Shooting in Denver

[Renton 17811]

You always get one don't you.

 

It is canny insensitive as well as massively insane to believe these grieving people are actors though.

[wolfy 12]

I can honestly say that I wouldn't be happy walking about the streets, knowing everyone was carrying guns. I've seen how easy it is for a person to fly off the handle in a small disagreement, so I could only imagine what they would be like if they had a loaded gun on them.

[Renton 17811]

I can honestly say that I wouldn't be happy walking about the streets, knowing everyone was carrying guns. I've seen how easy it is for a person to fly off the handle in a small disagreement, so I could only imagine what they would be like if they had a loaded gun on them.

 

Well Wolfy, according to forum member that is the most hilarious thing you believe.

[wolfy 12]

It is canny insensitive as well as massively insane to believe these grieving people are actors though.

Ok fair enough, if emotion is getting used here, I'll take no further part in this discussion.

[Gemmill 34533]

Leazes posting an "exactly"* in response to Toonpack. Gatekeeper meets Keymaster. The end is nigh.

 

 

*there is no surer guarantee that somebody has been talking shit. It's like someone rubber stamping a turd.

[Andrew 4224]

I find wolfy's casual yet callous disregard for those killed on 9/11 and in Denver almost as irritating as his condescending use of 'mate' all the time.

 

same here, among the others in Denver a 6 year old girl has been murdered.

[LeazesMag 0]

To clarify, you would feel safer walking down the street of everyone had a gun (not just you)? I suspect as usual you may be in the minority there.

 

Oh, btw, not remotely obsessed.

 

that isn't what you said is it. Can't you read and understand your own posts ?

[Renton 17811]

 

 

that isn't what you said is it. Can't you read and understand your own posts ?

 

Erm, yes it is in the context of the paragraph the sentence you bolded was taken out of.

 

You do realise that if guns were legalised, as you want them to be, you would not be the sole person to get one, right? So would legalisation make you feel safer, yes or no?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Renton

[LoveTheBobby 1]

Rigged up so they could go to war for oil.

 

There is hundreds if not thousands of questions and coincidences that happened that day and also a total suspension of the laws of physics for it to be anything other than an inside job.

 

I asked because I have a mate who thinks it was a government ploy and the Pentagon thing didn't happen etc. I've never really had a conversation with him beyond that but in terms of 'the other side of the coin' I'm interested in what main points has so many (mainly Americans ?) point towards this ?

 

Personally, I'm of the belief it was an out-and-out terrorist act and know that the Twin Towers definately got hit as I have friends who work there (one who through a total act of fate wasn't in one of thr towers at the time as he was previously scheduled to be) . I've also sern first hand the scars on the buildings surrounding what is now Ground Zero or whatever.

Anyways, what are the main bits of it that are deemed suspicious and which are the 'impossible physics' angles ?

 

Genuine question, just I know there's probably a lot of detailed sites going into it but I'm a lazy sort and curious as to the main points of the sceptics .

[CleeToonFan 1]

It's nothing to do with me not seeing satellites mate, it's to do with the bullshit that's spouted about how they stay up there.

Yeah, sure they fall around the Earth (so they tell us) at a certain speed and miraculously stay in orbit on their own, with no propulsion and being pulled by gravity, yet supposedly going so fast that the gravity, actually counteracts the falling coupled with their speed.

 

It all sounds feasible to any person who has no reason or inclination to question what so called official experts tell them, so I understand why people will simply think I'm nuts for mentioning it but that's just the way it is with me and I apply my own logic to many scenarios.

 

Because many people TELL me I'm wrong, doesn't mean that I am wrong and will not sway my thoughts unless a genuine logical reasoning can be put to me as to why these satellites stay in orbit and don;t get me started on the so called one's that are alleged to be 24,000 miles out into space yet still somehow use Earth's gravitational pull.

 

9/11 has hundreds and hundreds of anomalies about it that tell me it was an inside job and after studying it all, I can definitely come to the conclusion that it was staged.

IN THIS HOUSE WE FOLLOW THE RULES OF THERMODYNAMICS

[Renton 17811]

 

 

it's OK for IRA terrorist scumbags to own weapons ?

 

I like how some people on here are quick to jump on the back of the USA, blaming them for all the worlds atrocities and condemning their cultures, but say absolutely fuck all about uncivilised cavemen in other parts of the world who slaughter innocent people and actually encourage the UK to take them into our country and tell us we have to put up with them spouting on about their "rights" etc. I actually agree with TP here, if someone wants to keep a gun for protection they should be allowed to do it and if anyone breaks into your house, for instance, they are fair game.

 

Last sentence Leazes. Are you having memory problems?

[Renton 17811]

For the benefit of the forum, Leazes is deleting his own posts when he realises they have made him look like a tit. Which is most posts.

[LeazesMag 0]

Erm, yes it is in the context of the paragraph the sentence you bolded was taken out of.

