Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
0
#1535 - thorsballs has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1534 - robopuppy (09/12/2012) [-]
Except one didn't have a bloody plane crash into it. But besides that they're completely the same.
#1567 to #1534 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
tower 7 bro
#1528 - mconor (09/12/2012) [-]
Yea OP, that makes sense.
User avatar #1525 - grohl (09/12/2012) [-]
1. at the initial impact, fire traveled through the central elevator shafts, which is why people halfway down the building were incinerated, with the damage to the central elevator (A MAJOR structural component in the buildings) weakening the buildings greatly.
2. support cables in between floors were of a much lower grade, and lighter metal, and the intense heat of burning jet fuel was able to burn through them like a candle to string, only it took about 40 minutes.
3. The Planes actually severed some of these support cables on impact, weakening the buildings even more.
4. Only one floor has to collapse, because it will collapse with the weight of all those above it, and a couple 1000 tons of metal is pretty damn heavy
5. Windsor tower wasn't hit by a ******* 747 with enough fuel for a trans-national flight (A **** ton of super-gasoline)
#1550 to #1525 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Elevator shafts isn't a bloody structural component. It's a shaft with a moving box ffs. The stairs and its surrounding supportes are the main supporters, altough close to this shaft.
User avatar #1569 to #1550 - grohl (09/12/2012) [-]
The WTC buildings were built kind of like a Russian doll. main elevator was directly in the center, and the support cables were anchored to the elevator shaft and the walls, the best way to support a giant skyscraper, as long as those wires aren't damaged.
#1579 to #1569 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
How many buildings do you think have their elevators on the sides?
User avatar #1604 to #1579 - grohl (09/12/2012) [-]
What? I Never said all buildings had a central elevator system.. All the WTC tower's elevators were in the center, for structural purposes. Please don't start pulling ******** arguments out of your ass you lobotomized ***********
#1612 to #1604 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
I never said you did.

>ass you lobotomized ***********

Yea, I don't argue with 12-year old who get agitated and throw insults over the internet.
User avatar #1649 to #1612 - grohl (09/12/2012) [-]
let's calm down now, please. i threw one insult out. I am an engineering major at Northern Illinois University, in my 3rd year of studies. I am 23 years old, i was born on September 12, 1989 in Elgin, IL. We went over the subject of the World Trade Center attacks in depth over a three day period in class.
Sorry if i angered you in some way with an intelligent, well researched arguement.
#1827 to #1649 - arguement (10/07/2012) [-]
*argument
#1701 to #1649 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
You are the one here throwing insults like a 12-year old, yet still claim to be an engineering major. Tell me, how does that comply and what are my signs of being angry?
User avatar #1711 to #1701 - grohl (09/12/2012) [-]
i said lets calm down, referring to both of us. it is stupid to be calling each other pre-teens when we're both probably adults. I threw out An insult, Not insults. Singular, not plural. And in reply to your main question, "What are my signs of being angry", very few people call someone they're happy with a 12-year old
#1522 - stpdppl (09/12/2012) [-]
Conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories.
User avatar #1521 - xyseven (09/12/2012) [-]
**** , that is a lot of comments
#1515 - Gewdaism (09/12/2012) [-]
the planes also took out a good amount of support beams
#1507 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
Whoever thinks 9/11 was planned by the government, well guess what, im pretty sure you are wrong. Remember that the attack wasn't only planned to hit the two towers, another plane also hit the pentagon, and another plane was planned to hit the national capitol. Now tell me this: Why would the "government" want to purposely destroy a part in the pentagon, and then destroy the natinal capitol building? The capitol is one of the most important building in the US, not because of it's history or who made it, but because of how its still in use today, and why they use it. I cant believe any of you conspiracy theorists, some of you hear something and completley start believing it immediateley without even thinking about it.
User avatar #1536 to #1507 - benjaminr ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Where are the plane remains in the pentagon?! Not a single wing, body, luggage, or any equipment.

User avatar #1546 to #1536 - iwanttousenumbers (09/12/2012) [-]
Also, the hole in the side of the pentagon isn't big enough for a plane to go through
#1609 to #1546 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
see this is what i mean, you guys aren't thinking of the other things that happened. What about the video evidence of the WTC being hit by planes? What about the crash of United 93 that was planned to crash in the capitol. And ive read the pentagon theory, can't really complain with you about that, BUT LOOK AT THE OTHER ACCIDENTS. America's government wouldn't try to destroy 4 VERY IMPORATANT buildings just to make an excues for war in iraq. And if they did, why would they go through all the trouble of trying to destroy 4 buildings?!?!? Those theories DO NOT make any sense.
User avatar #1616 to #1609 - iwanttousenumbers (09/12/2012) [-]
I don't actually believe the theories. I've never read them. I'm just reporting things that I've heard.
User avatar #1563 to #1546 - benjaminr ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
YES!
User avatar #1573 to #1563 - iwanttousenumbers (09/12/2012) [-]
I also heard somewhere that a few days or weeks before the attacks the states lost some really important harddrive that had a lot of information on it and it cost a ******* of money and where the plane is said to have crashed is right where it was stored
User avatar #1580 to #1573 - benjaminr ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Damn, crazy **** .
#1602 to #1580 - bloodangel (09/12/2012) [-]
I also heard that all of the extremely important people didn't show up for work that day. This could be fake, but you can plainly see mini explosions down the side of the tower before it collapsed.
User avatar #1591 to #1580 - iwanttousenumbers (09/12/2012) [-]
This is just stuff I've heard though, I never actually checked to see if it was true
#1524 to #1507 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Hitler burned down his own reichstag for motives of war and genocide. This has happened many times before, and it happened again.


