[ms] · Est. May 2002

Music madethis place,we just kept itgoing...

One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.

01PulsePosts · shares · activity 02PeopleIdentity · relationships · history 03CommunitiesGroups · forums · events 04Music + MediaListen · discover · discuss

Forums / Politics

The War on Truthers

526 durable postsStarted 2010-03-06Latest 2011-03-21

#1446486Post 281 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

Also one plane one tower is not multiple. 2 planes one tower would be multiple. Your most retared post yet.

#1446487Post 282 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917077]retared [/QUOTE]

:lol:

#1446488Post 283 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

No you fail to understand basic engineering. The USS Enterprise could have been floating around at the time, if it wasnt tested being rammed into the side of the building then you can't ever know if the building could withstand the impact. No wonder you fall for all this nonsense.

#1446489Post 284 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

yahoo Jenks is beating off about a typo

#1446490Post 285 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917079]No you fail to understand basic engineering. The USS Enterprise could have been floating around at the time, if it wasnt tested being rammed into the side of the building then you can't ever know if the building could withstand the impact. No wonder you fall for all this nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to answer the question. One plane one building

#1446495Post 286 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

There was actually more planes they just went in the hole the previous plane made and didn't get picked up on any camera due to antique CCTV [IMG]http://smileyicons.net/s/532.gif[/IMG]I'm surprised New York didn't just sink into the sea.

#1446504Post 287 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917086]There was actually more planes they just went in the hole the previous plane made and didn't get picked up on any camera due to antique CCTV [IMG]http://smileyicons.net/s/532.gif[/IMG]I'm surprised New York didn't just sink into the sea.[/QUOTE]

:Blazed:

Actually I don't think I've ever asked this, but since a missile hit the Pentagon and not a plane, what happened to the plane? I am looking forward to an amazing response.

#1446506Post 288 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

Actually I don't think I've ever asked this, but since a missile hit the Pentagon and not a plane, what happened to the plane? I am looking forward to an amazing response.[/QUOTE]

Actually you have. Maybe you should look through your old posts. I never said a missile hit the Pentagon :what I think you have already stated what happened to the plane :lol:

#1446507Post 289 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

Are you going to give us your Why isn't Dylan Avery dead quote next?[IMG]http://smileyicons.net/s/542.gif[/IMG]

Same time tomorrow Res0 see ya

#1446516Post 290 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917098]Actually you have. Maybe you should look through your old posts. I never said a missile hit the Pentagon :what I think you have already stated what happened to the plane :lol:[/QUOTE]

you make no fuckin sense. :lol:

so all you've been pissed off about these years is just that the camera shutter speeds are slow and you couldn't see the plane hit in hd? well you gotta pick your battles i guess.:roflmao:

#1446522Post 291 of 5262011-01-05

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917081]Are you going to answer the question. One plane one building[/QUOTE]

This also makes no sense.

#1446678Post 292 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917110]you make no fuckin sense. :lol:

so all you've been pissed off about these years is just that the camera shutter speeds are slow and you couldn't see the plane hit in hd? well you gotta pick your battles i guess.:roflmao:[/QUOTE]

:lol:

#1446685Post 293 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917110]you make no fuckin sense. :lol:

so all you've been pissed off about these years is just that the camera shutter speeds are slow and you couldn't see the plane hit in hd? well you gotta pick your battles i guess.:roflmao:[/QUOTE]

Nope you are the one who thinks the CCTV was installed at the Pentagon the same time the building was built and also seems to think that there is only one camera on that area of the building.

You are also the one who thinks one plane one tower is a multiple strike. 2 planes one tower would be multiple strike. :roflmao:I don't know which one of these I find funnier

I'm the one who is pissed off because the US Government failed to bring any evidence to the public. They failed to have a proper investigation and covered everything up. and the US people let them.

#1446693Post 294 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917326] You are also the one who thinks one plane one tower is a multiple strike. 2 planes one tower would be multiple strike. :roflmao:I don't know which one of these I find funnier[/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you on about man? :DumbAss: This ALSO makes no sense.

Damnit I knew I should have bought you a Rosetta Stone for Xmas so you could understand the words I string together in this forum.

#1446696Post 295 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917340]What the fuck are you on about man? :DumbAss: This ALSO makes no sense.

Damnit I knew I should have bought you a Rosetta Stone for Xmas so you could understand the words I string together in this forum.[/QUOTE]

It was you who posted this wasn't it?

[QUOTE][SIZE=5]the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

#1446697Post 296 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917343]It was you who posted this wasn't it?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Maybe you need to buy a Rosetta Stone first to understand what the hell it means. :roflmao:

#1446698Post 297 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917344]Yes. Maybe you need to buy a Rosetta Stone first to understand what the hell it means. :roflmao:[/QUOTE]

Well how many planes hit each tower Res0? and it one plane hitting one tower a multiple or single strike?

#1446699Post 298 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

good lord. punch yourself in the face.

#1446700Post 299 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917346]good lord. punch yourself in the face.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to answer the question or just carry on with your stupidity

#1446701Post 300 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917347]Are you going to answer the question or just carry on with your stupidity[/QUOTE]

:roflmao:

Please break down that sentence above that is causing you such strife and please let me know what you think it means.