 

You do realise that if guns were legalised, as you want them to be, you would not be the sole person to get one, right? So would legalisation make you feel safer, yes or no?

 

that isn't what I said either Please show me, in the context of your last post and my reply, where I have said - ever - that "everybody would walk down the street with a gun"

Edited July 26, 2012 by LeazesMag

[wolfy 12]

I asked because I have a mate who thinks it was a government ploy and the Pentagon thing didn't happen etc. I've never really had a conversation with him beyond that but in terms of 'the other side of the coin' I'm interested in what main points has so many (mainly Americans ?) point towards this ?

 

Personally, I'm of the belief it was an out-and-out terrorist act and know that the Twin Towers definately got hit as I have friends who work there (one who through a total act of fate wasn't in one of thr towers at the time as he was previously scheduled to be) . I've also sern first hand the scars on the buildings surrounding what is now Ground Zero or whatever.

Anyways, what are the main bits of it that are deemed suspicious and which are the 'impossible physics' angles ?

 

Genuine question, just I know there's probably a lot of detailed sites going into it but I'm a lazy sort and curious as to the main points of the sceptics .

Well first of all, if you have seen the towers or ever seen the construction of those towers, you will notice that they are all steel framed buildings.

The inner core of those towers housed enormous thick steel core columns that housed the lifts and the outer walls were a grid of steel and supported by steel trusses, welded and bolted to create the floor supports which were then covered in concrete.

Basically they were extremely strong towers able to withstand the impact of a jet hitting them at any point and standing the test easily.

 

Ok , now I've bored you with that, I'll just say that no steel framed building, EVER has collapsed due to fire, yet not one but three steel framed buildings on 9/11, all collapse to the ground, two of them within a few hours and building 7 later in the day.

 

They all collapsed at free fall speed, encountering no resistance all the way to the ground and into their own basements.

 

To understand this, you have to imagine being on top of a similar sized sky scraper and throwing an iron ball from the top and counting how long it would take to hit the ground.

 

Throwing a ball from that height encountering no resistance, would take approximately 10 seconds to hit the ground.

 

The two towers collapsed to the ground in roughly 10 seconds and that was each floor crashing through the next and the next and so on, which is impossible if the buildings collapsed without any help.

 

A controlled demolition would take those buildings down in approximately 10 seconds as happened.

 

WTC7 came down in about 6 seconds, which would be about right for free fall speed and of course a controlled demolition.

 

People can say planes and fire and what not brought them down but they cannot explain how they collapsed so fast as if each floor just melted through the next and also perfectly straight down, meaning all joints and massive steel supports would all have to give way at the same time.

[Monkeys Fist 38786]

Remind me which floor the planes crashed into again?

[LeazesMag 0]

Well first of all, if you have seen the towers or ever seen the construction of those towers, you will notice that they are all steel framed buildings.

The inner core of those towers housed enormous thick steel core columns that housed the lifts and the outer walls were a grid of steel and supported by steel trusses, welded and bolted to create the floor supports which were then covered in concrete.

Basically they were extremely strong towers able to withstand the impact of a jet hitting them at any point and standing the test easily.

 

Ok , now I've bored you with that, I'll just say that no steel framed building, EVER has collapsed due to fire, yet not one but three steel framed buildings on 9/11, all collapse to the ground, two of them within a few hours and building 7 later in the day.

 

They all collapsed at free fall speed, encountering no resistance all the way to the ground and into their own basements.

 

To understand this, you have to imagine being on top of a similar sized sky scraper and throwing an iron ball from the top and counting how long it would take to hit the ground.

 

Throwing a ball from that height encountering no resistance, would take approximately 10 seconds to hit the ground.

 

The two towers collapsed to the ground in roughly 10 seconds and that was each floor crashing through the next and the next and so on, which is impossible if the buildings collapsed without any help.

 

A controlled demolition would take those buildings down in approximately 10 seconds as happened.

 

WTC7 came down in about 6 seconds, which would be about right for free fall speed and of course a controlled demolition.

 

People can say planes and fire and what not brought them down but they cannot explain how they collapsed so fast as if each floor just melted through the next and also perfectly straight down, meaning all joints and massive steel supports would all have to give way at the same time.

 

v.interesting wolfy. Assuming you are on the right lines here and this is all correct, how or why has no one else more prominent than you, with the utmost respect as I know nothing about you, ever mentioned this before ?

[wolfy 12]

Remind me which floor the planes crashed into again?

About the 79th and roughly 92nd upwards.

[Renton 17811]

that isn't what I said either Please show me, in the context of your last post and my reply, where I have said - ever - that "everybody would walk down the street with a gun"

 

Eh, that sentence is referring to what I said (which you say I didn't say), not you. Have you gone mad again?

