x
Click to expand

bobbysnobby

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/20/2010
Last Login:5/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3649
Highest Content Rank:#25533
Highest Comment Rank:#1679
Content Thumbs: 16 total,  21 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 5882 total,  7192 ,  1310
Content Level Progress: 33.89% (20/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 1% (1/100)
Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5033
Total Comments Made:1269
FJ Points:4899

latest user's comments

#22 - This is my absolute favorite, its too good.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/20/2015 on Now this is Besiege! +6
#32 - sharee (02/20/2015) [-]
Majestic as fuck
#4 - Combine with 02/19/2015 on race with the ice-cream seller 0
#94 - Comment deleted 02/19/2015 on Autistic Olympics #1 0
#49 - Yes I know. The arguments raised for Celsius in regards to day… 02/18/2015 on Metric system 0
#44 - America does use metric for science and engineering. We use Im…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/18/2015 on Metric system +3
User avatar #45 - TheMather (02/18/2015) [-]
Celcius essentially is Kelvin though, it's just offset to be more convenient for daily use. To convert from Kelvin to Celcius, you just subtract it by 273.15.
#49 - bobbysnobby (02/18/2015) [-]
Yes I know. The arguments raised for Celsius in regards to day to day usage are over the range.
#114 - Picture 02/18/2015 on villains +1
#5 - When I was in highschool a girl asked me if i plucked my eyebr…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/12/2015 on It's true +4
#15 - kinginthenorth (02/12/2015) [-]
A girl actually complimented my eyelashes.

All i could think was "Uh, okay"
I'm a dude, how should i know if my eyelashes are nice
User avatar #25 - reallybadchicken (02/12/2015) [-]
Not that I could explain very much. But long/pretty eyelashes are kind of viewed as a feminine feature, regardless of their purpose. Women wear mascara to make them look more full, and longer. They tend to envy or adore long eyelashes on a male, (or in general, really) because it makes your eyes look pretty, and you don't even have to try. Women buy shit upon shit to create what you were born with.
#27 - kinginthenorth (02/12/2015) [-]
I guess i could understand that

They be jelly of my fabulous eyelashes
#30 - reallybadchicken (02/12/2015) [-]
Yeahhh it's pretty weird to think that I've looked at a guy's eyelashes and thought, "Damn, them's some fine-ass lashes." with a wave of envy.
#32 - kinginthenorth (02/12/2015) [-]
Now i'll forever be stuck thinking "Is she jelly of my eyelashes" whenver i talk to a grill now.
I'll blink extra often, just to make sure
#19 - vymastenaochechula (02/12/2015) [-]
girls envy my long eyelashes too, it doesn't matter if you think they are nice, just don't forget to remind them to crush their dreams, they will never be naturally as beautiful as you are
#295 - The greatest single wish you can ever possibly make is to have… 02/09/2015 on You can only choose one 0
#64 - Yeah silly homosexuals why didnt they just chose to like girls… 02/08/2015 on Grandma 0
#15 - You have obviously never tired to ignite gasoline. **** … 02/08/2015 on Natural Selection 0
#50 - Its aluminium which can be molten very easily at 900 degrees w… 02/08/2015 on Unexpected +2
#49 - Your dealing with an insane amount of weight why exactly would…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/08/2015 on Unexpected +2
User avatar #73 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
The plane already took out a lot of the supporting structure, after about an hour of burning the remaining steel should have buckled and the tops of the towers should have started to lean up to about 30 degree in the direction the plane hit from before toppling over the side of the building.
#32 - By all means include sources. I go to school for a science deg…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/08/2015 on Unexpected +2
#35 - tvveeder (02/08/2015) [-]
What does it matter? For every name I give you, you will probably reply with 10 names who report otherwise. I could probably give names like Danny Jowenko, a demolitions expert, Richard Gage, an architect, John Skilling, the structural engineer for the WTC, Harry G Robinson, professor at the school of architecture at Howard University, and the list could go on.

The problem, every single one of them (outside of Skilling) is associated with at least one web site out there regarding the 9/11 truth. So what does that do? To anyone who doesn't believe what they have to say, it instantly discredits whatever evidence is there as they have an 'agenda' or they are just self promoting.

