Bill Maher thinks you're a fucking loony

1235713

Comments

  • 69charger wrote:
    Too late to cry uncle now. You are just as guilty as anyone else of not maintaining 'decorum'. Now all of the sudden you are trying to take some sort of moral high-ground?

    HA! :rolleyes:

    So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

    I await your answer.

    Well someone has to at some point. Don't you agree mr I touched my pee ca-ca doodoo wheee?

    yeah...nice.

    When you guys actually discover a intellectual communication process in trying to understand what happened instead of spinning more personality ego crap....let me know...Jlew as well. I'm not clicking reply for his posts until I see some actual merit there.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Well someone has to at some point.

    Sounds like an excuse to dodge a question.
    Don't you agree mr I touched my pee ca-ca doodoo wheee?

    That was one of my most inspired posts! :D
    When you guys actually discover a intellectual communication process in trying to understand what happened instead of spinning more personality ego crap....let me know...Jew as well. I'm not clicking reply for his posts until I see some actual merit there.

    So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

    I await your answer, ego and all...

    Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    who you callin a jew?
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sorry I hd asked a question, and people were responding back with additional questions. Questions with questions bothers my thought process.

    Which post are you referring me to that I dodged?

    you quoted it. and did not answer any of its points. something tells me you're not going to fare any better this time. but it was post 44. reread your response too.
  • A large portion of the jet fuel burned off outside the buildings, and what remained inside burned up within a few minutes.

    So essentially all the jet fuel did in this equation was serve as a means to ignite a basic office fire. Firemen on the scene at the floors confirmed this, that indeed the fire was isolated and easily manageable.

    From the outside the lack of flames, and heavy black smoke, would in fact confirm this.

    So again where are the steel melting temperatures coming from?

    anyone?

    You will never get it. The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to be weakened to a certain point to where it can't withstand the load.
    Everyone is wasting their time arguing this with you. There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    You will never get it. The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to be weakened to a certain point to where it can't withstand the load.
    Everyone is wasting their time arguing this with you. There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.

    not to mention the steel columns that were completely destroyed by those huge fucking planes that hit the building? o yea, those.

    see your right, trying to talk to roland is impossible in this case. he supports a conspiracy that NO planes even hit the building. missiles that were painted as planes or digtially enhanced for tv. or some fucked up wacky shit.

    pullin you back in huh waves? :D
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    not to mention the steel columns that were completely destroyed by those huge fucking planes that hit the building? o yea, those.

    see your right, trying to talk to roland is impossible in this case. he supports a conspiracy that NO planes even hit the building. missiles that were painted as planes or digtially enhanced for tv. or some fucked up wacky shit.

    pullin you back in huh waves? :D

    No way, I am not being pulled back into this crap again...well maybe for a little while.
    I notice how that thread about the truck that hit a bridge, then burst into flames and melted the steel on that bridge a while back was ignored by certain people on here.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.

    Awesome. My new sig!
  • 69charger wrote:
    Awesome. My new sig!

    Sorry I had to edit this one and ask first. Do you agree with me or not?
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    You are just one of those people that see questions like "how is that woman standing so close to the collapsed building if it was so hot?" and instantly just say "yeah, how is that possible?" The point is that if you don't think about it the question sounds legit. But if you just stop and think about it the answer to these conspiracy questions are pretty straight forward.

    Me? It's more like...

    I am just one of those people that see questions like "how is that woman standing so close to the collapsed building if it was so hot?" and instantly just say "yeah, here's how it's possible and most likely happened with no need for a mass governmental conspiracy."

    ;)
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Sorry I had to edit this one and ask first. Do you agree with me or not?

    I'm on your side! :D
  • 69charger wrote:
    Me? It's more like...

    I am just one of those people that see questions like "how is that woman standing so close to the collapsed building if it was so hot?" and instantly just say "yeah, here's how it's possible and most likely happened with no need for a mass governmental conspiracy."