 

This is what you said:

 

' I actually agree with TP here, if someone wants to keep a gun for protection they should be allowed to do it and if anyone breaks into your house, for instance, they are fair game.'

 

That sounds to me like you advocate the legalisation of guns for domestic possession. So with that in mind, what exactly is hilarious about me thinking that would make our country less, not more, safe?

 

Oh, and btw, quit deleting posts and doinf edits which change their content and context. You've done it a few times now.

[wolfy 12]

v.interesting wolfy. Assuming you are on the right lines here and this is all correct, how or why has no one else more prominent than you, with the utmost respect as I know nothing about you, ever mentioned this before ?

On here you mean or in general?

 

If you mean in general, there have been many many people mentioned it, including thousands of structural engineers and physicists.

Obviously there are many that argue the pancake collapse being the reason.

 

Common sense tells me that it's controlled demolition but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, I just say, study it and decide for yourselves.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

Thanks for the reply Wolfy (didnt quote it as not to fill a page etc)

 

Interesting stuff. I might have a look at some of the sites that discuss it.

I used to fuck about in the architectural world in a previous incarnation so find that angle of interest too.

[Monkeys Fist 38786]

The towers were essentially hollow tubes. All the strength was in the 4 external walls of each tower.

 

Once the integrity of the walls was breached ( twice in the second tower, if memory serves) collapse was inevitable.

 

There were at least 10 floors above the impacts, when these collapsed onto the floors below , a shock load onto the structure, the force involved would have been immense.

As each floor gave way, it's weight would be added to the shock load onto the floor below, each floor receiving an increased load, and collapsing.

Hardly surprising it came down as it did.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Eh, that sentence is referring to what I said (which you say I didn't say), not you. Have you gone mad again?

 

This is what you said:

 

' I actually agree with TP here, if someone wants to keep a gun for protection they should be allowed to do it and if anyone breaks into your house, for instance, they are fair game.'

 

That sounds to me like you advocate the legalisation of guns for domestic possession. So with that in mind, what exactly is hilarious about me thinking that would make our country less, not more, safe?

 

Oh, and btw, quit deleting posts and doinf edits which change their content and context. You've done it a few times now.

 

nowt wrong with correcting spelling mistakes.

 

In the meantime, use your superior intellect to read posts properly, as I said. Which you still aren't doing. Stop presuming you know what I say or think and concentrate on what I actually post. I have never said that "everybody would walk down the street carrying guns" or any other similar anti-west leftie shite scaremongering that you make up in your head imagining I have said when I haven't. There's a good boy now.

 

Edit. [sorry for the edit] I also said later, smashing their head in with a baseball bat is also OK. So I think my meaning is obvious enough, especially to someone as clever as you.

Edited July 26, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

On here you mean or in general?

 

If you mean in general, there have been many many people mentioned it, including thousands of structural engineers and physicists.

Obviously there are many that argue the pancake collapse being the reason.

 

Common sense tells me that it's controlled demolition but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, I just say, study it and decide for yourselves.

 

I've not seen it tbh. It's very interesting. Who do they - and you - think would carry out such a controlled demolition and why ?

[wolfy 12]

Thanks for the reply Wolfy (didnt quote it as not to fill a page etc)

 

Interesting stuff. I might have a look at some of the sites that discuss it.

I used to fuck about in the architectural world in a previous incarnation so find that angle of interest too.

No problem Bobby. It's best to take some time to check out stuff like that and considering you are interested in stuff like architecture it might help you form at least some kind of solid opinion either way.

 

I've studied a lot about 9/11 and many other happenings and I form my own opinions on discrepancies I see or interviews that just seem staged.

 

I naturally cannot prove, physically what I term a conspiracy but I'm not in it for that, I'm basically looking at it and making a judgement for myself so that I don't get duped by future happenings.

 

I have a lot of theories and some are bizarre as far as other people would think but to me, I say there's a feasibility to what I say even though many would say I'm simply stark raving mad lol.

[wolfy 12]

The towers were essentially hollow tubes. All the strength was in the 4 external walls of each tower.

 

Once the integrity of the walls was breached ( twice in the second tower, if memory serves) collapse was inevitable.

 

There were at least 10 floors above the impacts, when these collapsed onto the floors below , a shock load onto the structure, the force involved would have been immense.

As each floor gave way, it's weight would be added to the shock load onto the floor below, each floor receiving an increased load, and collapsing.

Hardly surprising it came down as it did.

The strength was in both the inner core and the outer grid structure of the walls and both were needed to keep the tower standing.

 

The 47 steel central columns were massive thick box girders.

 

They official story was a pancake collapse, citing that the steel trusses warped with the heat and collapsed onto one another.

If that was the case, the 47 steel columns would still be left standing, yet it all falls to the ground, pulverised.

 

There is no way in hell that steel columns like that can collapse onto each other, encountering no resistance at all as if each floor was simply made of polystyrene.