Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Rosie O'Donnell thinks 9/11 was an inside job, which means she thinks the Holocaust didn't happen, which means she weighs as much as a duck, and therefore is made of wood and is a witch. Burn her   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

22272 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2007 at 1:07 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1133 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Newest

 
2007-04-13 03:59:45 PM  
Nashbridges

My my--aren't we getting rabid. Sorry, but I have set things on fire before. Carpet, wood, hula hoops, paper. I am aware of the physical world, and if you think that what is flowing out of the wtc is carpet and pvc---fine---if you think Santa Claus brings presents its ok too. I'll stick with science and reality. Try some--you'll like it. Much better than kool-aide.

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones
 
2007-04-13 04:12:13 PM  
Lessthanzero

Sorry--almost forgot about you little buddy. Check out the windows on the right side of the building as the shock wave travels from the bottom up. You can see the same thing on the front of the building but just not as easily. It's the third video down--the 9.6 second video.

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

or here

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
 
2007-04-13 04:14:06 PM  
enki40: I don't know what it was---but I know what it wasn't.

No, you don't know that, either.

Did you get a sample? Were you able to aim a spectrometer at it?

You don't know what it is.

And you don't know what it wasn't either.

Consider this picture, from the International Aluminum Institute, by the name of "molten.jpg".

www.world-aluminium.org

How about you shut the fark up about melted things, OK? You haven't got Clue One.

My guess is you've never googled security camera or frame rates yourself

See, that's your problem right there. You "guess" far too much.

Now forgive me for not wanting to do your research for you, even as you ask others to do their own, when you've shown yourself to be so weak at it, but here we go:

How fast does a fully throttled 757 go? What was the frame rate of say the camera pointed at the entry gate? What was the shutter speed?

How do these things affect the likelihood of a "perfect picture"?

You claimed twenty cameras capable of that. Map, please?

Because if you're claiming that the gas station across the street, for instance was capable of getting "perfect shots, consider: Focal length. F stop. What was the camera intended to take pictures of?

Since you're too farking lazy to do any real work, here's a quote from the fourth link when I googled (and I apologize for its length):

STEP 1: Determine your cameras' raison d'être.

From this you'll be able to decide just about everything else. In my organization, we concluded that surveillance was primarily for forensic use, which meant it had to:

* Let us rapidly review detailed footage so that after incidents (accident, crime, terrorism, overcrowding and so on), we could back everyone up from the event to the edge of our property to see who they talked to, what car they drove, where they parked, what bus or taxi they got out of, what condition the facility was in at the time (icy sidewalk, wet floor, tools in the area and so on).

* Be on demand, because we can't watch the cameras all the time. We wanted to be able to call up the camera with the best coverage to monitor situations if and when we were called by someone with an incident report.

* Allow for targeted "smart" cameras for high-risk areas. We wanted the cameras to be able to alarm us when something began to happen.

STEP 2: Take an inventory.

If you have cameras already, survey what departments own them, what they are for, how they are monitored and what format they use, then decide if any of these cameras can be folded into your new system.

STEP 3: Get smart on camera technologies.

Determine the effect of new technologies on operations, training, maintenance and staffing. Determine how clear you need the picture to be (as opposed to how clear you want it to be). This will have an impact on costs. Here are some of your choices:

* Frame rate. The more frames per second (fps) you choose, the more network capacity each camera will require and the more data storage you'll need. A Fortune 50 company I contacted is using 3 fps to watch cash registers. Its studies showed that no human can trick the camera in a third of a second. We are using 10 fps because our analytics software requires a minimum of 7 fps and we can use only multiples of five. Note here that if you are expecting to catch a baseball in flight you'll want a high frame rate, possibly 30 fps or full motion video, but that's going to be more expensive to operate.


"Perfect pictures"? Not farking likely.

