if you want to argue that the richer people of the world have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate more than they currently do, then I'm on your side, but if you're going to argue that employing and thereby feeding someone, albeit with a tiny wage, is immoral, in comparison with the general standard of providing no help at all, then mexican drugs are clearly stronger than canadian ones.
It's not meaningless to discuss part one - it shows the cheap lies and manipulations the moviemaker uses all the way. In my opinion it is obvious he KNOWS he is lieing and twisting facts, and he doesn't care, he just wants to deliver some outrageous claims so that his insignificant boring movie gets discussed way more than it deserves.
"Unless with "you wont win" you mean "you wont convince me" which well, i never expected to" - that's exactly why there's no point to waste too much energy over this crappy discussion
My work is of high quality, cheap and fast. Pick only two of those though.
On October 07 2008 00:14 capaneo wrote:
IM saying that planes hit the building and building collapse like they said it did for whatever reason they said it did. Im saying a plane did indeed hit Pentagon.
Yes im pretty sure a plane hit the pentagon.
Idiocy: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
On October 06 2008 19:42 PokerDoc88 wrote:
capaneo I have a simple question:
if the collapse of WT7 occurred due to the falling of a large pillar of one of the larger towers, wouldn't the collapse be instantaneous?
I mean, either the pillar should crash into WT7 and take the structure down, or WT7 manages to hold and then reach an equilibrium where the structure remaining is able to 'hold' up the debris that crashed into it.
For WT7 to collapse a certain period of time after the pillar crashed into it would imply there is a driving process occurring from the moment the pillar impacted to the moment the building collapses. This process cannot be explained by fire because no steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in history. There is no jet-fuel to allow the fire to burn to high enough temperatures to weaken the steel frames (this very fact that jetfuel burns hot enough to cause enough weakening is debated with the collapse of the twin towers, but let's ignore it for now and just focus on WT7).
So what process (be it mechanical or chemical or whatever mechanism you wish to suggest)lead from the initial event of the debris crashing into the tower (which DIDN'T knock it down) to the event of the entire WT7 structure collapsing?
Read this 40 pages and make sure you understand them and then if you still have question we will discuss.
On October 06 2008 19:14 Baal wrote:
the WTC were built keeping in mind impacts from fucking planes No they werent the brazilian building, which sustained a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger damage, was a fucking HOTEL Why are you still talking out of your ass? What happened to them? built earlier than WTC7 and also it didnt even have steal beams like WTC7, it had had steel in the concrete (dont know how they call it in english),You are so ignorant on the issue that you dont even know that the steal rods in the concrete are for a totally diffrent reason there. A steel beam and a re-enforced concrete beam are two TOTALLY diffrent materials in almost EVERY way you look at them. but not beams, so its structure was much weaker. Again you are talking out of your ass. How da hell you know its weaker? What do you mean by weaker? As a matter of fact its not even weaker. GOD YOU ARE AS IGNORANT AS HELL
Ok now.... are you fucking insane?!?!?!?! would you consider the WTC center damage over 20% of this kind of damage?!?!? The WTC 7 had some of its main columns REMOVED by the impact if you don't know why thats of important read This also keep this in mind cocksucker a steel framed building has never collapsed because of fire, eat that... the damage caused in WTC7 was ridiculous,Thanks for your opinion MR poker player? a building does not collapse because of that, Again you are still talking out of your ass without stating where you are getting your facts form? not even close, and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed Do you even know WHAT exactly gravity speed is? And if yes HOW DA FUCK do you know it didnt fall at gravity speed?? Any sources you might wanna point out to? on its footprint Again you are being dumb as hell stating wrong facts out of your ass. How do you know it fell on its footprint? Do you have proof? Do you even know what the footprint is? How would a building like that collapse in case it collapses beucase of an impact and weakend structure? you dumbass.
Im sorry but YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT DA FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Im sure you think you know. But you have no fuckin idea about anything that you are talking about. Maybe you should go back to school?
And @ baal and many others.
Please guys get real. You guys talking about engineering and matters as such its like a 10nl player giving advice to 1000nl players. You saw Rounder and after that you've played some poker online and at ur local casino and now you think you are the best player in the world. in Reality you dont know shit and your ignorance is BEYOND arguing. I suggest you keep quite and read some REAL books and then come back maybe after a few years.
Cap I don't see any links to 40 page article here? Or am I blindly missing something here?
1
brambolius Netherlands. Oct 07 2008 04:49. Posts 1708
On October 06 2008 03:51 brambolius wrote:thats all great, real great BUT
One of my best friends has a mother (no suprises there lol), she's over 50 years old, now this woman might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but she has a heart of pure gold.