#1446702Post 301 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

Please break down that sentence above that is causing you such strife and please let me know what you think it means.[/QUOTE]

You're still not answering the question

#1446705Post 302 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

ok since you dont understand what it means ill break it down. you are about the best troll of all time though.

[SIZE=5]the impact of a [single, not multiple] [/SIZE]^ This part means that only one plane hitting a tower was examined.[SIZE=5]

Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed [/SIZE]^This part means a Boeing 707 was examined when doing crash simulation.[SIZE=5]

during the design stage of the WTC towers[/SIZE] ^This part means the testing was going on while the building was being designed.

So if you put it together:

[SIZE=5]the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers[/SIZE]

This means that your bullshit about "oh yeah a 767 could it that and it would be fine" is total nonsense. First because it was never analyzed (see above) during the construction phase, only a 707 was tested. And second because the fuckin plane didnt even exist at the time. :lol:

#1446706Post 303 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917117]This also makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

Do you think one plane hitting one building is a multiple attack? How many more times do I have to ask

#1446707Post 304 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

:roflmao: you really shouldn't be allowed to talk in here because you don't have the mental capacity. Good job on sidestepping my statement though, proves me right.

#1446708Post 305 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917353] This means that your bullshit about "oh yeah a 767 could it that and it would be fine" is total nonsense. First because it was never analyzed (see above) during the construction phase, only a 707 was tested. And second because the fuckin plane didnt even exist at the time. :lol:[/QUOTE]

I have never said the plane did exist at the time. But I have asked you was a 707 the largest plane in operation at the at the time of the design of the building

#1446709Post 306 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917356]I have never said the plane did exist at the time. But I have asked you was a 707 the largest plane in operation at the at the time of the design of the building[/QUOTE]

As i told you before your dumb questions above are irrelevent as a Pinto or the Challenger was not tested so it is moot. Damn you are easily manipulated.

#1446710Post 307 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

So what you are saying is if both buildings had been hit by a 707 instead of a 767 the buildings would not of collapsed

#1446711Post 308 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917358]So what you are saying is if both buildings had been hit by a 707 instead of a 767 the buildings would not of collapsed[/QUOTE]

Yup, if that is what the 707 testing report said...aka flying at X mph and hitting the side of the building as did. You are learning!! Not sure what exact impact the report says but if if say it could withstand that type of impact then I'd be inclined to believe it would.

#1446712Post 309 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917357]As i told you before your dumb questions above are irrelevent as a Pinto or the Challenger was not tested so it is moot. Damn you are easily manipulated.[/QUOTE]

Well I've got plenty of questions, you just don't want to answer them for some reason.

#1446714Post 310 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917359]Yup, if that is what the 707 testing report said...aka flying at X mph and hitting the side of the building as did. You are learning!![/QUOTE]

Right so you are saying the extra wight of the 767 is what caused the collapse?

#1446715Post 311 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=chunky;917360]Well I've got plenty of questions, you just don't want to answer them for some reason.[/QUOTE]

There are only so many hours in the day to repeatedly answer retarded questions which make no sense. the answers wont be understood anyway.

#1446716Post 312 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

so plz talk about cctv again.

#1446717Post 313 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917359]Yup, if that is what the 707 testing report said...aka flying at X mph and hitting the side of the building as did. You are learning!! Not sure what exact impact the report says but if if say it could withstand that type of impact then I'd be inclined to believe it would.[/QUOTE]

No if the testing said the steel would not buckle or weaken you will go along with that to

#1446718Post 314 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917364]so plz talk about cctv again.[/QUOTE]

Hey the CCTV was your quote. Not mine

#1446719Post 315 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

i know, we are all dumb sheep except for you few enlightened ones :lol: it sucks.

#1446720Post 316 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917367]i know, we are all dumb sheep except for you few enlightened ones :lol: it sucks.[/QUOTE]

Well if you are willing to go along with the NIST story yes

#1446721Post 317 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

:lol: plz analyze google videos some more for clues. if its there it must be true.

#1446722Post 318 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

So you also go along with a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion. Even though they could not recreate it?

#1446723Post 319 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917355]:roflmao: you really shouldn't be allowed to talk in here because you don't have the mental capacity. Good job on sidestepping my statement though, proves me right.[/QUOTE]

I would hardly call it sidestepping when you give me less than 60 seconds to respond. You have been side stepping my questions for days.

#1446724Post 320 of 5262011-01-06

Re: The War on Truthers

New phenomenon eh?

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion[/URL]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity"]Specific heat capacity[/URL] [I]c[/I] = [I]T[/I] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/e/7/de71b72c4f62f20d117414dd2f33ca25.png[/IMG] [I]N[/I] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/f/7/af7e8a85df47250ffab736b7a8807488.png[/IMG]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressibility"]Compressibility[/URL] β = − 1 [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/8/8/888fa252e9cde41ef196d5154cd7219c.png[/IMG] [I]V[/I] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/f/5/1f58273c4161e57f62a95804c2ae961a.png[/IMG] [B]

Thermal expansion[/B] α = 1 [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/8/8/888fa252e9cde41ef196d5154cd7219c.png[/IMG] [I]V[/I] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/f/7/af7e8a85df47250ffab736b7a8807488.png[/IMG]