Quake3World

R00k wrote:

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:If you love Bin Laden so much freak why don't you go live with him so you can suck his dick in person.

I now see that you're on the same reasoning level as geoff. Maybe you guys can keep each other occupied while the rest of the thread continues in a somewhat reasonable debate.

Anything else is over his head. Thought I might as well put on some some idiot shoes and kick the ball around for a while.

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:

R00k wrote:

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:If you love Bin Laden so much freak why don't you go live with him so you can suck his dick in person.

I now see that you're on the same reasoning level as geoff. Maybe you guys can keep each other occupied while the rest of the thread continues in a somewhat reasonable debate.

Anything else is over his head. Thought I might as well put on some some idiot shoes and kick the ball around for a while.

lol...crushed again...rofl...

R00k wrote:

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:If you love Bin Laden so much freak why don't you go live with him so you can suck his dick in person.

I now see that you're on the same reasoning level as geoff. Maybe you guys can keep each other occupied while the rest of the thread continues in a somewhat reasonable debate.

Yes reasonable as in: jet fuel is not explosive, and people can rig 2 of the largest buildings in the world with explosives in 48 hours unnoticed, and Bin Laden has nothing to do with this, kinda reasonable?

no moron...u didn't read right...its not explosive like he(high explosives). he explodes, theres a massive shock wave that destroys with massive force...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...its just searing flames which last a very short time. is that ur stoopidity that makes u think i'm saying something i am not? rofl...idiot...

Freakaloin wrote:no moron...u didn't read right...its not explosive like he(high explosives). he explodes, theres a massive shock wave that destroys with massive force...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...its just searing flames which last a very short time. is that ur stoopidity that makes u think i'm saying something i am not? rofl...idiot...

Freakaloin wrote:no moron...u didn't read right...its not explosive like he(high explosives). he explodes, theres a massive shock wave that destroys with massive force...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...its just searing flames which last a very short time. is that ur stoopidity that makes u think i'm saying something i am not? rofl...idiot...

Never heard of an FAE munition, have you dumbass?

Freakaloin wrote:...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...

Gee that must be why windows break for miles around when an airliner goes up. I know the fucking difference between high explosives and jet fuel, but to say jet fuel isn't explosive (or has vertually no force) is sheer stupidity.

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...

Gee that must be why windows break for miles around when an airliner goes up. I know the fucking difference between high explosives and jet fuel, but to say jet fuel isn't explosive (or has vertually no force) is sheer stupidity.

really? windows break for miles around a crash eh? rofl...god ur dumb...

Nightshade wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:no moron...u didn't read right...its not explosive like he(high explosives). he explodes, theres a massive shock wave that destroys with massive force...fuel explodes with virtually no force behind it...its just searing flames which last a very short time. is that ur stoopidity that makes u think i'm saying something i am not? rofl...idiot...

Never heard of an FAE munition, have you dumbass?

theres a difference between a weapon(FAE) and a tank of fuel exploding too dipshit...

So you're saying that there's no possible way that the fuel could have dispersed and then ignited? I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't see the fuel exploding, it just burned.
I think what I'm really getting at is that you're a fucking dolt.

also what's with the claims that the fires burned out quickly? watch the video of the first collapse and notice how much damn smoke is still flowing from the building. watch the second collapse video and see the whole floor of the wtc building lit up straight across by flame

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... outh_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... erglow.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

note the enormous amount of smoke from fire rising from the buildings prior to collapse...

Oh, that's obviously from the guys wiring up the det charges having a smoke break.

no i am saying the explosions from the fuel tanks on the planes didn't have the force behind them to structually damage the towers...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:also what's with the claims that the fires burned out quickly? watch the video of the first collapse and notice how much damn smoke is still flowing from the building. watch the second collapse video and see the whole floor of the wtc building lit up straight across by flame

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... outh_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... erglow.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

note the enormous amount of smoke from fire rising from the buildings prior to collapse...

yeah but its black smoke which means low temp fires...not enuff to damage that steel...

Freakaloin wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:also what's with the claims that the fires burned out quickly? watch the video of the first collapse and notice how much damn smoke is still flowing from the building. watch the second collapse video and see the whole floor of the wtc building lit up straight across by flame

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... outh_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... erglow.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

note the enormous amount of smoke from fire rising from the buildings prior to collapse...

yeah but its black smoke which means low temp fires...not enuff to damage that steel...

you need to read this...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

all the way through

Freakaloin wrote:no i am saying the explosions from the fuel tanks on the planes didn't have the force behind them to structually damage the towers...

planes filled with fuel collided and exploded at high speed leaving enormous holes in 2 of four sides of each building while enormous fires raged. there is obvious structural damage if you have eyes

Freakaloin wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:also what's with the claims that the fires burned out quickly? watch the video of the first collapse and notice how much damn smoke is still flowing from the building. watch the second collapse video and see the whole floor of the wtc building lit up straight across by flame

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... outh_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... erglow.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

note the enormous amount of smoke from fire rising from the buildings prior to collapse...

yeah but its black smoke which means low temp fires...not enuff to damage that steel...

watch video 3

is it all black smoke? what do you see?

Geoff you could fuck up a wet dream. Why do you enter my threads?

Freakaloin wrote:no i am saying the explosions from the fuel tanks on the planes didn't have the force behind them to structually damage the towers...

I don't think that they did either. I'm simply saying that jet fuel under the right conditions can be VERY explosive.

You are aware the 911research.com has gone to great lengths to debunk the controlled demolition theory, right?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:no i am saying the explosions from the fuel tanks on the planes didn't have the force behind them to structually damage the towers...

planes filled with fuel collided and exploded at high speed leaving enormous holes in 2 of four sides of each building while enormous fires raged. there is obvious structural damage if you have eyes

lol...moron...the planes did all the damage to the sturcture...not the fuel exploding...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:also what's with the claims that the fires burned out quickly? watch the video of the first collapse and notice how much damn smoke is still flowing from the building. watch the second collapse video and see the whole floor of the wtc building lit up straight across by flame

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... outh_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... erglow.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

note the enormous amount of smoke from fire rising from the buildings prior to collapse...

yeah but its black smoke which means low temp fires...not enuff to damage that steel...

watch video 3

is it all black smoke? what do you see?

...yes...if u wanna see what white smoke...look at the madrid fire...

R00k wrote:Geoff you could fuck up a wet dream. Why do you enter my threads?

ok rook ur becoming a moron...ur a little late to the game and highly misinformed still...in about a year u'll know what i know...if u keep researching...

Freakaloin wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Freakaloin wrote: yeah but its black smoke which means low temp fires...not enuff to damage that steel...

watch video 3

is it all black smoke? what do you see?

...yes...if u wanna see what white smoke...look at the madrid fire...

jesus christ you are an idiot

really? have u seen the madrid building fire when it was engulfing the building?

Freakaloin wrote:really? have u seen the madrid building fire when it was engulfing the building?

do you have an obsession with disasters