Consider this picture, from a gas station rooftop security camera, of the unfortunate Carlie Brucia's kidnapping:

www.findsarasota.com

It's not even a particularly good picture of what it was intended to capture, namely goings on in its immediate vicinity. Notice the poor resolution, and how both resolution decreases and lens distortion increases the further out in the field the shot goes.

How the heck was such a camera supposed to take a perfect picture of something moving at hundreds of miles an hour, hundreds of yards away?

As to Ted Olsen, I said nothing of his veracity, why do you waste some many electrons, easily a half of your post, beating up a point I never made?

Why do you likewise dismiss Ms. May's very detailed call?

You are being purposely disingenuous, that's why. I'm a lawyer, you needn't toss high-falutin' phraseology about eyewitness testimony around. Let's stick the the physical evidence, which abounds, and which you intentionally misrepresent.

Barbara Olson was supposedly the only passenger to make a call even though they knew other planes had been hijacked and flown into buildings. They knew

Who is this "they"? The other passengers? You need to write with more clarity.

And less snark, you have not earned it.

I'm not sure what your paragraph about eyewitness testimony is intended to do. Are you attempting too refute where I demonstrated that eyewitness accounts, dozens of them, were intentionally edited to say the exact opposite of what the witnesses claimed?

Read that page. There's only one person who specifically says "I saw a missile", (so much for "witnesses on both sides") and he was on the opposite side of the building, the largest office building on the planet, and claims to have seen it from a location, the Pentagon Metro stop, where he was Underground at the time.

What may we conclude about the reliability of his testimony, Counselor, or is it Professor?

You asked, what were the other passengers doing?

I don't know. Freaking out, praying, rendering aid to the wounded, comforting the many children on-board? I wasn't there, thank God.

I'm curious: what do you conclude from the lack of calls? How does it have any bearing on the events that unfolded?

I'd prefer if you would stick to deductions and conclusions, rather than guesses.

Otherwise, your point seems to be nothing more than a red herring.

And if there's anything you KNOW, it's RED, right?
 
2007-04-13 04:57:52 PM  
Deucednuisance--

Thank you for your response. Still a little weak on your insults, but I appreciate the desperate tone of your post as you try to keep reality from creeping in. So--let's see what we have.

First, repeating the same thing again and again after it has been refuted does not change reality. The stuff flowing out of the building has been discussed and you think its carpet and pvc or meat and plants. Fine. By the way---what was that red stuff in your picture supposed to be? Why not post that link? I post all kinds of links for you---do you have a link phobia?

My history is not that of a professor, but I was a projectionist for several years, working with and editing film. I know when a film has been edited. The film released that shows flight 77 impacting the pentagon was edited by at least three frames. A frame is 1/24 of a second. All your tech stuff means nothing since the cameras under discussion were set in place for a specific job, and the tech that put them in were supposedly the best that money could but---as were the cameras---I would ASSUME this to be true. Of course you can ASSUME the cameras were tinker toys. We both have our ASSUMPTIONS, and the observer will have to determine which is the most plausible. My assertion is that the cameras at the pentagon were top of the line stuff and there were plenty of them.

As to the number of video cameras. The FBI claims 84 tapes at the pentagon and of those, 12 had a view of the crash site. But who can trust them.

The cameras weren't hundreds of yards away, and the plane was coming right at them---and it took a while to get there.

As to the Ted Olson thing---the call was impossible to make. Without that call there is no connection to arabs with boxcutters. None--zilch--zero.

As to what "they" I was referring to---how many "theys" were there to choose from? They were in a plane remember? Not much "they" options. Yes---the "they" I was referring to was the other passengers. The other passengers and the pilots knew about the other hijackings and that the planes had crashed into the towers. But none of the other passengers made calls, and the call made by renee May did not mention arabs with boxcutters---what details exactly were you referring to? You should try to use English in a clear manner. Most good lawyers would agree.

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm
 
2007-04-13 05:05:12 PM  
Almost forgot

"I'm curious: what do you conclude from the lack of calls? How does it have any bearing on the events that unfolded?"


