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

hide menu

Endofzeeworld

Rank #8963 on Comments
Endofzeeworld Avatar Level 261 Comments: Pure Win
Online
Send mail to Endofzeeworld Block Endofzeeworld Invite Endofzeeworld to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/15/2010
Last Login:12/27/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8963
Highest Content Rank:#9085
Highest Comment Rank:#1151
Content Thumbs: 40 total,  71 ,  31
Comment Thumbs: 6391 total,  8586 ,  2195
Content Level Progress: 76.27% (45/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:4163
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:3293
FJ Points:6219

latest user's comments

#64 - thatsthejoke.jpg 04/21/2014 on I don't even I'm crying 0
#64 - BARRY! DO SOMETHING BARRY!  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Heels here! +2
#65 - captainyoshi (04/20/2014) [-]
#73 - izanaginookami (04/20/2014) [-]
Here comes captainyoshi
#36 - The only one of those I care about is Alestorm. ***…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/20/2014 on Fixed it (metallica style) 0
User avatar #37 - languagexplain (04/20/2014) [-]
It would be my 4th time.

I coincidentally happen to be listening to Live at the End of the World. Feel free to join me!
#148 - Fair enough, sir. I bid you good day. 04/19/2014 on Take a stand 0
#146 - My point was that these are real world femansits. Not tumblr g…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/19/2014 on Take a stand 0
User avatar #147 - mads (04/19/2014) [-]
I never said anything about them not being real world or being tumblr girls. They are people who call themselves feminists but their knowledge of the social movement doesn't go past that one video they saw and all the times they have been offended.

We have two different points and they both stand
User avatar #148 - Endofzeeworld (04/19/2014) [-]
Fair enough, sir.
I bid you good day.
#89 - I was under the impression we were talking about rape here. I …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/18/2014 on Take a stand +1
User avatar #91 - captainfuckitall (04/18/2014) [-]
Oh no sir, it was my mistake, I should have been more precise.

The point I'm trying to make is that women give signals, that's part of flirting. They're generally coy, generally play hard to get, generally mischievous. All of these things are seen as part of flirting by men, and these things are even APPROVED by other women. Surely this is a sign of consent (as consent is not just verbal), and even now we can see a post near front-page that details the stories of 21 men and how they became single, and nearly all of them were because the women wanted sex, were ambiguous about it, and he didn't get the message. But if they did, would they be branded as a rapist?

Indeed, it is the initiators responsibility to ask for consent, ALWAYS. However, it is the responsibility of the receiver to give a clear answer as to what they want. If the message they send is just that, ambiguous and subtle, is it really at the fault of the man for mistaking it when she could have just said 'no'? (ESPECIALLY if she went along with his advances instead of correcting them?)

That's all I'm saying. Much like with kids looking both ways before they cross the street. They shouldn't HAVE to worry about being hit by cars, but until we live in a perfect world, they need to know what they're getting into and if they can't handle it, can't look both ways, or stammer right in the middle of the road, they should just stay home
#85 - Picture  [+] (3 new replies) 04/18/2014 on Take a stand +1
User avatar #87 - captainfuckitall (04/18/2014) [-]
But exceptions are made, as shown.

And I'm not talking about things like murder, where you chop someone's head off and expect to get away with it. I mean things like not knowing the speed-limit of a certain road you're on (which I've heard people get away with before), walking on private property (also which I've heard before), or things like lighting (camp) fires, driving unauthorized vehicles, or even sitting in the rear of an open truck while it drives. Nearly all police I've met will excuse such crimes if you are in rush, if there's few other people, or if they're just in the mood to let you go, so I don't think it would be any problem for them if you didn't happen to know it was illegal.
User avatar #89 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I was under the impression we were talking about rape here. I see however, that your question was asked in a more general way. My mistake.
User avatar #91 - captainfuckitall (04/18/2014) [-]
Oh no sir, it was my mistake, I should have been more precise.

The point I'm trying to make is that women give signals, that's part of flirting. They're generally coy, generally play hard to get, generally mischievous. All of these things are seen as part of flirting by men, and these things are even APPROVED by other women. Surely this is a sign of consent (as consent is not just verbal), and even now we can see a post near front-page that details the stories of 21 men and how they became single, and nearly all of them were because the women wanted sex, were ambiguous about it, and he didn't get the message. But if they did, would they be branded as a rapist?

