Quake3World

I think its beyond obvious that 911 involved some sort of cover up. I mean, just take a look at the track record of the Bush government, they shit talk every chance they get.

vesp wrote:good lord.. they were 110 storey buildings... do you expect only one side of a building that high to collapse, or the outer material to fall away and leave the central columns? come on.

As for wtc7, everything i've seen on that is muddy. Videos showing what looks like cutter charges etc, people admitting it was a controlled demolition.

what a fucking moron...govts love idiots like this...

sigh.. and the old adage remains true.
never argue with an idiot...

I just hate how they allowed "sulphur" to be spelt "sulfur" too.

Freakaloin wrote:

vesp wrote:good lord.. they were 110 storey buildings... do you expect only one side of a building that high to collapse, or the outer material to fall away and leave the central columns? come on.

As for wtc7, everything i've seen on that is muddy. Videos showing what looks like cutter charges etc, people admitting it was a controlled demolition.

what a fucking moron...govts love idiots like this...

says the revolutionary who posts on the internet and doesn't do anything to counter these <i>obvious</i> coverups.
if you actually believe this shit, go out and do something about it

maybe i am...do i need to tell u about it to make u feel better about urself?...

yes

I fear for your children.

Freakaloin wrote:maybe i am...do i need to tell u about it to make u feel better about urself?...

Lol, you post about everything else, why wouldn't you post about any efforts you're making to make things better? Of course you would.

No geoff, you're simply a backseat driver spouting shit. You're not doing anything about anything.

vesp wrote:good lord.. they were 110 storey buildings... do you expect only one side of a building that high to collapse, or the outer material to fall away and leave the central columns? come on.

i didn't expect anything. i asked three questions. you answered none of them

As for wtc7, everything i've seen on that is muddy. Videos showing what looks like cutter charges etc, people admitting it was a controlled demolition.

a simple "i don't know" would have sufficed

vesp wrote:good lord.. they were 110 storey buildings... do you expect only one side of a building that high to collapse, or the outer material to fall away and leave the central columns? come on.

No, but there are legitimate questions as to why both buildings collapsed the way they did when the second plane struck at a much greater angle and didn't appear to have damaged the core.
I think they fell due to the combination of impact and fire damage, but there's a lot of weirdness with both of them.

The one thing I don't 'get' about that whole 'collapsed floor trus' thing is that for it to actually happen, it would *require* a synchronised and complete collapse of each floor in order for the building to crumble onto it's foot print.

IOW, the 2/3rds of the building that weren't damaged would *need* to fall at exactly the same time as the damaged section to precipitate a collapse onto it's footprint - otherwise it'll fall lopsided and topple over to some degree.

Why on earth would the undamaged 2/3rds of the building collapse at exactly the same time as the damaged section, keeping in mind that all the wonky load baring is around the damaged section of the towers. One would naturally have expected the damaged section to collapse 1st - as has been seen in just about every other type of building collapse - and then the rest of the building following it.

For such a large building falling supposedly under it's own steam, it's a bit too perfect a collapse to be totally acceptable.

Nightshade wrote:No, but there are legitimate questions as to why both buildings collapsed the way they did when the second plane struck at a much greater angle and didn't appear to have damaged the core.
I think they fell due to the combination of impact and fire damage, but there's a lot of weirdness with both of them.

That's the other thing... both towers received completely different impact patterns which would have stressed the building is slightly different but significant ways, if we're to understand what professional engineers have been saying. And yet, both buildings fell in *exactly* the same way, with no deviation, straight down symmetrically.

Kat wrote:The one thing I don't 'get' about that whole 'collapsed floor trus' thing is that for it to actually happen, it would *require* a synchronised and complete collapse of each floor in order for the building to crumble onto it's foot print.

IOW, the 2/3rds of the building that weren't damaged would *need* to fall at exactly the same time as the damaged section to precipitate a collapse onto it's footprint - otherwise it'll fall lopsided and topple over to some degree.

Why on earth would the undamaged 2/3rds of the building collapse at exactly the same time as the damaged section, keeping in mind that all the wonky load baring is around the damaged section of the towers. One would naturally have expected the damaged section to collapse 1st - as has been seen in just about every other type of building collapse - and then the rest of the building following it.

For such a large building falling supposedly under it's own steam, it's a bit too perfect a collapse to be totally acceptable.

uh no

riddla wrote:Goof, solving the world's mysteries while babysitting the kids. Heroic shit.

.Didn't Hulk Hogan or that bald guy from XXX where this cape before Goof?

Or am I the Dr. on House and I just diagnosed Goof as sniffing too many dirty diapers and cleaning products like Mr Clean ?