The lack of calls seems curious in that she was the only one to make a call when all the other passengers knew they were going to die. When the passengers on flight 93 knew this there were lots of calls---and action taken. I think this is a human reaction. I would try to make a call---if I thought the plane was going to be crashed into the ground or a building, I'm going to attack somebody no matter if the other passengers are with me or not. There were several military personnel on the plane--were they all cowards? What would you have done? The lack of any other calls gives credibility to the fact that the call she made never happened---she never called---he lied. It was an impossible call to make collect---and she didn't use a cell phone. No record of the call.


No call. No arabs with boxcutters.
 
2007-04-13 05:40:13 PM  
enki40: I'll stick with science and reality. Try some--you'll like it. Much better than kool-aide.

You aren't sticking with science at all. You are ignoring it. You are stupidly disregarding something you can prove yourself, as was and is Jones. You are referencing someone who had to publicly state he didn't propose his "theory" as a function of his duties as a professor in order to not get fired. You are also referencing someone who claims Jesus was in America in the 1800's. That paper is just as valid as his 9/11 paper - bullshiat.

Go nuts, dumbass. I'll insult you because if you put the two of us together in a yard, I can prove you wrong repeatedly. All the work we've done as humanity in 100,000 years of progress can prove you wrong, and because you refuse to acknowledge it makes you a dumbass. I'll continue to insult you because you insist on being a dumbass and somehow think that me calling you one makes me wrong. It doesn't. You're still a dumbass.

And fark off about witness testimony, because I know far more people than you who are on the record about what happened that day, including two in the Pentagon and five who lived near or were on 110/7.

Dumbass.

My contempt for you cannot be higher. You are a farking idiot.
 
2007-04-13 05:46:18 PM  
Coming from you I accept that as the highest compliment.

You have ignored the science in the posts and have refuted nothing except with voodoo carpet looking like molten steel. The angular momentum of the towers when they fell should have put the top 34 floors in the street. But hey--that's just science.

You win the insult argument---I'm sure that's all you've ever won

NEXT
 
2007-04-13 05:48:12 PM  
110/7------what date was that?

hehehehe
 
2007-04-13 06:25:26 PM  
enki40: The angular momentum of the towers when they fell should have put the top 34 floors in the street.

Bullshiat. The angular momentum you think would occur only happens if one side of the building stayed rigid and if the part that was falling stayed connected. It did not. There was only one external force after the crash - gravity. The collapse doesn't disagree with any physical laws.

Feel free to ignore science along with Jones. I'll give you a clue: the buildings in his paper? Felled by earthquakes. There was a significant lateral force involved in both of them.

Dumbass.
 
2007-04-13 06:38:09 PM  
enki40: should have put the top 34 floors in the street.

And they did end up in the street eventually.
 
2007-04-13 06:42:29 PM  
The top floors were more than 25% off center---gravity would have made the weight slide even further off as it fell--don't let reality, science and gravity stand in the way of your delusions.

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

Scroll down about 80% of the page---look at the picture---and tell me that would have fallen straight down. Maybe there was lots of that molten steel carpet. Look at any of the videos on that link. Look at the squibs shooting out the side of the building 20 floors in advance of the collapse. Look at the science. Look at reality. The planes didn't shear the buildings in half all the steel shouldn't have failed at the same time--it should have shifted the weight even more as the top failed as there was no damage to many of the steel supports, and no damage at all to the floors below the impact. Look at the science.
 
2007-04-13 06:45:34 PM  
Still no links from you---proof they were felled by earthquakes--got link? what was that red stuff in your post? Got link? With no links people may think you are talking out your ass.
 
2007-04-13 06:51:02 PM  
Science rules

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Molten-Jones7apr06.htm

Gee--no mention of molten steel carpet.

hehehehe

This is fun---don't you think this is fun. Of course it's more fun when science is on your side.
 
2007-04-13 06:57:18 PM  
Isn't science fun---don't you wish you had some?