Indeed, it is the initiators responsibility to ask for consent, ALWAYS. However, it is the responsibility of the receiver to give a clear answer as to what they want. If the message they send is just that, ambiguous and subtle, is it really at the fault of the man for mistaking it when she could have just said 'no'? (ESPECIALLY if she went along with his advances instead of correcting them?)

That's all I'm saying. Much like with kids looking both ways before they cross the street. They shouldn't HAVE to worry about being hit by cars, but until we live in a perfect world, they need to know what they're getting into and if they can't handle it, can't look both ways, or stammer right in the middle of the road, they should just stay home
#83 - *cough*  [+] (4 new replies) 04/18/2014 on Take a stand 0
User avatar #145 - mads (04/19/2014) [-]
If you actually start to learn about the things AA talks about you start to understand he's just pseudo intelligent when he talks about certain topics. Also he doesn't talk about FEMINISM, he talks about what he calls 'Feminazis' he just doesn't differentiate.
*Cough*
User avatar #146 - Endofzeeworld (04/19/2014) [-]
My point was that these are real world femansits. Not tumblr girls. Disregarding basically everything AA says, since I only really like his political videos, my point still stands.
User avatar #147 - mads (04/19/2014) [-]
I never said anything about them not being real world or being tumblr girls. They are people who call themselves feminists but their knowledge of the social movement doesn't go past that one video they saw and all the times they have been offended.

We have two different points and they both stand
User avatar #148 - Endofzeeworld (04/19/2014) [-]
Fair enough, sir.
I bid you good day.
#157 - Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#155 - Look at you being all peaceful. Makes me feel like a right prick.  [+] (3 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#153 - I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic r…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#151 - Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vacc…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#149 - Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinat…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#73 - Because if your child brings measles to school and my child is…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #148 - Vandeekree (04/17/2014) [-]
Well if your child is at risk then they're the ones who shouldn't be sent to school.
User avatar #149 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinate? I didn't put my child in the position they're in, but you put your child in the position they're in.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#112 - It's a vagina. Look closer. 04/16/2014 on Damnit 0
#27 - Correct! But forreal, you're being that guy. Don't be … 04/14/2014 on Futurama +23
#6 - >Pillow >Too Cold Pick one and ONLY one. 04/09/2014 on sleep +15
#42 - Yeah, I feel you. Also just noticed your name/icon combin…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 0
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#34 - Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and go…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 +2
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#24 - You used a Wikipedia source and two sources. I used two publis…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 +3
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#20 - Source? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 +2
#22 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
#19 - I dont know where you're getting that jet fuel burns only at 5…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/08/2014 on 9/11 0
User avatar #244 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #23 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel --- Open air burning temperatures 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
www.ask.com/question/temperature-of-burning-jet-fuel --- Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 410 degrees on start up. It can burn up to 1517 degrees with enough oxygen.
www.ask.com/question/what-temperature-does-jet-fuel-burn-at --- it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
Like I said, a quick look. Googled "temperature of burning jet fuel" and clicked around.
User avatar #24 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
You used a Wikipedia source and two ask.com sources. I used two published articles and a forum post (Albeit not the best source).
Frankly, I trust my sources more than yours.
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#5 - The Twin Towers burned with jet fuel, that is significantly ho…  [+] (29 new replies) 04/07/2014 on 9/11 -3
#9 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just a bit of quick looking around... Call it what you will.
Unless the twin towers weren't up to code, they should of held.
The Critical Temperature (when it cannot safely support it's load anymore) for structural steel in the US is 1000–1300F.
Jet Fuel in an open air environment, will burn at about 500-700 degrees.
While jet fuel can reach higher temperatures, in an oxygen rich environment, as a controlled burn, (as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit), an office building is hardly open air, or oxygen rich...
Diving into the realm of speculation, I'm calling Termite charges; a few stories on how they found pockets of molten steel weeks after the building collapsed.
No way in hell jet fuel could burn hot enough to MELT the structural steel in there... Weaken it? Possibly... Melt? Hell no.
#261 - amperor (04/08/2014) [-]
I would also like to say that the fire from jet fuel would probably have been hotter than my oven when I toast my bread.
User avatar #96 - fishandkids (04/08/2014) [-]
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the fucking planes ramming into the buildings would crack open a few windows through contact or shock waves.
#74 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
Well, think about it like this: how many buildings these days are designed to withstand impacts from 50 ton jets hitting them at 600 mph? Not many.

