Truth!
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
What isn't fact? that someone found super thermite in the rubble? from 9/11 examined by multiple engineers? Or that somehow this building collapsed just as perfectly as the other towers straight down the middle, just as if a demolition person would have had it happen so it doesn't tip over to one side?
Those are facts. If you believe that this building that is shown repeatedly was due to the shaking of the ground or something then you seriously shouldn't own a gun. With a gun you know where the gun powder is and how the bullet comes out. With what these guys did to drop these buildings as fast and as perfect with precision time shows exactly how the gun was built to shoot the bullets. The Demolition was rigged in the building.
This isn't conspiracy logic. IT IS THE ONLY LOGIC possible. Those towers were built to withstand multiple plane crashes. That is fact. there is no jet fuel that burns at 3k degrees (which was measured off one of the posts in the basement of the site).
No Jet fuel "disintegrates" everything into powder. There is logic, and there is bull**** (what the government has been doing)
Those are facts. If you believe that this building that is shown repeatedly was due to the shaking of the ground or something then you seriously shouldn't own a gun. With a gun you know where the gun powder is and how the bullet comes out. With what these guys did to drop these buildings as fast and as perfect with precision time shows exactly how the gun was built to shoot the bullets. The Demolition was rigged in the building.
This isn't conspiracy logic. IT IS THE ONLY LOGIC possible. Those towers were built to withstand multiple plane crashes. That is fact. there is no jet fuel that burns at 3k degrees (which was measured off one of the posts in the basement of the site).
No Jet fuel "disintegrates" everything into powder. There is logic, and there is bull**** (what the government has been doing)
I mean dude, I know you really believe this stuff, and you believe it makes sense, but thats because everything makes sense if you don't question it. I know you believe it, but I doubt you're doing anything but parroting theories you've heard other people discuss.
Also, just because the collapsed similarly to the collapse of destructed buildings, does not mean that they WERE destructed buildings. Thats called an inductive fallacy.
Last edited by VRT MBasile; Jul 20, 2009 at 01:26 AM.
Hurray, it's Ian!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,612
From: on an airplane
Car Info: 2002 MBP WRX Sedan
fight club music anyone?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
and now a video against conspiracy theorists.
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
and now a video against conspiracy theorists.
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html
Can you please show us the tests that show what temperature the fuel on board burns at? While you're at it, could you please also show us the tests of the destructive properties of the burning fuel?
I mean dude, I know you really believe this stuff, and you believe it makes sense, but thats because everything makes sense if you don't question it. I know you believe it, but I doubt you're doing anything but parroting theories you've heard other people discuss.
Also, just because the collapsed similarly to the collapse of destructed buildings, does not mean that they WERE destructed buildings. Thats called an inductive fallacy.
I mean dude, I know you really believe this stuff, and you believe it makes sense, but thats because everything makes sense if you don't question it. I know you believe it, but I doubt you're doing anything but parroting theories you've heard other people discuss.
Also, just because the collapsed similarly to the collapse of destructed buildings, does not mean that they WERE destructed buildings. Thats called an inductive fallacy.
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Touché Jacob 
THe official story is at least backed up by the research of multiple organizations and imperial data rather than the poor "logic" of the conspiracies. Of course, the second step is to question the data and analysis, which typically requires being a scientist/engineer to be done properly.
THe official story is at least backed up by the research of multiple organizations and imperial data rather than the poor "logic" of the conspiracies. Of course, the second step is to question the data and analysis, which typically requires being a scientist/engineer to be done properly.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
link from reliable source? Loose Change doesn't count.
multiple engineers? link from reliable source? Loose Change doesn't count.
just curious, how many years did you go to college to become a structural engineer?
i think you might be confused on the definition of fact, so here it is:
fact
Pronunciation:
\ˈfakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century
1: a thing done
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact: in truth
so how many times have you been involved in the controlled/uncontrolled demolition of a building? again, just curious.
Wrong. its called Occum's Razor. The basic principle is that the simplest answer is the most plausible and is, usually correct.
Simple answer in this case? some really pissed off Muslims knocked down some buildings.
Versus your conclusion that an operation involving hundreds and hundreds of everyday people (dick cheney cant plant explosives) did setup and executed a controlled demolition of the WTC complex without anyone knowing.
are you riding magic dragon right now?
i cant even respond to this, it has been hashed and rehashed so many times by people allot smarter than you and i.
their conclusion? your nuts. keep that foil hat sir.
Originally Posted by iLoqin
from 9/11 examined by multiple engineers?
