[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
What is going on here?? This doesn't make any sense?? I thought when buildings caught fire they fall into their own footprint at free fall speed? I thought when they were on fire for an hour they will fall?? Weird?
[URL]http://www.infowars.com/skyscraper-engulfed-by-fire-does-not-collapse/[/URL]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
:runningman:
Was it on fire with a zillion gallons of JET FUEL tho????
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
:Howdy:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
You still think someone secretly masterminded 9-11? That's astonishing
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Was it on fire with a zillion gallons of JET FUEL tho????[/QUOTE] :lol:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Was it on fire with a zillion gallons of JET FUEL tho????[/QUOTE]
in before "antique cctv"
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
All buildings and all building [B]fires[/B] are exactly the same you dolts.
Infowars this bitches. [video=youtube;3xcJT7F_BXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcJT7F_BXo[/video]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284981644790098.html"]Does the Internet Make You Dumber? - WSJ.com[/url]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1086192][URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284981644790098.html"]Does the Internet Make You Dumber? - WSJ.com[/URL][/QUOTE]
nice one buddy
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I know most people here are ffrom the usa (I'm not) and the subject is a very emotive one but I think there are questions that we don't have answers to that make the official version of events hard to accept. I also think people have a duty to ask questions and seek the truth, especially when dealing with people who are proven liars.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Was building 7 on fire with a zillion gallons of jet fuel?
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Was it on fire with a zillion gallons of JET FUEL tho????[/QUOTE]
Excuse my ignorance but I don't recall Building 7 being on fire with a zillion gallons of fuel:roll:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Jet fuel doesn't get very hot but whatever that is an obvious useless point that we have gone over scientifically a long time ago.
I know that terrorism is fake. I know that the government is coming for the average US Citizen. I know they want to disarm the US and turn the world into a slave/master system.
It has been almost 12 years and still not a terrorist stunt. Not one. 136 months and not a gun shot in a mall. Not a bomb at a sporting event.. Nothing. Because there aren't any terrorists. If there was even one something/anything would have happened by now.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Was it on fire with a zillion gallons of JET FUEL tho????[/QUOTE]
There was no jet fuel on Building 7?
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Someone's doing their job, that's why there haven't been any successful attacks, there have been plenty of attempts. Meanwhile cyber terrorism is rampant.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Plus the threat of constant terrorism is overblown too.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
confirmation bias, say whut?
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=runningman;1086366]Jet fuel doesn't get very hot but whatever that is an obvious useless point that we have gone over scientifically a long time ago.
I know that terrorism is fake. I know that the government is coming for the average US Citizen. I know they want to disarm the US and turn the world into a slave/master system.
It has been almost 12 years and still not a terrorist stunt. Not one. 136 months and not a gun shot in a mall. [B][U][SIZE=5][/SIZE]Not a bomb at a sporting event.. [/U][/B]Nothing. Because there aren't any terrorists. If there was even one something/anything would have happened by now.[/QUOTE]
:shock:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=runningman;1086366]I know that terrorism is fake. [/QUOTE]
So the IRA didnt blow up the British government in a hotel in Brighton ? The remembrance day parade in Belfast wasn't bombed? Airey Neave wasnt blown up by a car bomb outside the house of commons?
thats quite a statement - even for you RM!!
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[URL="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/"]NeuroLogica Blog » Anomaly Hunting[/URL]
[quote]One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting. A true anomaly is something that cannot be explained by our current model of nature – it doesn’t fit into existing theories. Anomalies are therefore very useful to scientific inquiry because they point to new knowledge, the potential to deepen or extend existing theories.
...
Pseudoscientists – those pretending to do science (maybe even sincerely believing they are doing science) but who get the process profoundly wrong, use anomalies in a different way. They often engage it what we call anomaly hunting – looking for apparent anomalies. They are not, however, looking for clues to a deeper understanding of reality. They are often hunting for anomalies in service to the overarching pseudoscientific process of reverse engineering scientific conclusions.
What this means is that pseudoscience almost always works backwards – that is its primary malfunction, starting with a desired conclusion and then looking for evidence and twisting logic to support that conclusion. ... With regard to anomalies the logic often works like this: “If my pet theory is true then when I look at the data I will find anomalies.” The unstated major premise of this logic is that if their pet theory were not true then they would not find anomalies. This is naive, however. Another component of this line of argument is the broad definition of anomaly. ... What pseudoscientists do is look for “apparent” anomalies – things that cannot be immediately explained, or (even worse) are just quirky coincidences. Often they also look at the edges of detectability where data becomes fuzzy and anomalies are easier to imagine. Think of the fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot or UFOs, with believers looking at details smaller than the resolution of the images and declaring the presence of anomalies.
