but don't believe the WTC was demolished.
You are correct,,,,,,,americans suffer from short attention span and have thier priorities all screwed up!
Posted by colonelcrisp on May-09-2007 02:50:
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
World Trade Center Building #7 was not hit by a plane.
No building has ever come down (in history) in a similar fashion like WTC7 did due to fires.
The video in the above post sums it up nicely. Controlled demolition.
where is your proof that no building has ever collapsed in history due to fires?
I don't want to sound like a condescending prick, but im going to anyways
what are your credentials exactly to make such a blanket statement?......
There have been numerous buildings that have collapsed due to fire in the past. just because 6000000 conspiracy theorists didnt go film those collapses or take pictures doesnt mean they dont exist. do yourself a favor, call up your local consulting structural engineering firm, and ask one of their senior engineers if your statement holds any merit....
Posted by culorut on May-09-2007 04:06:
No steel skyscraper has collapsed the way WTC7 did due to fires. This video from an earlier post explains it nicely.
What are your credentials colonel? Have you called a engineering firm?
Controlled Demolitions Inc. was asked about what the phrase "pull it" meant and to much of Larry Silverstein's demise it does mean "take the building down".
BTW where is a video or some pictures of these steel skyscrapers collapsing like WTC7 did? Surely if they exist someone would have posted something by now....or maybe not.
I can find quite a few pictures of steel skyscrapers that burned for much longer than WTC7 did but never collapsed though.
i was referring to "Feel free to rip on me PKC, you know I still love you bro" 
.
"Be very scared of the man in the cave on dialysis! 
I think I didn't catch your sarcasm when you said, "it also seems remarkable that the planes hit the towers just above where the govt had placed the explosives!! or did they plant the explosives after the planes hit?"
, don't forget the maple syrup... err.. jet fuel. 