Originally Posted by iLoqin
Or that somehow this building collapsed just as perfectly as the other towers straight down the middle, just as if a demolition person would have had it happen so it doesn't tip over to one side?
Originally Posted by iLoqin
Those are facts.
fact
Pronunciation:
\ˈfakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century
1: a thing done
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact: in truth
Originally Posted by iLoqin
If you believe that this building that is shown repeatedly was due to the shaking of the ground or something then you seriously shouldn't own a gun. With a gun you know where the gun powder is and how the bullet comes out. With what these guys did to drop these buildings as fast and as perfect with precision time shows exactly how the gun was built to shoot the bullets. The Demolition was rigged in the building.
Originally Posted by iLoqin
This isn't conspiracy logic. IT IS THE ONLY LOGIC possible.
Wrong. its called Occum's Razor. The basic principle is that the simplest answer is the most plausible and is, usually correct.
Simple answer in this case? some really pissed off Muslims knocked down some buildings.
Versus your conclusion that an operation involving hundreds and hundreds of everyday people (dick cheney cant plant explosives) did setup and executed a controlled demolition of the WTC complex without anyone knowing.
are you riding magic dragon right now?
Originally Posted by iLoqin
No Jet fuel "disintegrates" everything into powder. There is logic, and there is bull**** (what the government has been doing)
their conclusion? your nuts. keep that foil hat sir.
Last edited by Irrational X; Jul 20, 2009 at 07:37 AM.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Friendly Neighborhood Ogre
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,930
From: www.gunatics.com
Car Info: GUNATICS.COM
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
lol...speed of gravity is > speed of depravity!
Many years ago, I was riding around in the back of a Humvee with my squad.
I get into the a discussion of gasoline vs diesel fuel & why diesel is safer, less volatile, etc.
The dude I was talking to kept insisting that diesel was much less flammable than gasoline.
As we were cruising around in a desert, this discussion went on for hours, until the other guy said,"And to prove my point, I'll throw a match into this Jerry can 1/2 full of diesel!"
Before we could stop him, the had the cap off the can and his Zippo out & aflame.
Now remember, this was a 1/2 full can...2 1/2 gallons...of diesel that had been bouncing around all day in the hot sun.
The zippo barely made it to the mouth of the can when a tremendous fireball shot out of the can, kinda like a Saturn V rocket engine.
Luckily, no one was hurt by the explosion and only equipment was lost.
My point?
Diesel = kerosene = Jet Fuel, sorta.
So a plane traveling at several hundreds of mph, full of fuel, is more than an a huge ANFO bomb.
Many years ago, I was riding around in the back of a Humvee with my squad.
I get into the a discussion of gasoline vs diesel fuel & why diesel is safer, less volatile, etc.
The dude I was talking to kept insisting that diesel was much less flammable than gasoline.
As we were cruising around in a desert, this discussion went on for hours, until the other guy said,"And to prove my point, I'll throw a match into this Jerry can 1/2 full of diesel!"
Before we could stop him, the had the cap off the can and his Zippo out & aflame.
Now remember, this was a 1/2 full can...2 1/2 gallons...of diesel that had been bouncing around all day in the hot sun.
The zippo barely made it to the mouth of the can when a tremendous fireball shot out of the can, kinda like a Saturn V rocket engine.
Luckily, no one was hurt by the explosion and only equipment was lost.
My point?
Diesel = kerosene = Jet Fuel, sorta.
So a plane traveling at several hundreds of mph, full of fuel, is more than an a huge ANFO bomb.
Registered User
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,405
From: California Love
Car Info: Big Thanks Jeremy@CrucialRacing and Ed@EQ-Tuning
dont want to add fuel to the fire.
here watch this first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BC...eature=related
then watch this ( i believe it has many parts that goes on more detail )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
heres one of the part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4
here watch this first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BC...eature=related
then watch this ( i believe it has many parts that goes on more detail )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
heres one of the part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4
Last edited by downsti; Jul 20, 2009 at 08:57 AM.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
So a plane traveling at several hundreds of mph, full of fuel, is more than an a huge ANFO bomb.
WTC 7 had un-fought fires burning with it. while nowhere near the temp inside the towers, temperatures were getting high enough to weaken the steel supports of the building beyond a fail point. combine that with damage from debris from N and S towers, and massive shock (lets not forget that towers registered on the Richter scale) and the truly surprising thing is how long the building stood, not how it fell.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
PS, here's a video of your "controlled" demo of WTC7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
typically, the pro's don't set buildings on fire before they implode them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
typically, the pro's don't set buildings on fire before they implode them...