They imagine that if they can find (broadly defined) anomalies in that data that would point to another phenomenon at work. They then commit a pair of logical fallacies. First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.[/quote]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=Highsteppa;1087363][URL="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/"]NeuroLogica Blog » Anomaly Hunting[/URL][/QUOTE]
A long time ago in a Galaxy far far away. LOL
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I shutter to think what other "forums" RM is a member of online [IMG]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_nervous.gif[/IMG]
<-------Egad, this was post 21,666 [IMG]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_nervous.gif[/IMG]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=runningman;1086366]Jet fuel doesn't get very hot but whatever that is an obvious useless point that we have gone over scientifically a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
yea and of course no structural damage was done by a 747 FLYING INTO THE BUILDING :lol:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I for one am rather detached with conspiracy theories, but I only recently stumbled onto this documentary and it does highlight some interesting points. It's long and of course doesn't concretely prove squat but does make you wonder. Building 7 being the most glaring evidence of it, along with testimony of the janitor on the sub-levels that was never given the time of day by media outlets, nor included in the 9/11 report.
[video=youtube;cH5oC8RIS68]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH5oC8RIS68[/video]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
^:roflmao: 2.5 hours of 9/11 hollywood conspiracy theories? Why don't we ask Tom Cruise his opinion, or better yet, call our local Scientology compounds and consult with them?
;) no offense of course brah
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=floridaorange;1088059]^:roflmao: 2.5 hours of 9/11 hollywood conspiracy theories? Why don't we ask Tom Cruise his opinion, or better yet, call our local Scientology compounds and consult with them?[/QUOTE]
Have you seen the video? How does it suddenly rank up the conspiracy theory ladder when all it is, is a collection of interviews with actors simply asking, what seem to be, rather valid questions? Moreover, just because there isn't a "scientist" in there, you're suggesting that everyone from Hollywood (or anyone outside of the scientific community for that matter) is less qualified to even present a question?
The title of the thread is a question for cryin out loud. I don't get what Tom Cruise or Scientology have got to do with it.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=Kamal;1088074]
The title of the thread is a question for cryin out loud.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/nbapo2.jpg[/IMG]
The title of the thread is a statement followed by three question marks. Adding a question mark, or three, doesn't make a statement a question.
Carry on. :)
[/grammar police]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
:lol:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Grammar police needs to get back to grammar school, a sarcastic question presented with 1 or 3 ? at the end, still is a question, but please go on :)
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[I]Why doesn't this building fall by fire?[/I] - This is a question.
[I]Building doesn't fall by fire???[/I] - This is not a question. It's barely even a sentence, although i'll be lenient and throw you a bone since the statement at least contains a subject and a verb. Sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with the proper use of a question mark or the proper formation of a question.
Feel free to review the rules for question marks- [URL]http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/question.htm[/URL]
If you would like to get into a discussion about linguistics, prepare to get schooled.
Linguistics > 9/11 talk
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Yes, in of itself, it's not grammatically correct, but that's because you're isolating the "statement" (be it poorly worded) from the context it's sarcastically putting forth as a question. English may not be my first language, but excellent grammar isn't going to help me separate the forest from the trees.
Let's agree to disagree and stick with the 911 topic :)
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=Kamal;1088086]Yes, in of itself, it's not grammatically correct,[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=#222222][FONT=Times][IMG]http://i36.tinypic.com/257f7zk.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/COLOR]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[IMG]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/image.php?u=4&dateline=1362412258[/IMG]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Just saw this and thought of you Jenksie
[IMG]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7356663552/h804C62E3/[/IMG]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
^:roflmao:
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=thebanned1;1087900]yea and of course no structural damage was done by a 747 FLYING INTO THE BUILDING :lol:[/QUOTE]
In the case of building 7, you are quite right..
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[video=youtube;Zv7BImVvEyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk[/video]
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
^Even if it was a controlled demo, doesn't mean Bush was behind it, which is ultimately what conspiracy theorists are saying.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=audrey_w;1100208][video=youtube;Zv7BImVvEyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk[/video][/QUOTE]
It looks similar to the naked eye. Excellent scientific analysis right there.
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
[QUOTE=floridaorange;1100237]^Even if it was a controlled demo, doesn't mean Bush was behind it, which is ultimately what conspiracy theorists are saying.[/QUOTE]
I saw another video of an architect who said that they would need 10s of tons of explosive (if not 100s) to pull of Tower 7 and possibly in the several 100s for the Twin Towers and to have that much explosive secretly snuck into the secure buildings by a few individuals without getting noticed, all of whom would be drilling holes into the load-bearing pillars, laying out the timed charges, laying out well concealed fuse-wiring so neatly over what could only be described as a several month / year(s?) long project and still not be noticed by a single individual working in those buildings - would be nearly (downright) impossible.