Comparing Bush to Hitler

[Hot Karl]

i'd like to apologize to everyone else, every time these 9/11 debates happen, it completely fucks whatever thread it's in. normally i avoid these thread now, but this guy called me out.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by Hot Karl

here we go again.

wtc was built to withstand 707's. those "tiny" 737's hadn't even been invented yet. so booom goes that one.

have you ever seen the interior pics of a building set up for demo? it's a spiders nest of non stop wires and charges. you can barely walk 5 feet without ducking under something. but i guess the whole building would have just ignored that. (and no you can't control demo something with only 1 floor of explosives) this is a site that had previously been hit by terrorists, so don't act like they didn't take security seriously at wtc.

"melting point of steel is 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Jet fule has a max burning temp of only 980 degrees C in a controlled enviroment. and Only a pathetic 260-315 degrees C of open air burning wich was the type of fire during 911"

HEY ENGINEER. you do understand for steel to lose its' strength, it doesn't have to melt to the point of liquid right? do you understand that any heat causes metal to lose strength? btw: those #'s for jetfuel burning's all fine and dandy, but it wasn't just jet fuel. there was all the shit in the wtc itself that adds to the temperature. think about how much furniture/equipment there is in an office that size. .
open air burning? by open air, you mean IN AN OFFICE BUILDING? yea that's the same. oops another gaping hole.
are you honestly saying that a fire of 260-315 degrees has no effect on a buidling? by your bullshit you're saying that fire could have burned for years and the building wouldn't have come down because it's not close enough to the melting point. YEA FUCKING RIGHT.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORT? really, is that why the u.s. is doing all the work there? yea some countries have like 70 soldiers there, but you're saying ths all powerful u.s. govt cabal can't hoodwink some political cronies trying to gain favour with the u.s.? hence the "coalition"

ONCE AGAIN, please explain how you're so sure they could handle 9/11 without a single hitch. but over these past 3 years they have not even been able to get a single WMD into the country? or how about ANY FUCKING PROOF of any biological weapon? that would have been fine too.

i'm a blind fucking 9/11 toting drone. that's fine if you wanna believe that, but how blind are you to believe an administration so inept is not only capable of this(9/11), but not capable of something that would realistically be much easier(wmd planting).

btw: "9/11 truth movement in full swing" shit's been the exact same for 3 years. but i guess that's the same as full swing.

please dissect my post. shut me up. explain to me how 9/11 wasn't just a govt conspiracy, but a physics conspiracy, because there's a whole shitload of physics that all the kooks are ignoring.

fist off a boeing 707 is a quad engine and MUCH larger then a 767 and carries alot more fule...do the research pal before you reply...so boooom there gose that one. obviously you have done NO research.

no wmd's in iraq?.....like i said purley political. and how blind are you if you really fucking think that the Entire US administration was in on 911?...alot of them probably have no idea

you know what.

since you started your reply with such an embarasing blunder,and there arent really any SOURCED peices of info for me to read im not evan going to waste my time and dissect your tripe.

good luck with the phisin drone.....

[Senior]

Well if you look at the motivation 9/11 allowed the US to invade Iraq and steal their oil. Now that the US is there why would they fucking care (lol) about planting WMD? They got the oil, end of storey.

My question is who's next? Venezuela?

[Hot Karl]

Originally Posted by Revolver

fist off a boeing 707 is a quad engine and MUCH larger then a 767 and carries alot more fule...do the research pal before you reply...so boooom there gose that one. obviously you have done NO research.

no wmd's in iraq?.....like i said purley political. and how blind are you if you really fucking think that the Entire US administration was in on 911?...alot of them probably have no idea

you know what.

since you started your reply with such an embarasing blunder,and there arent really any SOURCED peices of info for me to read im not evan going to waste my time and dissect your tripe.

good luck with the phisin drone.....

HAHAHA GET READY TO APOLOGIZE BITCH.

boeing 707: wingspan 44.42m, length 46.6m
weight while empty: 62512kg
FUEL CAPACITY: sources say "over 23000 gallons" = 87064Litres
so we'll call it 88000L of fuel for reference sake.

boeing 767: wingspan 47.6m, length 54.9m
weight while empty: 81230kg, 86955kg, 103100kg
variations due to other various models
FUEL CAPACITY: 90770L

sources from: boeing.com, simvation.com

NOTE THE FUEL CAPACITY AND WEIGHT. smallest 767 outweights the 707 by nearly 20000kg. 767 has over 2000L of fuel more then the 707.

so once again, why don't you pick through my previous post, and this one just like i picked through yours. even IF i was wrong, which i clearly wasn't, that doesn't discount the rest of my post. so go pick through and destroy that please.

or you can get back on your high horse and dismiss me and my cold hard facts.

so what were you saying about research and sources? it's clear all YOU do is spout whatever tripe the conspiracy sites tell their 'followers'.

[Hot Karl]

weird, i thought with all the hard evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, Revolver should be enlightening my ignorant ass.

what happened guy? you always cut and run like a little bitch?

[diva]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to $userinfo[username] again.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by Hot Karl

weird, i thought with all the hard evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, Revolver should be enlightening my ignorant ass.

what happened guy? you always cut and run like a little bitch?

hahaha cut and run like a little bitch huh?....sigh.i didnt evan realize this was still active till i saw my user cp.

i dont need to enlighten anyone esp wasteing my time with you. i said i dont need to pick apart your posts its a waste of time.

707's smaller then a 767? yes you are RIGHT they are. i was wrong. but not by much.

just take some time to read this:

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswi...4221/index.php

so close it's nearly interchangeble

im not a nut,left-wing conspiracy therorist. but you definatly need to open your fucking eyes if you really beleive that planes alone took down the towers.

dont worry skippy...fnk is all yours.

i hope we meet in person one day.

[Hot Karl]

hey buddy don't forget you started this, and you stated the 767's were tiny in comparison to the 707.

so once again you avoid everything else in my previous post.

you don't have to pick through it, but explain how 300degree fires would never bring down a steel structure.

or what? demolition? i have seen pictures of buildings rigged for demo. like i said it's a complete spider's web EVERYWHERE. to state that charges were placed, and thus wtc was demolished is nuts.

btw: the only 9/11 conspiracy was the inept actions of the current administration. they had plenty of warnings and chose to ignore them. that's as close as you're going to get as far as implicating bush&co. i'm no bush supporter, quite the opposite, but goddamn it's stretching it to think all of this was a hoax.

re: the link you posted up, yes i read it. it's basically just picking bones. most of that article is just using guess work for what the original designers of the wtc intended. assuming that they meant this and that.
ie: the whole "they must have assumed that a plane could have hit the wtc just leaving the NY airport." that's a huge assumption. considering the chances of a plane smacking into the largest buidling in the city right after take off would require serious pilot or equipment error.

similar does not mean the same. if you want to talk about assumptions, it's probably safe to say that the desingers of the wtc didn't envision a bigger plane with higher fuel capacity to smack into the towers. because it'd be really tough for these designers to predict the future and design against things that didn't exist. one would also assume that boeing's 767 uses stronger metals/alloys etc then a plane made in the 60's. so the additional weight, with stronger materials could also have a factor. or bush did it. sounds plausible to me.

ie: would you rather get hit by a 100lb block of fat or a 100lb block of steel? at least the fat has some give and with luck you could almost shear the fat away. good luck with the block o' steel.

* so i need to open my fucking eyes, but if you believe everything you see on a 9/11 site, that makes you SMRT? sure boss. i guess i better go turn up my fox news right? rupert murdoch is my hero.