Regardless of all that, Skilling himself stated the WTC was engineered to withstand jetliner impact of a Boeing 707 at over 600MPH. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there"
#76 - anonymous (02/08/2015) [-]
What I never understood was, how did an airplane fly over the fuck District of Columbia without anyone noticing?
#79 - tvveeder (02/09/2015) [-]
Easy answer, one didn't. Look up the evidence and tell me a plane could have made the small hole that was in the building. Not only that, where did the plane wreckage go? Look at all the pictures, there is nothing that looks like the remains of a plane where a plane supposedly crashed. Then you have the official story, one of which makes even less sense, stating that the wreckage from the plane was completely incinerated in the fire.
#30 - Its just untrue. Here is the real kicker to me. Why w…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/08/2015 on Unexpected +3
User avatar #37 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
the day before, the white house announced that they had lost track of 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money. they assigned a team in the pentagon (who were moved back into an area that had just been renovated while the rest of the wing was undergoing renovation) to research the disappearance. meanwhile, in WTC7, all of the backup files for where that money could have gone were being held, and researched by another team.

guess which building got plane-bombed in the wing with half of the data needed to "track" that money, and guess which building collapsed on its own while containing the other half of the files?

eyewitness accounts from WTC7 all described explosions in the building. personally, it would seem that the pentagon and WTC7 were the real targets.

meanwhile, somehow, magically, a passport survives a plane hitting a building, jet fuel fires and random thermite just hanging out to float down and be found. that passport is the only link to any terrorist group; it was in near perfect condition.

why would the government bomb that building? maybe for the financial incentive it would offer.

blow up the twin towers, and you can justify the following things:

war - which would benefit cheney and his haliburton royalties
oil drilling in a country we occupy - the bush family is heavily intertwined with oil companies, both as investors, as politicians, and as board members
patriot act - which would strengthen the governments ability to spy on other countries by spying through US citizens. not to mention spying on US citizens.
Drug trade - while the US was occupying Afghanistan, poppy production tripled. in a country with for profit private prisons, and a political party that likes everything to be illegal, who stands to benefit most from drug trade besides the dealers? the prison owners, who lobby against legalization laws even though it would help the country; and the politicians the jail owners contribute to through PACs (all republicans, by the way).


did a plane hit each building? of course, i watched it happen live on tv.

but i also didnt hear anyone talk about that 2 trillion dollars after that. i watched as we added a que of 15 trillion dollars in debt to fund our military over the next decade. i watched as we declared war on iraq for WMD's, even though the real reason was protecting the petrodollar. we passed the patriot act, increased the power of the war and prison machines, and distracted the citizens with gay marriage and abortion debates.

nobody will ever truly be able to prove that the US Government was responsible for 9/11. some theories could work, some are absurd. but what matters is that in the decade that followed, this country has changed. our own soil was classified as a potential battlefield by congress, the same congress that purchased billions of rounds of ammunition they cant use under the geneva convention and UN law for "international conflicts". ive watched the terrorism warrant clause of the patriot act be used thousands of times, but used for suspected terrorists less than 100. (over 95% of the warrants obtained under the suspected terrorist clause were used on drug searches). ive watched the police in this country get more and more violent, against every race, and never be arrested because the prosecutors office protects them. ive watched the kids get dumber, and the adults argue over stupid shit like who marries who, and ignore stuff about the economy and war. ive seen the rise of the tea party, and they fucking scare me.

doesnt matter who did 9/11. what matters is what the government did after.
User avatar #46 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Don't forget that Larry Silverstein was at a doctor when the buildings were hit, and that he ensured them a month before......
User avatar #47 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
i hadnt done enough research on that to put it in
User avatar #48 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
User avatar #61 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
he seems kinda... jewy
User avatar #62 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
They seywis in the hospital were terrible.
#6 - Idiots who consider themselves structural engineers claimed th…  [+] (36 new replies) 02/07/2015 on Unexpected +207
User avatar #44 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
Just sayin... i am an Engineer, the tops of the buildings should have fallen off not collapsed the rest of the buildings.
The steel used in construction was A36 steel which was coated in Cemented Carbide to provide added protection in the result of an office fire.
The cemented carbide coating was designed to last around 1 hour of intense heat before allowing the steel to buckle/bend which it did do, the problem is the steel did not only buckle and bend it melted and it simply should not have melted.

