911 Funnies

[Wh33lhop]

Oops. My, bad.

I was wrong.

Now go sit in your corner.

[PootieTang]

I lol'd through this whole thread. And don't feel guilty about it.

I'm not going to lie and say I probably wouldn't feel differently about it if I had close friends or relatives who died in the towers. But I'm fortunate enough that I didn't, and I think being able to look back now and make light of a horrible event is a good way to look at it.

i guess that's one way to look at it, but wouldn't you say making light of the deaths of thousands is just a little fucked up?

[Old'n'Slow]

hahahaha why does it not surprise me that old n stupid is a truther???

Oh blunty! Keep it up! You make me laugh.

[Old'n'Slow]

I said you are making yourself look stupid, not you are stupid there is a difference there.

My apologies. That was intended for blunt, who takes particular pride in his six-year-oldness. I didn't have the right post selected for quote and didn't notice as I was posting on my BB.

Dose not matter what I post you will just dismiss it as Right wing fringe radio propaganda because it dose not fall with in your commie, conspiracy theory 911 truther Bull shit point of views.

Where's this coming from? I ask a few rhetorical questions, and I'm told my views are bullshit? And then you call me a commie? There's that name-calling thing again! Please! What Communist views have I espoused? I own a business-for-profit! I AM, by definition, an honest-to-god capitalist!

Its not my fault you have no common sense and cant really think critically, or have little to no understanding of how shit works

I can't even to tell you how wrong that is......

But, I will refrain from telling you your viewpoint is bullshit. ;-)

[mrsleeve]

Where's this coming from? I ask a few rhetorical questions, and I'm told my views are bullshit? And then you call me a commie? There's that name-calling thing again! Please! What Communist views have I espoused? I own a business-for-profit! I AM, by definition, an honest-to-god capitalist!



I can't even to tell you how wrong that is......

But, I will refrain from telling you your viewpoint is bullshit. ;-)

Well your constant blaming Rush or any other conservative media out let or spokes person for formulating the opinion of any one who opposes any thing BHO and his cronies are pushing, indicates your mentality. I said you have a commie, 911 truther BS like view point. Again did not call you a out right commie this is you reaching for straws again.

You are trying to push a theory on us that flys in the face of Physics and common sense, showing you lack of understanding of how things work and is nothing but a bunch of BS.

[Maluco]

[Maluco]

[blunttech]

Oh blunty! Keep it up! You make me laugh.

ill be here all night. you make it all too easy my friend

[Fidhle007]

Jet fuel is Kerosene, FYI...

[Old'n'Slow]

You are trying to push a theory on us that flys in the face of Physics and common sense, showing you lack of understanding of how things work and is nothing but a bunch of BS.

First, I've no agenda besides curiosity, so try not to make any assumptions, mkay?

So..... it doesn't strike you as a little odd that even the NIST analysis stated that given the inputs, the buildings shouldn't have failed?

It doesn't strike you as odd that two different impacts caused two identical failures?

Just saying....the designers said those buildings could withstand (more than one) jet impacts. Yet no one has ever conclusively demonstrated why they failed. In an age where we continue to build skyscapers where planes can hit them, were I one of the engineers, I think I'd want to know!

Again: NIST stated: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

It is of course, your perogative whether you are completely OK will all that, but you cannot dismiss out-of-hand the numbers of very well-versed engineers who think it's malarky, and who have paid for it dearly. A top researcher with UL, for example. Probably not a complete idiot to rise to that posting, he was canned because he dared suggest that they had seen no evidence to suggest there was a raging inferno capable of the required temperatures to soften the types of steels that were used in those buildings. Others in the field of aviation further had the nerve to suggest that during the crash itself, the wings (where the fuel is) would have been torn to shreds and the fuel therein atomized, hence the fireballs, which would have consumed said fuel. In other words, it is very, very unlikely that there were pools of burning aviation fuel lying about cooking the steel, as some "reverse" conspiracy theorists (the "yep, happened just like the gov't said, screw anyone who thinks different" types) would like to believe.

Me, I just want to know what really happened. Given the US Government track record of forthrightness throughout its 200+ year history, which frankly sucks, I am curious.

Really, it concerns me that our major cities are apparently so vulnerable, when we have continually been assured they are not. Tom Clancy presaged such an attack in his 1995 book "Debt of Honor" where a lone Japanese pilot who manages to lie his way past ATC flies his 747 into the Capitol in an attempt to kill the President and destroy the US Government.

Lastly, do you know anything about "Fan Death"? Many Koreans believe that leaving a fan on overnight can kill you. They cannot be bothered to investigate why this happens, it just does. It's so rampant that fans come with warning labels! Beliefs like these are created when a simple, black and white answer, which humans love, BTW, is substituted for a more messy reality: People who are generally healthy sometimes die with no apparent reason. Let's not go down the path of fan-death type beliefs when it comes to 9/11. Cut and dried don't cut it.

[Emre]

First, I've no agenda besides curiosity, so try not to make any assumptions, mkay?

So..... it doesn't strike you as a little odd that even the NIST analysis stated that given the inputs, the buildings shouldn't have failed?

It doesn't strike you as odd that two different impacts caused two identical failures?

Just saying....the designers said those buildings could withstand (more than one) jet impacts. Yet no one has ever conclusively demonstrated why they failed. In an age where we continue to build skyscapers where planes can hit them, were I one of the engineers, I think I'd want to know!