    ;)

    Sorry I jumped to conclusions to quickly and didn't realize you were complimenting me. I went back and edited that one after I remembered you are on my side.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • Here is a portion of the article from where that truck crashed in San Fran and caused the bridge to collapse. Amazing isn't it?! No it really isn't if you just use your brain.

    "Witnesses reported flames rising up to 60 metres into the air. Heat exceeded 1,510 degrees Celsius and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."

    If you want to read the whole thing

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

    go ahead, put your conspiracy theory spin on it, but it is all a bunch of shit.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • you would think that the underpass that it landed on would have collapsed as well. and then underpass which was underneath that one. But they wouldn't have collapsed upon impact, but just before impact so that there would be zero resistance, meaning all overpasses would have hit the ground at freefall speed. Then all collapses would be considered equal!

    Here is a portion of the article from where that truck crashed in San Fran and caused the bridge to collapse. Amazing isn't it?! No it really isn't if you just use your brain.

    "Witnesses reported flames rising up to 60 metres into the air. Heat exceeded 1,510 degrees Celsius and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."

    If you want to read the whole thing

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

    go ahead, put your conspiracy theory spin on it, but it is all a bunch of shit.
  • YoyoyoYoyoyo Posts: 310
    69charger wrote:
    Say it with me...

    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.

    One more time...

    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.
    Didn't have to melt, it only had to weaken.

    Get it?

    If the steal had simply weakened the building would have fallen sideways.

    Wake up people, they were demolished!
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • YoyoyoYoyoyo Posts: 310
    69charger wrote:
    I can.

    Millions of Joules of energy from a falling 110 story building + tens of thousands of tons of combustable material + air from subway and other underground pathways + time = blast furnace

    Does that work for you?

    Bwahahaha

    You call us looney!?
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • Mestophar wrote:
    If the steal had simply weakened the building would have fallen sideways.

    Wake up people, they were demolished!

    No, not true. As portions of the beams weakened the load would have been transfered to other sections of the beam work until ultimate failure began. Although the towers definetly had a more vertical drop then side to side, they did not fall perfectly within the envelope of the structure.

    WAKE UP AND STOP BELIEVING ALL THIS CONSPIRACY BS YOU READ.

    And before you say it i will say your lame response for you which doesn't prove anything. "Why don't you wake up and stop believing all the shit the government tells you."
    I don't need to know what the government said, I can think for myself and common sense tells me what happened.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • Mestophar wrote:
    Bwahahaha

    You call us looney!?

    Yeah, you must be looney using words like Joules.

    Why don't you just admit that no matter what anyone says or even if it is proven beyond a reason of doubt, you would never believe it because you want there to be a conspiracy.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • YoyoyoYoyoyo Posts: 310
    No, not true. As portions of the beams weakened the load would have been transfered to other sections of the beam work until ultimate failure began. Although the towers definetly had a more vertical drop then side to side, they did not fall perfectly within the envelope of the structure.

    WAKE UP AND STOP BELIEVING ALL THIS CONSPIRACY BS YOU READ.

    And before you say it i will say your lame response for you which doesn't prove anything. "Why don't you wake up and stop believing all the shit the government tells you."
    I don't need to know what the government said, I can think for myself and common sense tells me what happened.

    Common sense tells you that fire destroyed the columns? A very low tempurature fire?

    Please tell me what you think happened.
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    You will never get it. The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to be weakened to a certain point to where it can't withstand the load.
    Everyone is wasting their time arguing this with you. There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.

    it is quite ironic to read these theories, especially coming form people who enjoy excoriating creationist politicos... becos they are using the same argumentative techniques of creationists: attempting to paint a negative as proving a positive. you point out how there is some scientific confusion in an area, then say that becos of this, their utterly arbitrary alternative theory must be true despite a total lack of evidence other than circumstantial conjecture.

    let me illustrate:

    science hasn't found a missing link or cannot produce evolution in a lab, therefore an almighty creator MUST have created the earth in 7 days becos i've always believed he did and there is evidence that there was a flood in the middle east a long time ago.

    science hasn't been able to perfectly reproduce a jetliner crashing into a skyscraper in a lab, therefore a huge government conspiracy MUST have been in place to blow up the twin towers becos i always knew (not sure who to put here as im never clear who they are holding responsible) the republicans were evil and there is evidence that some republican group issued a report once saying that a cataclysmic event might unify the country behind a particular political movement.
  • AusticmanAusticman Posts: 1,327
    spiral out wrote:
    N I S T, it's an offical goverment document.

