860 Forum Posts by "Love"
Looks boring and unoriginal.
At 6/3/13 11:47 PM, Warforger wrote:At 6/3/13 11:17 PM, Love wrote: Source???For one I've become more Pro-Israel and I take Israel's side usually in Israel v. Palestine. I used to be Pro-Palestine though.
Welcome to the dark side!
At 6/3/13 10:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/3/13 10:04 PM, Love wrote: I don't believe one person's opinion here has ever been changed on any subject.You would be 100% wrong.
Source???
At 6/3/13 02:55 AM, DriedSquidHero wrote: It is my sincere hope that as member of NG we can strive toward the top rung.
Honestly, people just come on Politics to argue about anything.
I don't believe one person's opinion here has ever been changed on any subject.
At 6/2/13 08:22 PM, Poniiboi wrote: I'm outtie 5000. Starting another topic, hoping it doesn't get hijacked.
Well looks like my job here is done!
At 6/2/13 05:00 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 6/2/13 03:18 PM, Love wrote:no but american civilians are and trying to cover it up.At 6/2/13 02:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Everyone is guilty of something but when 16 year old american gets blown by a drone then the government tried covering it up you know something wrong.Did the military really have to start using robots for you to figure out war is bad?
Name one military in the history of Earth who has never once covered something up from their citizens.
It's not like dictators are livid serial killers.
They are just people with a lot of power.
At 6/2/13 06:11 PM, Elfer wrote: What would you expect other than the building falling straight down?
Oh and the fact that you want ME to "learn about engineering" is hilarious. Maybe you're a visual learner? This video explains what a collapse would have looked like under the NIST premise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDdom6RBzq8
Basically the floors above the hot zone should have remained at least partially intact EVEN IF ALL COLUMNS BELOW GAVE WAY SIMULTANEOUSLY. Buildings don't spontaneously become unrecognizable except in demolitions.. (oh, and wars).
At 6/2/13 06:11 PM, Elfer wrote: What would you expect other than the building falling straight down? Do you think it would tip over like a domino?
A building collapses along the path of least resistance. This is basic physics at work.. hence why a ball rolls down a hill or lego towers fall over in the direction of the minimum/weakest number of pieces. WTC7 fell vertically at free-fall rather than towards the damaged segments of the building (left, right, front, back, whatever). Since it fell straight down, there was ZERO resistance caused by support columns.
All you do is tell me to read the NIST report. I have. But it is THE INTERROGEE! The point is we are questioning NIST! I'm the only one with any real facts to back my theory up, all you do is hide behind excuses and blindly believe what you are told LOL
At 6/2/13 02:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Everyone is guilty of something but when 16 year old american gets blown by a drone then the government tried covering it up you know something wrong.
Did the military really have to start using robots for you to figure out war is bad?
At 6/2/13 02:03 PM, Psycho666 wrote: Naggots
Lmfao
At 6/2/13 02:01 PM, Poniiboi wrote: What were we talking about before? Something we can actually affect, like where our money goes?
Wanna know why we went to war?
Guarantee the money lost is more relevant than whatever the hell you're on about.
At 6/2/13 01:29 PM, Love wrote: path of least resistance
--- this meaning a straight vertical decent for WTC7.
At 6/2/13 12:41 PM, Elfer wrote: thermal expansion and girder/column placement played in the collapse.
LMAO holy fuck! You do realize that all vertical support columns would have to undergo an equal amount of heat for an equal amount of time in order for the building to collapse along the path of least resistance right? In simple terms, the whole building should have been on fire for your theory to be even remotely plausible.
Try again.
At 6/2/13 09:45 AM, Elfer wrote:At 6/1/13 09:48 PM, Love wrote: One of the seven skyscrapers in the complex, a 40-storey building, was consumed by huge flames Wednesday evening, and firefighters took seven hours to extinguish the fire.Seven hours of fire being extinguished is different from hours of uncontrolled fire in a building where the sprinkler system loses water pressure.
BAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my god you really just said the Russian skyscraper fire was better than the WTC7 one?? Half the Russian building was covered in flames!! WTC7 suffered TOTAL structural failure from a portion of a handful of floors... ohh it was because the "sprinklers were broken." LOL!!!!
How about the Beijing TvCC building in 2009? Totally covered in fire for hours upon end.
Can you guess when it spontaneously collapsed?
hint: never
At 6/2/13 01:38 AM, Flerovium wrote:At 6/1/13 03:51 PM, Love wrote: Disrespectful? That's the point of swearing idiot.Love, the public is dying to know, how does it feel to be a bigot?
You mad?
This is what a real highrise fire looks like. Oh btw, it didn't collapse.
One of the seven skyscrapers in the complex, a 40-storey building, was consumed by huge flames Wednesday evening, and firefighters took seven hours to extinguish the fire.
cantpostmultiplepicturesonBBS
Oh my god look at this one!!
It's amazing everyone got out of the building before all 1 floors melted away!
At 6/1/13 09:39 PM, Love wrote: ENGULFED IN FLAMES!!!!!!!!
At 6/1/13 09:05 PM, Elfer wrote: The video's argument is nonsense.
Um.. all vertical supports giving way simultaneously = professional demolition operation or sabotage. FACT. Find me other instances where a highrise fell into its footprint due strictly to uncontrolled fire.
And quoting the same source which is being interrogated kind of defeats the purpose right? It's like asking a criminal if he did the crime and going by what he says alone and ignoring all witnesses.
Boy, this building sure looks like it was ENGULFED IN FLAMES right????... NO WONDER IT COLLAPSED FROM ALL THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE, just look at all the missing floors!!!!
At 6/1/13 08:29 PM, Satan wrote: You should be ashamed of yourself, not for praying to God, but for going against your true beliefs, for some stupid fucking girl.
Thus saith Satan!
At 6/1/13 07:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/1/13 07:29 PM, Love wrote: But you said they were hit by planes and WTC7 wasn't.No one has ever said WTC7 was brought down by an airplane strike into the building.
-----At 5/28/13 11:18 PM, Elfer wrote:
Of course, the steel beams in the WTC were actually there for a designed purpose, i.e. to hold up a building that isn't full of plane crashes and fire.
WTC7 wasn't "full of plane crashes"
hence video
Love how this thread hasn't been locked.
Cool picture where did you find it?
At 6/1/13 07:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Since I was making an argument about the plausibility of the conventional explanation for failure in the WTC buildings
But you said they were hit by planes and WTC7 wasn't.
At 6/1/13 05:36 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 5/30/13 06:10 PM, Fim wrote: Isn't it a nice thing that presidents can't even get shit done in the US without being boycotted and filibustered by congress.That's the beautiful thing about the Obama administration the idiots voted for him for hope and change and all they got was a lesser Bush!
Tell us who you voted for!
At 6/1/13 04:54 PM, Elfer wrote:At 6/1/13 03:57 PM, Love wrote: What have I said to make you think I'm a conspiracy theorist LOLIt was probably the link to the video. You know, the thing?
But I didn't say anything?
At 6/1/13 12:23 PM, darkjam wrote: Surprising to see how many oldies come out from under their rocks when a thread like this pops up.
They are all reincarnated into alt accounts with newer sign up dates and switch back to their originals to show off.
At 6/1/13 04:25 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm glad we've already covered this point.
Oh good you agree! So I don't have to explain why :D
(because I'm a gun fanatic)
At 6/1/13 08:38 AM, Elfer wrote:At 6/1/13 02:06 AM, Love wrote: Oh ha ha good one!Yeah, or you could just post another video-link-only response. It's the most irritating thing that conspiracy theorists do,
I'll have to remember it next time I want to be a twat.
What have I said to make you think I'm a conspiracy theorist LOL
At 6/1/13 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/31/13 09:26 PM, Love wrote: Oh wait no it doesn't.. because indifference =/= intolerance.Who said it does? It just makes you ignorant and disrespectful.
Ignorant? No I know exactly what faggot means and where it came from.
Disrespectful? That's the point of swearing idiot.
