Arabs donât blow themselves up. Muslims blow themselves up. Show me where a Christian Arab is willing to blow himself up. I guess itâs logical in your puny world of false images that only zionists and neocons represent the worldâs infidels, which justify a massive generation of Muslims conditioned to glorify death over life. Youâre so lost I bet youâd be a sucker to an Islamist missionary any day --just like the rest of them brainwashed about America as being all things evil. Islamists sell humanity short. You are a perfect candidate.
What The Moonbats Don't Understand
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I wasn't.
- How can I watch that......?
Because I've watched all the videos you guys post, and some of them even contradict each other. In one about WTC, the 'expert' ststes that jet fuel burns at 1700 and is taken as fact. But in one of the Pentagon videos, the 'expert' states that jet fuel burns at 3000 and is taken as fact. WTF?
And didn't Silverstein's quote come in the context of talking with some fire chief, and they decided to let it burn so as to not endanger more firefighters' lives? And his choice of words have been twisted to mean something more sinister by conspiracy theorists? Be honest...
I've answered your questions. Will you now answer mine?
first of all.. i am not the others.. i am only talking about wtc7. larry said he told the fireman to pull it. watch the frinkin video ... free fall speed. the only thing taken out of context is the spin afterwards trying to renig on what he said maybe. bottomline.. watch how it falls... the speed and symmetry rule out all other explanations.
More evasion, wrapped in an ad hominem accusing me of evasion. A typical tactic of moonbats who find themselves caught by their own words.
You live in Japan yet use the term "Jap" to describe the Japanese people. You are obviously the type of imbecile who, were he living in Africa, would refer to your host population as "niggers."
You're exposed, idiot.
As for being a redneck, I suppose that would satisfy your feeble intellect if I indeed lived in a red state, watched NASCAR, chewed tobacco, and had a shotgun rack mounted in my pickup with oversize tires whilst listening to Lynrd Skynrd all day. However, as none of the above are true, you've shown yet another side of your ignorance.
Dolt, you obviously believe for some reason that I'd waste my time looking at links you post. Why is that? You've shown yourself to be a racist idiot, that is far enough for me.
Omae, tatemae no koto zenzen wakaranai. Demo, kochira wa ore no honne: anta zettai baka da.tatemae no koto, wakattara renraku shite ne, hapa-kun
The problem with your position about free fall speed is that is how things fall, or break.
Here's an example you can do at home - take a thin piece of wood and suspend it between 2 chairs. Now drop a heavy weight on the wood. Does the weight fall at free fall speed? Of course it does. Why? Because the wood doesn't resist for a while and THEN it breaks. It breaks instantaneously when its' strength is exceeded.
Here's another - go get some cheap dog chain from the local hardware store. Fasten one end to a tree limb. Fasten a weight that is beyong the breaking strength to the other end and lower it slowly. When the chain becomes tight, will it resist for a while, or will it break instantly? You know the answer to this one....
And that's why 47 as fast as it did. Once the breaking strength was exceeded by the weakening of connectors by the heat, it broke. then when the weight of more than 1 floor hit a lower floor, it's breaking strength was instantaneously exceeded through sheer weight and momentum alone.
See, nothing sinister at all, nothing unexplainable at all...
Again, I answered your questions with civility, now will you?
Was Silversteins' statement to the press that is shown on the video in the context as I have in a previous post explained or not? Have his statements been misrepresented to fit a conspiracy theory or not?
And do you see that the free fall angle is a red herring?
I dont think thats a fantastic example.
A building has a lot of supporting structures, to conclude all of them instantaneously failed , due to weight/impact alone, suggests two options;
either it was an appalling peice of engineering, not fit to have been built, ready to collapse dangerously like a deck of cards at so much as a significant gust of wind, or it was imploded.
Ok, given extensive fire damage-then what.
Demolitions are operated on the implosion method, and ALL supporting structure has to be blown, or it doesnt work.
Compare the astonishing damage of a hurricane, i dont recall too many multi story concrete & steel structures being completely leveled. Nor from fire.
A building has a lot of supporting structures, to conclude all of them instantaneously failed , due to weight/impact alone, suggests two options;
either it was an appalling peice of engineering, not fit to have been built, ready to collapse dangerously like a deck of cards at so much as a significant gust of wind, or it was imploded.
Ok, given extensive fire damage-then what.
Demolitions are operated on the implosion method, and ALL supporting structure has to be blown, or it doesnt work.
Compare the astonishing damage of a hurricane, i dont recall too many multi story concrete & steel structures being completely leveled. Nor from fire.
you are evading big time redneck, pretty pathetic honto ni, and you are misrepresenting my post big time, but thats all u've been doing to avoid facing the issues raised
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1182001&highlight=indian#post1182001
cause they clash with your infantile vision of america the ever beautiful
your exposed, redneck
ore no tatemae dattara?
ALL the supports don't need to fail simultaneously.....
All you need is a few to fail to start the whole chain reaction, which then proceeds near instantaneously. Think of the failure as coming apart like a zipper. It starts at one point and proceeds from there. The end of the zipper is still intact, even though the beginning is all apart. Do you understand my point? Perhaps I'm not explaining it good enuf....
All it takes is one floor to collapse, and if it is heavy enough to exceed the support capacity of the floor below, or of the connectors as explained in the official version, it too will collapse, and that will happen instantly. Then those floors will hit the one below it, but now with even more weight, it too will collapse, and so on and so on.
Once you think about that, and realize the simple truth of it, it should lead you to realize that perhaps, indeed, the building had an unforseen design flaw. Is this so hard to believe?
And 7 wasn't leveled due to fire alone. Remember that a significant protion of the south side was damaged. In the official version, they called being 'scooped out'. Is that in dispute? The videos conviniently never mention that fact. I wonder why.....
I understand your point of demo'ing ALL the supporting structure, it's just that in this case, all the supporting structures were broken by weight, once it had found a weak point. And that weak point was an unforseen design 'flaw'. WHich really isn't fair to call it a flaw since the damage and fire fell outside the design parameters.