This woman slaves away doing production work in factories day in day out for minimum wage , her body cant really take it but hey, she needs to put food on the table right?
In the meanwhile some lard-ass somewhere in his office is making a huge profit off of this frail old woman.
And im not from some "3rd world" country, hell no, im from the fucking netherlands, imagine what goes on in places like china, africa and yes, the united states.
if you dont see anything wrong with this picture then you are one coldblooded fucker, and no, that doesnt mean your cool, it means your an animal with a fucked up brain/body ratio
BRAMBOLIUS, if you care about this old woman, why dont you help her out of your own pocket?? If you think she deserves to EAT and at the same time NOT PRODUCE, then surely the money most come from someone else who produces it. Wich comes down to 1) GIFT, 2) THEFT. You can give it, or someone else can give it to her. But if you FORCE someone to give it to her (Wellfare, job subsidy, any privilage whatsoever) then you are essentially using option #2. Because to take by force (taxes) what someone else produced to subsidize some old woman just because you think she deserves it makes you AND her both thieves.
THE FUNNY THING is that every comunist loves to preach how people should recieve this or that, but why complain and not DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? GO HELP THE WOMAN IF U WANT TO, you are free to do that.. but here's a thought exercise: If every industrialist/businessmen in the world quit their jobs and joined greenpeece/WHO/etc. and went to africa help nurture the needy, the world would become miserable and we would all be as poor as the guys in africa. DUCY??
first of all, i do help her out when i can.
now about your view on things,
you are thinking like an animal, not a human being. there is nothing more i can do or type over the internet to make myself more clear.
ow and btw: "poor as the guys in africa" ..........
WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE STATE THEY ARE IN???? ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD???
HAVE YOU EVEN STUDIED HISTORY? DO YOU EVEN KNOW ANYTHING BESIDES NUMBER AND ECONOMIC TRAPS??
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICA IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IT THE FUCK ALONE. INSTEAD WE RAPED IT, ARE RAPING IT, AND KILLING ITS POPULATION BY FORCING A NEW WAY OF GOVERNING ONTO THEM. SERIOUSLY HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING THICK.
WE MADE AFRICA THE WAY IT IS, AND NOW YOU WANT TO POINT THE FINGER AND SAY "OMFG LOOK AT THEM THEY R SO POOR THEY FAIL SO HARD"
THEY R POOR BECOUSE WE R RICH. JEZUS FUCK.
/rant
plz ignore all the swearing, its just there to get your attention lol
EDIT: and before any of you ppl start asking "Why dont you do anything then?"
don't make urself look like a retarded monkey and dont ask that question.
On October 06 2008 19:42 PokerDoc88 wrote:
capaneo I have a simple question:
if the collapse of WT7 occurred due to the falling of a large pillar of one of the larger towers, wouldn't the collapse be instantaneous?
I mean, either the pillar should crash into WT7 and take the structure down, or WT7 manages to hold and then reach an equilibrium where the structure remaining is able to 'hold' up the debris that crashed into it.
For WT7 to collapse a certain period of time after the pillar crashed into it would imply there is a driving process occurring from the moment the pillar impacted to the moment the building collapses. This process cannot be explained by fire because no steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in history. There is no jet-fuel to allow the fire to burn to high enough temperatures to weaken the steel frames (this very fact that jetfuel burns hot enough to cause enough weakening is debated with the collapse of the twin towers, but let's ignore it for now and just focus on WT7).
So what process (be it mechanical or chemical or whatever mechanism you wish to suggest)lead from the initial event of the debris crashing into the tower (which DIDN'T knock it down) to the event of the entire WT7 structure collapsing?
Read this 40 pages and make sure you understand them and then if you still have question we will discuss.