If a plane flew into those buildings today instead of 2001 i would be expecting the tops of the buildings to come crashing down and land beside the damaged building about an hour after impact but that simply did not happen because the steel frame melted from the inside out.
#78 - intrepidy (02/09/2015) [-]
I thought it was because buildings arent designed to support the weight of the floor if it moves. Static loads different to moving loads and all that.
#49 - bobbysnobby (02/08/2015) [-]
Your dealing with an insane amount of weight why exactly would the top fall to the side and not down? Buildings like the WTC use the center to give support to the exterior if so then you would need to change the center of gravity to the outside of the building for the top to go out rather than down.

You are correct that the support structure was covered with fireproofing to protect the metal. The issue was not that it got burned/melted off It is my understanding that it was ruptured and exposed metal through the actual crash of the plane. The system was made for like office fires not so much collisions.

User avatar #73 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
The plane already took out a lot of the supporting structure, after about an hour of burning the remaining steel should have buckled and the tops of the towers should have started to lean up to about 30 degree in the direction the plane hit from before toppling over the side of the building.
User avatar #45 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
i mean i dont care im not an American but they are not telling the whole story of what actually happened on 9/11 lol.
User avatar #41 - randomwanker (02/08/2015) [-]
But the steel is only weakened, in the videos and photos you can see steel literally pouring out
#50 - bobbysnobby (02/08/2015) [-]
Its aluminium which can be molten very easily at 900 degrees where it glows a light orange. Jet fuel burns at a higher temp than aluminium's melting point.
User avatar #31 - dafuqmang (02/08/2015) [-]
Melting steel is a bad idea anyway. Melting it down weakens it greatly. Like. Let's put it this way: If a sword was melted and shaped, it would shatter the second somebody tried to use it in battle.

However, once you get to a certain temperature, steel just crumples slightly. Very malleable when heated.
#21 - deadfed (02/08/2015) [-]
I dont doubt a plane crashed into it, but at that angle it would not have fallen evenly. They had just recently finished redoing their elevator system before 9/11, leading some to believe they used this construction to place explosives at key points. Watch real-time witnesses, a lot of them claim to have heard explosions. In some videos you can actually see a fucking line of explosions going down the building, just like you would see in controlled demolitions. Also its been proven that thermite was in fact in the mixture of the flames. I cant claim to know everything about it, I was in second grade when it happened, but neither can you. The heat may mangle the steel, it might even melt some of the steel because of a huge ass fire and broken windows letting more air in, but naturally there wouldnt be the streams of molten metal that there were. Yes, there are people who just spout shit off at the mouth who dont know what they are talking about, but there has also been an over abundance of real experts who point out stuff like this, and more than enough people like you who reject evidence because of a hunch.
User avatar #40 - ronyx (02/08/2015) [-]
I can't remember exactly, but it wasn't much the jet fuel, but the reaction with the aluminum of the plane or something like that. Highly doubt it was an isnide job because people can't keep their mouths shut and it's not like alqaeda ever denied bringing down the towers. I mean that would've been a real blow to the US if the country found out that it was an inside job by the government.
#30 - bobbysnobby (02/08/2015) [-]
Its just untrue.

Here is the real kicker to me. Why would they do it? Why demolish the building. They dont need our approval to go to war, they dont need our say to start operations in an another country. In fact most of america was AGAINST fighting the war even after being the victim of a terrorist attack. Even more we invaded countries which had nothing to do with the attack for example Iraq.

They risk a whole lot to attack their own nation, they risk a huge amount if they are found out. The number of people you would need to keep quiet would be insane. What do they kill them all? Did they bribe them all? Its a massive risk and would create a revolution if it was though and through proven that it was an inside job. All that risk for what? They stand to gain nothing.

I dont think politicians are stupid which is a popular belief around the world, instead I think they are self interested and take actions and policies to promote their own well being and their political standing. I think that until I'm given a really really concrete reason they would risk so much i think its a stupid idea to assume its an inside job.