And besides, the WTC was very cheaply-constructed, so it wasn't a very good design anyway.
User avatar #25 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
this is so stupid. for a structure to collapse it doesn't need to have it's frame melt into liquid, it just needs to be damaged or softened.

stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about.
#353 - learned (04/08/2014) [-]
Ok, let's suggest that the fire realy did damage the structure and made it alot weaker, which made it collapsed.
But no way in hell, does a building start collapsing due to a damage done in the upper part and then FALL together at the speed of any free falling object, that's insane. The upper levels should have of started crashing into the lower ones, making the fall time slower, and i doubt that it would of have flown debris at every trajectory with in 1000-1500 feet radius going at the speed of 300 miles per hour. That can only happen with an EXPLOSION, not when a building is supposedly collapsing. It's common for debris to fall, but that far and at such great speed and at every direction. I would understand if the explosion caused it, but the explosion didn't flew big chunks of debris at every direction.
Please enlighten me, why did the foundational metal beams have an 45 degree angle on them? Controlled construction of buildings also consists of blowing up the beams at a 45 degree angel.
Why was there also no theral investigation of the WTC site? Instead it was shipped into recycling as fast as possible.
Is 9/11 government made or not??? You decide
User avatar #405 - durkadurka (04/08/2014) [-]
lrn2physics
1. Conservation of linear momentum
2. F = ma

What ended up happening is that the top portion of each tower could no longer be supported by the damaged sections. The weakened supports failed and the top of the towers began to fall.

Their first stop was to impact the next level of each tower, something they were never designed to handle. With each floor of that fails, momentum transfers and the falling debris gains energy (F=ma). This is why the floors give way with increasing speed.

I don't recall the building falling at free fall, (though it should have gotten pretty close to it at the end). Did you time the fall and then do the calculations? It shouldn't be hard. I'm inclined to believe that you assertions of "free fall speed" and "300 mph"
are arbitrary.
When the towers fell, they displaced a lot of air VERY quickly. This is what you see: dust and light objects being propelled by fast moving air. The larger debris fell around the base of the towers themselves (and impacted nearby buildings).

PLEASE don't go thinking these things before you have a basic grasp of physics. I think understanding some basic concepts would be of great help.
User avatar #243 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

If you want to listen to expert engineers and architects, then watch this video - it's by a collection of over 1,500 architects and engineers who all argue against the official story.
They provide condemning evidence showing that the plane impacts could not have collapsed the tower.

You seem to need expert opinion, which is fari enough, as i did before I started questioning. Then I came across this group, of highly acclaimed engineers and architects, who set me straight.

I hope you listen to some experts, and then make up your mind, or do some further looking into it.
#27 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Who crapped in your corn flakes? It was a quick look around, and talking about the melting was all speculation.
As I said, from what I saw, the average burning temperature is well below the softening Critical Temperature for american structural steel.
Are you a structural engineer? Were you at ground zero to disprove my idea?
If so, please share. Rage brings nothing to a conversation.
User avatar #29 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
I'm upset because there is an obvious and irrefutable explanation and there is a certain percentage of the population that, no matter what, won't believe it. it's like the people who don't vaccinate their kids.

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "

#407 - sabertoothmoose (04/08/2014) [-]
Can't say i know a whole lot about demolition work, but wasn't there some conpiracy on the way the towers fell as well. The straight down "free fall" effect was something that people claim; could only be done by controlled demolition or some shit.
I know nothing about this shit, but you seem smart - any opinion
there is no sarcam at all in this, i really just want to knowpleasedon'tkillme
User avatar #433 - guymandude (04/08/2014) [-]
the thing with that is, if you watch the video, at least one of them falls sideways-and-downward. So that isn't really all that valid.
#437 - sabertoothmoose (04/08/2014) [-]
yep, i see- that theory sucked
#154 - anonymous (04/08/2014) [-]
there is a myriad of testimonies of people having seen melted steel at ground zero - you can only see melted steel spouting from one of the collapsing towers, if you watch the footage.