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

What a dumbass this guy must be!!!! He can't even tell the difference between molten carpet and molten steel---why don't you send him one of your links--oh yeah--no links from you.
 
2007-04-13 09:12:48 PM  
Dear God, enki40.

You ARE stubbornly dense.

You don't know how to right click to read "properties" on a .jpg.

You claim knowledge of materials, but won't bother going to the international professional association (that I put it BOLD) that makes a very good living for its constituents in the business of processing and selling that very material of which you assert specific knowledge of its properties.

That was molten aluminum, glowing a very happy red.

Molten aluminum can be red. You've said repeatedly that there is a single color for molten aluminum. What is your source for this this claim, you, who accuse other of simply parroting things?

But let's get into the physics. A simple question: what does the presence of molten metal at the bottom of ground zero indicate?

Can someone, such as yourself, masquerading as a critical thinker, state with certainty that the red material spilling out of the upper floors of the still-standing WTC is the same material found 21 days later?

Regardless of its origin, what could account for the existence of said material at the bottom of Ground Zero?

Explosives?

Please, tell me you think that conservation of energy allows that the energy expended by explosives of any kind can account for molten metal at the site (admittedly very far away from the location of the explosion, or explosions) twenty-one days later. Please?

Or let's try this, your herring-monger: What, exactly, do you think the presence of molten steel flowing out of the upper floors of the WTC indicates?

You tell us it's there. Fine. What does it mean?

What, if anything, about that is consistent with the observations of 21 days later that you so eagerly cite?

So, how much of the steel, molten or otherwise, went to China, anyhow?

I await your documentation of your new "camera" claims.

All cameras were pointed at the incoming plane? Fascinating. All were shooting 24/frame/sec (which would indicate that they were using film, rather than video)? Fascinating. And as likely as the aerodynamic flight of swine.

Your credentials as projectionist entitle you to ignore every question I've asked you about the actual capture of images?

I appreciate your concession that you're retreated from "guesses" to "assumptions".

I look forward to your eventual assertion of "divinely revealed truth".

Because you haven't a lick of observed reality on your side.
 
2007-04-13 09:28:19 PM  
enki40There were several military personnel on the plane--were they all cowards?

This is some mighty nasty stuff.

So, the brave thing to do is call and say goodbye?

Which means, I guess, that the cowardly thing to do is to not worry about your damn phone and maybe try to do something about the situation?

You have a lot of damn gall presuming how anyone behaved or ought to have behaved. You weren't there.

Shame on you.

Shame.
 
2007-04-13 10:03:10 PM  
enki40: gravity would have made the weight slide even further off as it fell-

No it wouldn't, gravity wouldn't have done anything besides pull straight down, that's what gravity does (at least on earth - other scenarios vary). Any lateral force would have been provided by something resisting the falling and translating it into sideways motion - in this case, nothing. Buildings don't tip over like trees unless they are severed at the base and the structure holds. In this case, neither of those conditions is true. The easiest way for the building to come down is exactly how it happened: everything ran straight down. Anything pushed out to the side bumped into a resistive force at some point, be it air, an existing part of the structure, or something falling slower.

I realize that someone completely ignorant of physics, like you are, might think otherwise.

Dumbass.

What a dumbass this guy must be!!!! He can't even tell the difference between molten carpet and molten steel---why don't you send him one of your links--oh yeah--no links from you.

He's not a dumbass, you are. 21 days after the buildings fell doesn't mean anything in terms of what took the towers down, you had a concentrated fire underground for almost a month at that point. He also can't say with any certainty what molten material he was looking at because no one can. Most people cannot distinguish molten metal from molten plastic, let alone distinguish molten steel from a mixture of other molten material mixed together which may have included steel at that point. You don't have science on your side, you have quotes taken out of context. You go nuts you farking idiot.

Dumbass.
 
2007-04-13 10:08:33 PM  
enki40: The film released that shows flight 77 impacting the pentagon was edited by at least three frames. A frame is 1/24 of a second.