The evidence is not compelling, there is nothing really wrong with the "accepted" narrative, and the people who suggest that it was an inside job make appeals to ignorance, appeals to shady sources, and promote poor science.
User avatar #37 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
the day before, the white house announced that they had lost track of 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money. they assigned a team in the pentagon (who were moved back into an area that had just been renovated while the rest of the wing was undergoing renovation) to research the disappearance. meanwhile, in WTC7, all of the backup files for where that money could have gone were being held, and researched by another team.

guess which building got plane-bombed in the wing with half of the data needed to "track" that money, and guess which building collapsed on its own while containing the other half of the files?

eyewitness accounts from WTC7 all described explosions in the building. personally, it would seem that the pentagon and WTC7 were the real targets.

meanwhile, somehow, magically, a passport survives a plane hitting a building, jet fuel fires and random thermite just hanging out to float down and be found. that passport is the only link to any terrorist group; it was in near perfect condition.

why would the government bomb that building? maybe for the financial incentive it would offer.

blow up the twin towers, and you can justify the following things:

war - which would benefit cheney and his haliburton royalties
oil drilling in a country we occupy - the bush family is heavily intertwined with oil companies, both as investors, as politicians, and as board members
patriot act - which would strengthen the governments ability to spy on other countries by spying through US citizens. not to mention spying on US citizens.
Drug trade - while the US was occupying Afghanistan, poppy production tripled. in a country with for profit private prisons, and a political party that likes everything to be illegal, who stands to benefit most from drug trade besides the dealers? the prison owners, who lobby against legalization laws even though it would help the country; and the politicians the jail owners contribute to through PACs (all republicans, by the way).


did a plane hit each building? of course, i watched it happen live on tv.

but i also didnt hear anyone talk about that 2 trillion dollars after that. i watched as we added a que of 15 trillion dollars in debt to fund our military over the next decade. i watched as we declared war on iraq for WMD's, even though the real reason was protecting the petrodollar. we passed the patriot act, increased the power of the war and prison machines, and distracted the citizens with gay marriage and abortion debates.

nobody will ever truly be able to prove that the US Government was responsible for 9/11. some theories could work, some are absurd. but what matters is that in the decade that followed, this country has changed. our own soil was classified as a potential battlefield by congress, the same congress that purchased billions of rounds of ammunition they cant use under the geneva convention and UN law for "international conflicts". ive watched the terrorism warrant clause of the patriot act be used thousands of times, but used for suspected terrorists less than 100. (over 95% of the warrants obtained under the suspected terrorist clause were used on drug searches). ive watched the police in this country get more and more violent, against every race, and never be arrested because the prosecutors office protects them. ive watched the kids get dumber, and the adults argue over stupid shit like who marries who, and ignore stuff about the economy and war. ive seen the rise of the tea party, and they fucking scare me.

doesnt matter who did 9/11. what matters is what the government did after.
User avatar #46 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Don't forget that Larry Silverstein was at a doctor when the buildings were hit, and that he ensured them a month before......
User avatar #47 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
i hadnt done enough research on that to put it in
User avatar #48 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
User avatar #61 - phtholognyrrh (02/08/2015) [-]
he seems kinda... jewy
User avatar #62 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
They seywis in the hospital were terrible.
#28 - tvveeder (02/08/2015) [-]
Don't even bother trying to explain to some people. They hear a crack pot, half baked explanation from someone 'in charge' and they say, "Yep them conspiracy theorist fuckers don't know anything they are talking about." You can listen to statements from structural engineers and professional demolition experts, but they apparently don't know what they're talking about. You can hear the eye witness accounts, and listen to all the different things FDNY said on site talking about explosions or whatever else, and it still don't matter.

Some people don't care to find truth, they just bend over and take whatever truth is reamed into them by their leaders.
#32 - bobbysnobby (02/08/2015) [-]
By all means include sources. I go to school for a science degree Ill accept credible evidence that says otherwise. The issue is very similar to climate change skeptics where they only look at reports that agree with the picture they want to paint.

Remember the old adage "Believers in nonsense use evidence like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination" That is to say to cherry pick evidence purely because it agrees with your narrative happens in all sorts of places poor science is seen. Examples. Vaccine deniers, Believers in the young earth "hypothesis", The expanding earth "theory", the 9/11 inside job conspiracy, and Climate change skeptics. I just suggest to carefully look at your sources and to internally justify why you find that source compelling.
#35 - tvveeder (02/08/2015) [-]
What does it matter? For every name I give you, you will probably reply with 10 names who report otherwise. I could probably give names like Danny Jowenko, a demolitions expert, Richard Gage, an architect, John Skilling, the structural engineer for the WTC, Harry G Robinson, professor at the school of architecture at Howard University, and the list could go on.