Move on folks.
#1519 to #1507 - stpdppl (09/12/2012) [-]
Actually, I agree with you. But the REAL TRUTH is: after the buildings fell and 9/11 was over, the government posted on the internet saying it was an inside job. This was a conspiracy to make people think there are conspiracies and make people more scared of the government.
#1549 to #1519 - tehsnoo (09/12/2012) [-]
What?
#1523 to #1519 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
please tell me you arent serious.
#1526 to #1523 - stpdppl (09/12/2012) [-]
NO I'M COMPLETELY SERIOUS. I ACTUALLY THINK THIS HAPPENED.
NO I'M COMPLETELY SERIOUS. I ACTUALLY THINK THIS HAPPENED.
#1828 to #1526 - milkinmapockets (01/22/2013) [-]
Holy **** , i feel stupid now, eading your comment, im sorry man, I just realized your sarcasm.
#1628 to #1526 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
and man, even if the government actually did something like this they would never, ever, EVER realease information like this to the public. NEVER. And the post of the internet, that couldve just been some guy posing.
#1531 to #1526 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
Whatever floats your boat man.
#1504 - kiwibruuu (09/12/2012) [-]
Someone please try and explain how this would happen, if it had not been cut. If you manage to convince me I will go out of my to post you $10NZD.
#1518 to #1504 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
Why would you think it would be cut though? You're telling me that between all the explosions and everything someone came in for ***** and giggles and cut the beam? Dude, there can be many reasons, it melted, it broke when the building fell because of all the bending in the process, maybe that beam was one of the beams that the plane hit. But even if it just broke, why would it be cut?
User avatar #1514 to #1504 - sketchE (09/12/2012) [-]
giant plane hitting it or the help that jet fuel burns much hotter than regular fire
#1516 to #1514 - kiwibruuu (09/12/2012) [-]
But its right down near the ground ._.
#1520 to #1516 - nightstar (09/12/2012) [-]
When a building collapses everything is down near the ground...
#1539 to #1520 - kiwibruuu (09/12/2012) [-]
Heres a bigger one. Im not claiming anything. It just strikes me as really unusual.
#1568 to #1539 - nightstar (09/12/2012) [-]
Oddly enough, my google search for this picture brought me to a forum thread talking about 9/11 as well. The poster of this picture said;

"What the hell is it with truthers (so-called "investigators") and their complete lack of understanding of high-impact crashes? Jesus, velocity does wonders. You can cut steel with water, you can embed a sliver of wood deep into a tree trunk with a tornado.

Evidence that supports the idea that a 767 at over 400mph could do the damage seen at the WTC has been all around them for all their lives. Velocity and mass can do amazing things. "

I'm also not claiming anything. But I know in life the simplest solution is usually the correct answer. Maybe our government knew about the events and allowed it to happen, but I don't think they had any other hand in it.
User avatar #1558 to #1539 - Superstevefive (09/12/2012) [-]
Maybe one of the workers cut it during clean-up. Note the clearly non-firefighter worker to the left. The lack of much safety equipment would suggest that this is weeks after the fact and you know it is easier to haul metal away when it is in pieces.
#1572 to #1558 - kiwibruuu (09/12/2012) [-]
Thumb for you sir. These are the kind of replies I am looking for.
User avatar #1545 to #1539 - sketchE (09/12/2012) [-]
like i said extreme jet fueled heat burns hot enough to melt metal
#1596 to #1545 - malcolmdao (09/12/2012) [-]
no it doesnt.
User avatar #1615 to #1596 - sketchE (09/12/2012) [-]
ok severely weaken
#1623 to #1615 - malcolmdao (09/12/2012) [-]
there you go.
User avatar #1501 - contradiction (09/12/2012) [-]
didnt a plane fly into the WTC....maybe...just maybe that had to do with the collapse.
#1554 to #1501 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Yea, and building 7.