Yet the 9/11 commission claims there were NO melted steel at ground zero. One of many irregularities in the 9/11 commission report.
Independant scientists have found traces of nano-thermite in the 9/11 aftermath; a highly advanced explosive which when reacted burns at very high temperatures. High enough to melt steel.

But really, you just have to ask yourself, who really benefited from 9/11? cause it sure as hell weren't the mudslimes.
We dont adress the many irregularities of the attacks. Public opinion has been swayed so hard that questioning 9/11 is now "retarded"

Believe me when I say this America, for it is a very dangerous sign of things to come.
User avatar #412 - benjamino (04/08/2014) [-]
>Things to come
>No things in 13 years?
#300 - durkadurka (04/08/2014) [-]
>Implying that people giving the testimonies knew what they were talking about.
>Implying that killing infidels isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted
>Implying that the government is competent to pull off what would be the greatest conspiracy in history.
User avatar #19 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
I dont know where you're getting that jet fuel burns only at 500-700 Degrees.... I've been searching around and found no such claim.
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
airportjetfuel.com/p134704-how-hot-does-jet-fuel-burn.cfm
worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493
User avatar #244 - learnthisline (04/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #23 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel --- Open air burning temperatures 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
www.ask.com/question/temperature-of-burning-jet-fuel --- Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 410 degrees on start up. It can burn up to 1517 degrees with enough oxygen.
www.ask.com/question/what-temperature-does-jet-fuel-burn-at --- it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
Like I said, a quick look. Googled "temperature of burning jet fuel" and clicked around.
User avatar #24 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
You used a Wikipedia source and two ask.com sources. I used two published articles and a forum post (Albeit not the best source).
Frankly, I trust my sources more than yours.
User avatar #31 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
User avatar #34 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
User avatar #39 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop fucking trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 - hitlersgayabortion (04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being shitty like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
User avatar #42 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
Fucking.
Fantastic.
User avatar #44 - carbohydrates (04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
User avatar #7 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
they could find charred bone fragments the size of fingernail clippings, but htey couldn't find an indestructable flourescent orange box

because that makes sense
User avatar #20 - Endofzeeworld (04/08/2014) [-]
Source?
I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know what you're talking about.
#22 - youhei (04/08/2014) [-]
#110 - Incorrect. The Reichmark was introduced to combat inflation, a… 04/04/2014 on dilemma 0
#240 - Meat's bad for other reasons, such as high fat. But reall… 03/31/2014 on How I met a vegan +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2110 / Total items point value: 2510

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#17 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#15 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #16 to #15 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
YUSSSSSSSSSS
User avatar #13 - tronbot (11/14/2013) [-]
Thanks for the constructive criticism!
User avatar #14 to #13 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (11/15/2013) [-]
No problem, my friend! I believe what you are doing is a necessary and integral part of any website. It helps keep equilibrium.
#6 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #7 to #6 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (07/01/2012) [-]
oh em gee its zomba :3
#8 to #7 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #9 to #8 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (07/01/2012) [-]
Yeah kinda. Y U NO POST ANYMORE?!?!?
#10 to #9 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #11 to #10 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (07/01/2012) [-]
Thats a damn good point, son. A damn good point. I been here since yellow, and it seems to me that this site just gets younger and younger. Or maybe its us getting older?
#12 to #11 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3 - dragel (02/08/2012) [-]
I apologize if my replys to you seem like I'm being a bastard.

User avatar #4 to #3 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (02/08/2012) [-]
No no no no, you are actually one of the less dickish people who I have ever argued with on the website. You seem cool, even if our opinions differ on some subjects.
User avatar #5 to #4 - dragel (02/08/2012) [-]
I'm glad you think that.

I don't wish for my first impression to be a bad one.
#1 - freedomfromlife **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2 to #1 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (10/23/2010) [-]
Thanks, Ill make sure to use it!
 Friends (0)