    So you believe that official government document but everything else they tell you is a lie. Man O man!!
    I can't go the library anymore, everyone STINKS!!
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    not to mention the steel columns that were completely destroyed by those huge fucking planes that hit the building? o yea, those.

    see your right, trying to talk to roland is impossible in this case. he supports a conspiracy that NO planes even hit the building. missiles that were painted as planes or digtially enhanced for tv. or some fucked up wacky shit.

    pullin you back in huh waves? :D


    You ever see what happens when thin sheets of aluminum go up against inches thick steel?

    I'll give you a hint...the steel wins big time.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Listen to the official story lovers have their righteous pow wow....lol

    Sorry I missed it I had some constructive work to do elsewhere.

    You guys won't answer my question on the melted steel (I still have to read the the mystical post #44...oh wait no I answered it in post #51) you guys are are taking blind guesses, while I keep talking about proven facts....and still no lightbulbs are going off or any real discussion is talking place except more useless opinion. You guys thrive off useless opinion for some reason.

    And now somehow out of nowhere you all really want to hear my opinion all of the sudden like the world has stopped.. lol...that's pretty damn amusing indeed.

    What you're saying is instead of trying to understand this one aspect, why don't you just go ahead and explain the whole thing now. Right. How ridiculous.

    Facts...remember those little things?

    they matter...

    melted steel...question still stands.. no explanation thus far

    anyone?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • You will never get it. The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to be weakened to a certain point to where it can't withstand the load.
    Everyone is wasting their time arguing this with you. There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.


    Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

    zoom...right over your head...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Mestophar wrote:
    If the steal had simply weakened the building would have fallen sideways.

    Wake up people, they were demolished!

    Wrong. Gravity and inertia dictate that it falls toward the center of the Earth.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Mestophar wrote:
    A very low tempurature fire?

    Who said it was "very low temperature"?
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

    zoom...right over your head...

    http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

    All sorts of plausible explanations. Where's yours?

    Anyways...

    So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

    I await your answer.

    Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    not particularly in the mood for laughter at the moment, but you guys are certainly making me smile.
    i can't remember the last time two massive buildings were struck by fully fuel-laden airplanes, that were flown deliberately into them, can you all? seeings how this was a unique occurrence i would imagine the conclusions about what caused the collapse of both towers would be uncharted territory and quite ground breaking.
    is it possible that the conditions created within both towers were enough to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steel and aid in the collapse? i say yes.
    am i a fool who is easily led by what people tell me especially when it comes from the government? no i am not.
    even so, i am inclined to be more believing of the scientific reasoning rather than the conspiracy theories.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • You ever see what happens when thin sheets of aluminum go up against inches thick steel?

    I'll give you a hint...the steel wins big time.
    you ever see what a piece of straw can go through in a tornado?
    Oh dear dad
    Can you see me now
    I am myself
    Like you somehow
    I'll ride the wave
    Where it takes me
    I'll hold the pain
    Release me
  • 69charger wrote:
    http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

    All sorts of plausible explanations. Where's yours?

    Anyways...

    So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

    I await your answer.

    Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

    NIST..yeah those kool-aid drinking quacks denied the melted steel. Why don't you focus on one fact at a time. I get the feeling you have a million little projects that are all unfinished everywhere in your life because you can;t focus on one thing at a time.

    So what melted the steel?. Your site surely explains it.

    What do they say?

    I already know, but let me know.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
Sign In or Register to comment.