Wat?
User avatar #1696 to #1554 - contradiction (09/12/2012) [-]
what is this...i dont even?
#1700 to #1696 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Read about the windsor building, the building that wasn't hit by a plane and collapsed by fire. The only steel building in history ever to do so.


It's all there if you got interest and open eyes.
User avatar #1735 to #1700 - contradiction (09/12/2012) [-]
i would but my homework involves so much reading that i just dont feel like it
#1491 - batmuma (09/12/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#1490 - whitefeathers (09/12/2012) [-]
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Actually facts instead of someone, going "ooh conspiracy".
User avatar #1494 to #1490 - batmuma (09/12/2012) [-]
WTF i just say???

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

|
|
|
V
#1583 to #1494 - whitefeathers (09/12/2012) [-]
I apologize good sir, your comment was posted while I was researching, and therefore was not on my screen when I posted. No malice intended at all.
User avatar #1743 to #1583 - batmuma (09/12/2012) [-]
no no no... it's cool bro i just think that the OP is a faggot by saying this **** -.-
#1488 - batmuma (09/12/2012) [-]
it's different man.. in the WTC the fire reached very high temperatures because of the gasoline that the aircraft carries.. the fire in madrid was total diferent.. because there was no gasoline
#1565 to #1488 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
No Air fuel in building 7. Get updated.
User avatar #1744 to #1565 - batmuma (09/12/2012) [-]
yes the plain was flaing without fuel ...LOOL
User avatar #1484 - doctrine (09/12/2012) [-]
The windsor building didn't have a full tank of airplane fuel in it.
#1483 - acheddarbob (09/12/2012) [-]
I think jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the the building's structure
User avatar #1482 - gazoogo (09/12/2012) [-]
You know, it's not like the buildings were hit by planes that weigh several tons each or anything.... It was just the fire that made them collapse.
#1502 to #1482 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
Airplane - very thin aluminium
Infrastructure of the WTC - reasonably thick steel

Yeah, something doesn't really add up here.
User avatar #1512 to #1502 - gazoogo (09/12/2012) [-]
It was a near solid chunk of metal flying at 700 miles per hour. How does that not add up??? You people who believe this **** are so ******* stupid, it physically hurts to "converse" with you.
#1481 - spangle (09/12/2012) [-]
OP's face when watching the argument he started...
OP's face when watching the argument he started...
#1478 - Visual (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with the conspiracy theorists, it seems likely but a plane did ******* ram the side of the building at a REALLY ******* fast speed.

What does boggle my mind is that they "found" a perfectly ok wallet with one of the hijacker's I.D.

If the jet fuel did incinerate everything in the blast, how did a small leather wallet survive?

That one thing sounds weird to me.
User avatar #1541 to #1478 - iwanttousenumbers (09/12/2012) [-]
Staying neutral also, but they didn't find either of the planes' black-boxes.
#1487 to #1478 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
Thank you for saying that so I wouldn't have to. You rock.
#1470 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
It was a thermite reaction between the plane and WTC. Rust and aluminum at high temps is hotter than fire.
#1499 to #1470 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Yea, that's why building 7 also collapsed, all levels breaking down at precisely the same moment. The only steel building in history ever to do so. Just had to be a coincedence with all the other ****** up "facts" about this day.


I'm not even american and even I know the official story is ******** . The american state put more than 50 million dollars to investigate Bill clintons secret love affair - and 15 million in the 9/11 investigation. Please__
+12
#1469 - recoveryseven **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1485 to #1469 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
Plus, the plane itself with its explosion blew out more than half of the support columns (beams). This puts a huge extra weight on the remaining supports that they just couldn't bear. It wasn't JUST the fire.

THINK!!!!
0
#1480 to #1469 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1503 to #1480 - breakfastlunch (09/12/2012) [-]
Thousands of pounds of building hitting the floors below would explain it, now, wouldn't it? When the floors fell, they fell with enough kinetic energy to break pretty much anything. No floor is designed to hold up to that.
0
#1510 to #1503 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1578 to #1510 - breakfastlunch (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm talking about the floors at and above the impact point. The height of the ceilings in the offices were above ten feet.

I searched estimates of how much different skyscrapers weigh, and the bigger ones got into the hundreds of millions of kilograms. Now, let's take a mass that seems REALLY low for one story of the massive towers: 500,000 kg. If we calculate the potential energy of just one of these stories using, assuming that the height of one story is about 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), PE = mgh (500,000 * 9.81 * 3.5), we find that just one of these floors can apply 17,167,500 Joules of kinetic energy to the floor below - about 17 times the energy of a one-tonne vehicle moving at 100 miles per hour.

Even if the plane only made the roof itself collapse, the entire building would probably have been severely damaged and perhaps have fallen.
#1493 to #1480 - dubludubzy (09/12/2012) [-]
when the top part imploded that's were laws of physics come in
0
#1496 to #1493 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)