Jesus Christ, you can't even get that right. 24 frames a second is an industry standard for filmed video, not a camera. It's an arbitrary standard. Movies are 24 frames a second, security cameras are not. Are you going to use your worthless knowledge to debunk the fact that the 7-11 camera that photos your ugly mug once every five seconds can't possibly exist?
 
2007-04-13 10:42:01 PM  
Deucednuisance

Right clicking on properties of your picture just takes you to another picture identical to what was posted---don't you know how to post a link--do you need instructions? Here is poured molten aluminum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gge5NyqoNIQ

It isn't red--but that's science for you

The significance of the molten steel? It shouldn't have been there. What caused it---nothing in the government conspiracy theory covers why there was molten steel at the bottom of the WTC and WTC7. The source of the molten steel is thermite--not explosives. How does the government explain the molten steel?

You have questions about the camera? If you had read the link you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself by asking such foolish questions. You just prove your close mindedness by proving you don't look at anything that might prove you to be mistaken. No---the link said---not all the cameras were pointed at the direction of the incoming aircraft. Only 13 of the cameras were point in that direction---the link said----and of those only one was turned on according to the FBI---the link said. Of those thirteen, 12 of them only have footage after the strike----the link said. The link also wondered why the other 12 weren't recording until after the strike. The link also pointed out the resistance of the government to release the video that it does have. But you would have known that had you had the balance and fairness to read all positions before making up your mind.

You are the only one thinking shameful thoughts about the military personnel on flight 77. Now you go and call the people of flight 93 cowards because they called their loved ones. I'm sure the people they called would be glad to hear you think their loved ones were cowards for calling them. No little mind---the military on flight 77 weren't cowards---they never knew they were going to fly into a building because Barbara Olson never made that call. And the plane wasn't full of combat veterans--there were some women who might have liked to make a call. And you call me a dumbass? LOL.

Molten aluminum is never red---your picture is a lie, and you are a liar. I will happily await your link. I can't find that picture in any of the International Aluminum Institutes sites.
 
2007-04-13 11:00:52 PM  
"enki40: The film released that shows flight 77 impacting the pentagon was edited by at least three frames. A frame is 1/24 of a second.

Jesus Christ, you can't even get that right. 24 frames a second is an industry standard for filmed video, not a camera. It's an arbitrary standard. Movies are 24 frames a second, security cameras are not. Are you going to use your worthless knowledge to debunk the fact that the 7-11 camera that photos your ugly mug once every five seconds can't possibly exist?"


First things first. After the plane hits in the video, the large fireball expands naturally--lots of frames to make it look like that--not one every five seconds. What does that tell us? It tells us that the camera taking the video was not taking a picture every five seconds but was recording at normal visual speed. Had it been taking one picture every 5 seconds, the fireball would have been see to be very jerky and not natural looking at all. Three to four frames are missing.

!/24th of a second is the requirement of the eye to not see blinks of light when viewing a movie or video. It is not an arbitrary standard. It is a scientific fact. Video cameras do essentially the same thing as movie cameras, they just do it in a different way. Theater projectors flash 24 frames per second on the screen, and there is a shutter that closes of the light between each frame so that the viewer doesn't see the blur when the next frame is pulled into the aperture. Video cameras flash 24 frames per second, but they do it with electrons rather than pictures you can see. Still---you can take one frame out of a video as well as film.

Of course a video camera exists that can take a picture every five seconds. Your point?
 
2007-04-13 11:15:32 PM  
"He's not a dumbass, you are."

Hey--he's the one that can't tell molten carpet from molten metal. He's the one saying molten steel was still FLOWING after 21 days not me. Just because he was standing right next to it and was the freaking structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who could give him credibility for knowing melted carpet from molten steel.


21 days after the buildings fell doesn't mean anything in terms of what took the towers down, you had a concentrated fire underground for almost a month at that point.

