Quake3World

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:03 pm**

Nightshade wrote:
R00k wrote:
Nightshade wrote: WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?
Now you're conveniently ignoring all the other benefits that have been derived from 9/11 - that you've even talked about yourself - to try to make it look like I'm implying the whole event was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I see what you did there.
No, I'm asking you to explain your point, you bonehead.

Okay, if you accept that the administration could have allowed the attacks to happen, then you agree they had motives for doing so - which probably include their loony foreign policy plans and strategy for a new american century.

So they were planning to let a few thousand people die for their plans already, in order to pursue their demented worldview -- or maybe they didn't plan for so many people to die.

If they were planning to allow this to happen, then tell me why it is such a stretch to think they might just make sure the buildings came down too, in order to make a LOT of money (and for their friends to as well).

Especially if they thought that the buildings could be evacuated before too many people died - and especially if they had a full blown FEMA emergency command center right next door, the day before the attacks, prepared to handle whatever happened.

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:47 pm**

911 an inside job?

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:41 am**

who are you talkin to?

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:08 am**

who cares? this thread was hijacked by grownups two pages ago

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:48 am**

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:05 am**

You're very ignorant Nightshade

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:53 pm**

Yeah, I believe in science and engineering and I'm ignorant. Fuck off, noob.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:02 pm**

Who is this Captain Mazda prick?

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:21 pm**

Duhard wrote:
dmmh wrote:great img rofl

how about this one, toothpick?

i don't know if this thread could handle the addition of my latest pics after that one. Too much traps would crash the whole board.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:03 pm**

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:03 pm**

I agree..this thread has been severely smashed already..I don't think it could survive much more of this hard as fucking steel ownage..

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:22 pm**

seremtan wrote:
MKJ wrote:they should set loose a team of physicists and mathematicians to calculate the chance of structures of that calibre to collapse when hit by planes.
that would clear some shit up
ironically the WTC was designed to withstand a plane crashing into it :icon26:

Unforunately, it was a different plane

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:59 pm**

which plane exactly?

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:31 pm**

It was designed to withstand the impact of a loaded 707, and it was hit by RADIO CONTROLLED DRONE CRUISE MISSILES ZOMG JEWS! uhh, I mean 767s.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:57 pm**

presumably the metal girders holding up WTC 7 which also collapsed were melted by the burning jet fuel of a 767, on account of one hitting the building across the street

i mean, fuck - if i clench my arse hard enough and let rip with a monster guff i'm sure i can bring down the sears tower from here, especially since i had chilli for dinner

clearly there's no point continuing with this debate

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:12 am**

To all: I've not followed many of the WTC 'conspiracy' debates, particularly the one offered up in this thread.

Explanation A: set us up the bomb

Explanation B: look boss da plane

Either out of willful blindness or sheer faggotry, I've simply not bothered to explore any of it. So my question is...are there any 'independent' experts, institutions, or bodies of evidence that are agreed upon or otherwise respected by the non-retards on both sides? Or is virtually every aspect of the causal stories told by both groups a matter of dispute?

testimony and/or material in the public domain (which is to say, not because an internet bottom-feeder said so) is more what I'm after. Are there any sites that are attempting to dispassionately collect/organize all the bits of evidence floating hither and yon?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:25 am**

Nightshade wrote:Yeah, I believe in science and engineering and I'm ignorant. Fuck off, noob.

No, your earlier post stated you DON'T believe in reality.

Nightshade wrote:I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

When have you seen a building as tall as the WTC come down in such perfect fashion? Have you noticed the similarity it draws to buildings that are demolished to make way for new construction? If it did come down completely vertically just by chance (even though it would physically be impossible), what would be the fucking chances of the second tower doing the same?

Moron alert?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:27 am**

I didn't think they came down that perfect tbh...

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:28 am**

Just for the record too smart guy exactly what direction do you think a couple hundred tons of rubble is going to fall? Downwards! Not sideways.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:34 am**

Considering the fact that loaded 767s smashed into them, they were pretty perfect.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:35 am**

Hannibal wrote:To all: I've not followed many of the WTC 'conspiracy' debates, particularly the one offered up in this thread.

Explanation A: set us up the bomb

Explanation B: look boss da plane

Either out of willful blindness or sheer faggotry, I've simply not bothered to explore any of it. So my question is...are there any 'independent' experts, institutions, or bodies of evidence that are agreed upon or otherwise respected by the non-retards on both sides? Or is virtually every aspect of the causal stories told by both groups a matter of dispute?

testimony and/or material in the public domain (which is to say, not because an internet bottom-feeder said so) is more what I'm after. Are there any sites that are attempting to dispassionately collect/organize all the bits of evidence floating hither and yon?

try this:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

article by prof of physics. has some other links too which i haven't checked out. there are also various video clips of the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7 showing 'squibs' (small explosions caused by individual charges during a controlled demo). since so many people 'know what they saw' on 9/11 these might be worth a look

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:35 am**

Kracus wrote:I didn't think they came down that perfect tbh...

i agree. it was a bit dusty afterwards.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:36 am**

Kracus wrote:I didn't think they came down that perfect tbh...

well i'm sure they'll work at it and try harder just for you next time

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:10 am**

Captain Mazda wrote:
Nightshade wrote:Yeah, I believe in science and engineering and I'm ignorant. Fuck off, noob.
No, your earlier post stated you DON'T believe in reality.

Nightshade wrote:I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?
When have you seen a building as tall as the WTC come down in such perfect fashion? Have you noticed the similarity it draws to buildings that are demolished to make way for new construction? If it did come down completely vertically just by chance (even though it would physically be impossible), what would be the fucking chances of the second tower doing the same?

Moron alert?

Thanks for proving that you have absolutely NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about. Idiot.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:21 am**

Kracus wrote:Just for the record too smart guy exactly what direction do you think a couple hundred tons of rubble is going to fall? Downwards! Not sideways.

:icon26:

Quake3World

Freakaloin