The problem, every single one of them (outside of Skilling) is associated with at least one web site out there regarding the 9/11 truth. So what does that do? To anyone who doesn't believe what they have to say, it instantly discredits whatever evidence is there as they have an 'agenda' or they are just self promoting.

Regardless of all that, Skilling himself stated the WTC was engineered to withstand jetliner impact of a Boeing 707 at over 600MPH. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there"
#76 - anonymous (02/08/2015) [-]
What I never understood was, how did an airplane fly over the fuck District of Columbia without anyone noticing?
#79 - tvveeder (02/09/2015) [-]
Easy answer, one didn't. Look up the evidence and tell me a plane could have made the small hole that was in the building. Not only that, where did the plane wreckage go? Look at all the pictures, there is nothing that looks like the remains of a plane where a plane supposedly crashed. Then you have the official story, one of which makes even less sense, stating that the wreckage from the plane was completely incinerated in the fire.
#27 - shickle (02/08/2015) [-]
yep, squibs can be seen in real footage...only caused by explosives.
User avatar #7 - angelojuusan (02/08/2015) [-]
...WHAT? That's the fucking explanation? Oh yeah, because SLAMMING A FUCKING JUMBO JET doesn't do ANYTHING to a tower!
#23 - dariusofnoxius (02/08/2015) [-]
The rest of the joke is that the 6 word phrase you would expect him to say is 'Fuck her right in the pussy. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w1DsOA-1pM
#10 - micekill (02/08/2015) [-]
to be fair, the tower was made to resist tons of stuff
User avatar #16 - zaxzwim (02/08/2015) [-]
a planes was one of the things they considered?
#17 - micekill (02/08/2015) [-]
dunno, but peeple was convinced they would stand against anything
but they fell, obviously
also i think it also had something to do with another terrorist attack before 9/11, i think it was a bomb or something, and since the buildings survived peeple may think the buildings were stronger than what they were
source: some documentaries and what my parents told me through the year
User avatar #18 - zaxzwim (02/08/2015) [-]
well ramming a plane into most things will destroy it but going of the same logic as before then why aren't people talking about the titanic being an inside job, that was apparently an unsinkable ship
#19 - micekill (02/08/2015) [-]
there are people talking about the titanic being an inside job tho, but since it happened so long ago it has kinda died down, but there are still people who believe in it being a conspiracy
source: something or other documentary
#29 - anonymous (02/08/2015) [-]
I don't think it's a conspiracy but it sounds very likely. Like how the fuck do you crash into a clearly visible, large, white, possibly immobile object? The only reason to hit that thing is thinking "We can just ram through it guys, this ship is unsinkable!" I wouldn't doubt the stupidity of the captain, crew, and passengers as humans have always been known for doing stupid and cocky shit. But if you assume they weren't idiots then the only possible explanation is a conspiracy or steering/motor/brake malfunction.
User avatar #64 - listerthepessimist (02/08/2015) [-]
you can't do a 3 point turn in 52,000 ton ocean liner, you're barking up the wrong tree