Wow--a concentrated fire--and where did all this oxygen come from and what was it burning that long to melt the steel? Do you think the longer a fire burns the hotter it gets? I bet you do. Were there giant holes with fans in them in the debris? There were no fires--only molten steel from thermite.


"He also can't say with any certainty what molten material he was looking at because no one can."

True---nobody on the planet can tell molten steel by looking at it.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


"Most people cannot distinguish molten metal from molten plastic"

Maybe where you come from---where I come from people have more than one gene in their pool and can easily distinguish between molten metal and molten steel without ever seeing either.

"let alone distinguish molten steel from a mixture of other molten material mixed together which may have included steel at that point."

Steel still needs a certain temerature to melt. Mix in melted carpet--it doesn't reach the tamp--mix in melted glass--it doesn't reach the temp---mix in melted copper--it doesn't reach the temp. Getting through to you yet? HELLOOOOO


"You don't have science on your side, you have quotes taken out of context."

I have great science, links, photos, eyewitness accounts and mathematics on my side.


"You go nuts you farking idiot."

Thank you, thank you very much. You make my point better than I ever could.
 
2007-04-14 12:47:54 AM  
Oh, you're still here. I'm doing this for the benefit of others, not you, you farking idiot.

enki40: It tells us that the camera taking the video was not taking a picture every five seconds but was recording at normal visual speed.

No it doesn't. It doesn't tell us anything unless you have the make and model of the camera taking the pictures. You focused on 5 seconds like I was saying that was the frame rate of the Pentagon camera instead of my hypothetical 7-11 camera. In reality, the security camera could have taken pictures 24 times a second, 10 times a second, 5 times a second, or any number of other configurations. The best you can say is that it was taking more than one photo a second because if it wasn't, the plane might not have appeared on record. The record was probably a hard drive somewhere, I seriously doubt anyone is still using film for that purpose.

Do you think the longer a fire burns the hotter it gets?

Time is usually irrelevant if you aren't factoring in the actual time it takes to increase temperature. If a fire has more fuel to consume, it will burn more. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not get hotter. We've used these concepts throughout history in order to make the same steel you are blathering on about.

Were there giant holes with fans in them in the debris? There were no fires--only molten steel from thermite.

So you, in your deluded world, are arguing that steel that melted 21 days previous continued staying melted and red hot? If you are not, then why are you arguing about a fire you think didn't exist?

Dumbass.

Steel still needs a certain temerature to melt. Mix in melted carpet--it doesn't reach the tamp--mix in melted glass--it doesn't reach the temp---mix in melted copper--it doesn't reach the temp. Getting through to you yet? HELLOOOOO

Way to miss the point, dumbass. I'm not arguing it was melted steel, I'm arguing it could have been melted anything.

True---nobody on the planet can tell molten steel by looking at it.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Line up videos of molten steel, aluminum, copper, and anything else that has reached combustible plastic flow and I'd bet every single person who looks at them can't tell you what's actually flowing. All they know is that it's hot. You are living proof.

You are too ignorant of any of the sciences to even argue your own points. I'm not insulting you because you are stupid, I'm insulting you because you are celebrating it. So once again:

DUMBASS.
 
2007-04-14 01:37:42 AM  
Again. The fact that the smoke billows in a normal manner tells how many FPS the camera was shooting at. It proves the video was edited as explained above. Just because you are too dense to comprehend the concept doesn't alter the facts. Science rules.

"So you, in your deluded world, are arguing that steel that melted 21 days previous continued staying melted and red hot? If you are not, then why are you arguing about a fire you think didn't exist?"

Yes--exactly---finally the light begins to dawn--you finally read something. Its actually not my deluded world it's this guys deluded world.

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Remember him?

Also all these people who were there.

http://www.whatreallyhappened..com/thermite.htm

Of course this is science and you prefer dancing, feathers and juju beads, but to each their own.

Say---how about that link to that molten aluminum liar? Got link?

hehehehe
 
2007-04-14 02:48:38 AM  
enki40: The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

You've already changed your own observation, before it was steel, now it's metal.