On October 06 2008 19:14 Baal wrote:
the WTC were built keeping in mind impacts from fucking planes No they werent the brazilian building, which sustained a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger damage, was a fucking HOTEL Why are you still talking out of your ass? What happened to them? built earlier than WTC7 and also it didnt even have steal beams like WTC7, it had had steel in the concrete (dont know how they call it in english),You are so ignorant on the issue that you dont even know that the steal rods in the concrete are for a totally diffrent reason there. A steel beam and a re-enforced concrete beam are two TOTALLY diffrent materials in almost EVERY way you look at them. but not beams, so its structure was much weaker. Again you are talking out of your ass. How da hell you know its weaker? What do you mean by weaker? As a matter of fact its not even weaker. GOD YOU ARE AS IGNORANT AS HELL
Ok now.... are you fucking insane?!?!?!?! would you consider the WTC center damage over 20% of this kind of damage?!?!? The WTC 7 had some of its main columns REMOVED by the impact if you don't know why thats of important read This also keep this in mind cocksucker a steel framed building has never collapsed because of fire, eat that... the damage caused in WTC7 was ridiculous,Thanks for your opinion MR poker player? a building does not collapse because of that, Again you are still talking out of your ass without stating where you are getting your facts form? not even close, and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed Do you even know WHAT exactly gravity speed is? And if yes HOW DA FUCK do you know it didnt fall at gravity speed?? Any sources you might wanna point out to? on its footprint Again you are being dumb as hell stating wrong facts out of your ass. How do you know it fell on its footprint? Do you have proof? Do you even know what the footprint is? How would a building like that collapse in case it collapses beucase of an impact and weakend structure? you dumbass.
Im sorry but YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT DA FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Im sure you think you know. But you have no fuckin idea about anything that you are talking about. Maybe you should go back to school?
And @ baal and many others.
Please guys get real. You guys talking about engineering and matters as such its like a 10nl player giving advice to 1000nl players. You saw Rounder and after that you've played some poker online and at ur local casino and now you think you are the best player in the world. in Reality you dont know shit and your ignorance is BEYOND arguing. I suggest you keep quite and read some REAL books and then come back maybe after a few years.
Cap I don't see any links to 40 page article here? Or am I blindly missing something here?
On October 07 2008 00:14 capaneo wrote:
IM saying that planes hit the building and building collapse like they said it did for whatever reason they said it did. Im saying a plane did indeed hit Pentagon.
Yes, im prety sure a plane hit the Pentangon.
OMG. So thats your solid proof? Are you realizing how stupid u sound?
What is the plane in that pic?
Is that building really Pentagon?
Who said plane hit the building in that angle?
Im not going to talk about this. But really. You guys need to get a clue of how to properly quote sources and make arguments. Just because you post a pic that has ZERO support and credential behind it doesnt mean you are making any sense.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
1.- Its a Boeing 757
2.- yes the collapsed part is a very well known picture of the pentagon attack
Why do you fucking question ridiculous stuff Capaneo... seriously... "is that a picture of the pentagon" oh fucking god, you imbecile, ofcourse it is you idiot... fucking common sense, if not just google it dammnit and see 29387492384 pictures of that collapsed pentagon part.
The pentagon, one of the buildings with more surveillance cameras in the planet released a total of 2 fucking videos non of them shows the plane crashing.
In matter of fact the videos seem to be missing frames to make it difficult to identify the object, in the next video you can see how the videos get out of sync, due to removed frames.
btw if you seriously this this is all the video material the Pentagon can provide, you are more stupid than i thought, and i actually consider you one of the biggest idiots i know, and im serious.
God... how did Capaneo fucking dragged this thread so low...
I thought even the most radical rednecks were aware that the Pentagon thing was total BS, it seems now.... what are you going to drag this discussion now Capaneo, creationism now?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
brambolius Netherlands. Oct 07 2008 12:04. Posts 1708
Capaneo, why don't YOU provide some solid proof of how we are oh so wrong?
you are not discussing, you are trolling.
the sad thing is you are probably not even doing it on purpose...
Heat......EXTEND
1
Yugless United States. Oct 07 2008 12:32. Posts 7174
the people who pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world can't edit a video correctly?
if they crashed two planes in to the WTC why would they lie about crashing a plane in to the pentagon?
Baal - look is talking hah.
1
Yugless United States. Oct 07 2008 12:34. Posts 7174
i mean it may be true, but the "evidence" is laughable
Yugless dont bother using logic, like why knock down two towers? Involve double the people(make it so much more likely that people "come out" to the press, etc), double the risk, and we easily go to war for 1 tower
Yes the evil corporation is exploiting the woman, but
1. Evil corp doesn´t exist, woman dies of starvation
2. Evil corp exists, woman lives
Which one would you choose if you were the woman? Morals aside, it´s about the results of an action/inaction.
I´d like to have some sources on the claims that twintowers fell at gravity acceleration and that they fell neatly into their footprint as well, all i´ve seen in this thread are but claims that they did. I learned my lesson on not believing someone "just because i said so" when i quit religion.
How strong are the wings on a plane? Are the wings attached tightly enough to the plane to punch a hole into that wall before they get ripped off? esp at that angle
I am a NL25 player so take my advice/comments in that perspective
Contact Users: 579 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 10:25
United States. Oct 07 2008 12:32. Posts 7174
,
,
,
,