Again: NIST stated: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

It is of course, your perogative whether you are completely OK will all that, but you cannot dismiss out-of-hand the numbers of very well-versed engineers who think it's malarky, and who have paid for it dearly. A top researcher with UL, for example. Probably not a complete idiot to rise to that posting, he was canned because he dared suggest that they had seen no evidence to suggest there was a raging inferno capable of the required temperatures to soften the types of steels that were used in those buildings. Others in the field of aviation further had the nerve to suggest that during the crash itself, the wings (where the fuel is) would have been torn to shreds and the fuel therein atomized, hence the fireballs, which would have consumed said fuel. In other words, it is very, very unlikely that there were pools of burning aviation fuel lying about cooking the steel, as some "reverse" conspiracy theorists (the "yep, happened just like the gov't said, screw anyone who thinks different" types) would like to believe.

Me, I just want to know what really happened. Given the US Government track record of forthrightness throughout its 200+ year history, which frankly sucks, I am curious.

Really, it concerns me that our major cities are apparently so vulnerable, when we have continually been assured they are not. Tom Clancy presaged such an attack in his 1995 book "Debt of Honor" where a lone Japanese pilot who manages to lie his way past ATC flies his 747 into the Capitol in an attempt to kill the President and destroy the US Government.

Lastly, do you know anything about "Fan Death"? Many Koreans believe that leaving a fan on overnight can kill you. They cannot be bothered to investigate why this happens, it just does. It's so rampant that fans come with warning labels! Beliefs like these are created when a simple, black and white answer, which humans love, BTW, is substituted for a more messy reality: People who are generally healthy sometimes die with no apparent reason. Let's not go down the path of fan-death type beliefs when it comes to 9/11. Cut and dried don't cut it.

I'm a research scientist myself. Here's something you quickly learn when you're in the business of trying to convince people of things: It's not enough to say "this explanation doesn't make sense." You've got to go ahead and propose an alternative explanation that does make sense. Otherwise, you're just noise. Anyone can say "that's doesn't sound right to me." OK, so give me something better.

As for the topic at hand, you don't believe flying a fully fueled Boeing 757 can destroy a building. OK, then what do you think did destroy the building? Outline your alternative hypothesis.

9/11 conspiracy theorists will say the building was demolished by "explosives." Do you know how much C4 you need and how many months it takes to demo a building? You need literally tens of thousands of pounds of explosives and it takes several months and a huge crew to wire it all up. You can't just pile it all in the basement. It's a massive job.

How do you think "the government" was able to install 10,000+ lbs of explosives in each WTC tower over the course of several months while the buildings were being used everyday by thousands of people...and no one noticed?

Provide an explanation to that question, and people will listen. Otherwise, you're just noise.

[chadthestampede]

Really, it concerns me that our major cities are apparently so vulnerable, when we have continually been assured they are not. Tom Clancy presaged such an attack in his 1995 book "Debt of Honor" where a lone Japanese pilot who manages to lie his way past ATC flies his 747 into the Capitol in an attempt to kill the President and destroy the US Government.

So........you're saying Tom Clancy organized it?

[Old'n'Slow]

As for the topic at hand, you don't believe flying a fully fueled Boeing 757 can destroy a building. OK, then what do you think did destroy the building? Outline your alternative hypothesis.

This issue isn't whether I believe it. The engineers who designed them didn't believe even two impacts could take one of them down.

9/11 conspiracy theorists will say the building was demolished by "explosives."

I don't see in my post where I mentioned explosives.

How do you think "the government" was able to install 10,000+ lbs of explosives in each WTC tower over the course of several months while the buildings were being used everyday by thousands of people...and no one noticed?

Again, I didn't bring up explosives, but since you did, in buidlings this size, there are constantly various maintenance/physical plant types coming and going. There are also many areas not accessible by the general public. The presence of additional/unfamiliar personnel alone would not necessarily get anyone's attention.

Provide an explanation to that question, and people will listen. Otherwise, you're just noise.

Uhhh, I am asking for an explanation, one that doesn't require such a willing suspension of disbelief. Please note-the documents I refer to are not from so-called "Truther" sites, but from the Official reports.

No one yet has convincingly explained how WTC 7, not hit by a plane, with fires over a few floors, and part of one side structurally damaged didn't topple, but fell straight down, like WTC 1 and 2 despite different construction techniques.

Here's the NIST report. I've read the whole bloody thing. In addition to the entire 9/11 Commission Report. In addition to most of the other "official" accounts.

You "burning pools of jet fuel" believers may take particular interest in page 51, where the investigators state the first plane was going (only) 440MPH, and the damage spanned 6 floors, and that the second plane, going 100MPH faster created damage over 9 floors. Given the obvious fireball from the initial impact, and the extreme forceful dispersion of that jet fuel, can anyone tell me with any amount of veracity that the remaining amount of fuel spread over 6-9+ floors was enough to soften the steel?

Even the NIST doesn't seem to think so. <shrugs shoulders> That's just them. What about FEMA?

Page 21 of the FEMA report states:

A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable "cloud". Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs"

Pools of flaming jet fuel? Fema continues:

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, assuming that all 10,000 gallons were distributed evenly across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed in less than five minutes (emphasis mine) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations......accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all the remaing jet fueled was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

So, no pools of flaming jet fuel, according to the official report.

chadthestampede:

Made me smile....

[Fidhle007]

Would you morons just shut up already???????

[blunttech]

Would you morons just shut up already???????

moron being the key word here. i seriously wonder what your lives are really like.