Of course this is science and you prefer dancing, feathers and juju beads, but to each their own.

This is not science, it's your own god damned ignorance. You are shouting it loudly and proudly for no other reason than you think you are right. Doesn't make you any less stupid.

Dumbass.
 
2007-04-14 03:36:44 AM  
Um--read the whole thing---as in--"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Gee you never respond to anything correctly yet you think you know all the answers---I bet there is a name for that type of delusional thinking.

Say---How about that link to that molten aluminum, LIAR--Got Link?

hehehehe
 
2007-04-14 04:14:32 AM  
enki40: Say---How about that link to that molten aluminum, LIAR--Got Link?

Dumbass, it's already been linked in this thread. If you are so troubled about the truth, you would know that already. You are "committed retarded" - you ignore anything that doesn't back up your claims.

Fark off. You are too stupid to even read through what is a wealth of proving you wrong.

Again: Dumbass.
 
2007-04-14 04:30:37 AM  
Well now that's two lies isn't it liar. All you gotta do is post the link.

Don't even begin about not reading---that's you all over---you coulnd't even finish one sentence after it had been posted twice and linked to twice. Here--see if you see it this time.

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

MOLTEN STEEL---and lots of corroborating witnesses as credible as this guy and the pictures to go with them---but you know better because you know its all molten carpet. Science rules--so does reading--try it sometime.


Say---How about that link to that molten aluminum, LIAR--Got Link?

hehehehe
 
2007-04-14 04:38:36 AM  
enki40: How about that link to that molten aluminum, LIAR--Got Link?

It's already been linked.

You are a dumbass.
 
2007-04-14 04:58:28 AM  
It's already been linked.

You are a dumbass

The link has not been posted Liar. Link it again Super Genius---prove me a liar---all you gotta do is POST THE LINK

LiAr

Say---How about that link to that molten aluminum, LIAR.


hehehehe
 
2007-04-14 09:26:56 AM  
Your picture is a lie, and you are a liar

That tears it. Quarter to four in the goddam morning, and you think I'm sitting up waiting to respond to you because you haven't enough brain cells to rub together to perform a simple keyword search?

FARK YOU

Calling me a "Liar" is one of those thing that piss me off mightily, and accepting the accusation of Internet Tough Guy, would be something that would you and me stepping outside.

http://www.world-aluminium.org/production/processing/casting.html

Ingest excrement and thereby expire.

Welcome to the Ignore list, you're in an elite cadre of idiots.
 
2007-04-14 12:42:16 PM  
Deucednuisance: Welcome to the Ignore list, you're in an elite cadre of idiots.

Yeah, that old crazy farkers last 20 posts have essentially been:

enki40: LiAr

Super. Dumbass does not even know how nmany frames per second the pentagon security cameras were, and everyone else is a liar.

Miserable old waste of skin, what are you gonna do?
 
2007-04-14 03:15:43 PM  
Deucednuisance---You can always ignore those who have humiliated you and proven you a liar. You could have posted your lying link long ago and had the humiliation done and over. But NOOOoooOOOOO you had to wait and wait and wait for your humiliation. Well here it is you farking liar. Your link does not identify that molten mass as aluminum now does it. In fact it talks about die casting molten steel now doesn't it. Nothing on that link identidies that as molten aluminum does it---WHY??? Because it is MOLTEN IRON or MOLTEN STEEL---not MOLTEN ALUMINUM. I guess that makes you a PROVEN LIAR now doesn't it. My link to molten aluminum shows MOLTEN ALUMINUM. Your link shows what a LIAR you are.

SCIENCE RULES

and you?

eh

Just another punk liar. Glad to be on your ignore list.
 
2007-04-15 03:39:39 PM  
I'm no 911-truther, but holy shiat, the author was a whiney little dick. DIAF, moran.
 
Displayed 33 of 1133 comments


Oldest | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report