it was an insurance job
User avatar #67 - flemmi (02/08/2015) [-]
when I remember correctly Mithbutsters did an episode on this and they weakend steal beams so much that they could carry the test weight or something.
#33 - willys (02/08/2015) [-]
Nigga, the Titanic doesn't steer like a Honda Civic.
User avatar #20 - zaxzwim (02/08/2015) [-]
wow, i never heard of people doing that but i shall not doubt the idiots of this world
#8 - jengafag (02/08/2015) [-]
Not an American made tower, you blathering cunt!
#11 - Oh no its dale jackson he must have gotten fired after failing… 02/07/2015 on When you run out of dank memes 0
#25 - The girl on the beach is a joke. She cut her foot on glass and… 02/05/2015 on Tampons are a form of rape! +46
#15 - Jesus people in the comments. This **** is old, it was … 02/05/2015 on This chick really loves cats 0
#8 - My guess is staged look at her hand she just bats it doesnt ev…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/05/2015 on Do you ever feel lik- Fuck -4
User avatar #30 - goobyman (02/05/2015) [-]
No, it proves that she does lip sync and sing but there's a background track
why would it be staged, she fucked up. >>#2
#296 - Generally speaking yes. (fyi Bastard swords are long swords) 02/05/2015 on Medieval weapons comp 0
#128 - A claymore is a subdivision of a broad sword.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/04/2015 on Medieval weapons comp 0
User avatar #274 - theshadowed (02/05/2015) [-]
A claymore is a Scottish two-handed sword
#109 - Where have you been? A bastard sword is a British Hand and a H…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/04/2015 on Medieval weapons comp 0
User avatar #114 - theshadowed (02/04/2015) [-]
A claymore is not hand and a half
#128 - bobbysnobby (02/04/2015) [-]
A claymore is a subdivision of a broad sword.
User avatar #274 - theshadowed (02/05/2015) [-]
A claymore is a Scottish two-handed sword
#56 - Your not wrong but its not an intuitive in its weight. If you … 02/04/2015 on Medieval weapons comp 0
#25 - there must be some mistake sir, that there is a bear 02/04/2015 on Guard dog 0
#47 - Claymore Mustard race. the "Armoring sword"…  [+] (15 new replies) 02/04/2015 on Medieval weapons comp +5
#294 - Gypsybob (02/05/2015) [-]
Claymores look way heavier than longswords and bastard swords. Is that the case?
#296 - bobbysnobby (02/05/2015) [-]
Generally speaking yes. (fyi Bastard swords are long swords)
User avatar #104 - theshadowed (02/04/2015) [-]
>Not using the heavenly weapon that is the bastard sword
Reach AND speed, nigga. best of both worlds
#109 - bobbysnobby (02/04/2015) [-]
Where have you been? A bastard sword is a British Hand and a Half sword.
User avatar #114 - theshadowed (02/04/2015) [-]
A claymore is not hand and a half
#128 - bobbysnobby (02/04/2015) [-]
A claymore is a subdivision of a broad sword.
User avatar #274 - theshadowed (02/05/2015) [-]
A claymore is a Scottish two-handed sword
User avatar #88 - mortolife (02/04/2015) [-]
Arming swords were meant to be used in one hand and they were balanced very well. The point of balance on a historically accurate one is about 4-5 inches up the blade. Claymores are two handed swords with more than enough space for 2 hands on the handle. I love the claymore, but your comment is very full of inaccuracies.
User avatar #78 - hadrian (02/04/2015) [-]
Considering an arming sword was meant to be used in conjunction with a shield, not having room for a second hand on the weapon isn't really an issue.
#72 - anonymous (02/04/2015) [-]
An arming sword is a sidearm.
A claymore is NOT a sidearm.
Pole weapon master race
User avatar #84 - thegamegestapo (02/04/2015) [-]
>1815 +200
>Not using an officer's weapon

I'd rather not be cannon fodder thanks

#cavalryofficerforlyfe
User avatar #76 - heartlessrobot (02/04/2015) [-]
Polearms are only good when you're next to other people using polearms.
#70 - thegamegestapo (02/04/2015) [-]
Yeah but it's impossible to move it quickly and good luck trying to use it indoors. Since firearms made armour redundant it's all about speed and manoeuvrability.

A good sabre is just superior in a duel and for anything else you should be using a gun. And it looks classy as hell.


Inb4 "muh chivulray" literal white knights.


User avatar #51 - trydus (02/04/2015) [-]
A few good points sir, However I believe there are a few downsides to the Hand and a half sword. An arming sword would be used with a shield, offering you the opportunity to block with one arm and strike with the other simultaneously. With the hand and a half you would have to choose either an attack or a defence at any one time. The length made it difficult to get a proper swing in when fighting in tight formation or narrow streets/below deck. It wasn't useful on horseback as you needed one arm to steady the horse.Persoanlly I'd always go for the arming sword, without a decent shield, you'd be dead within mintues on the battlefield. I'd be interested to hear your further thoughts on the matter.
#56 - bobbysnobby (02/04/2015) [-]
Your not wrong but its not an intuitive in its weight. If you have ever held one it really pulls on your digitorum the muscle from your forearm which makes the back of your wrist. The weight is really cumbersome they are heavy for the size. A much more natural weapon with a shield would be like a cutting weapon because its much harder to have careful stabbing precision with a heavy weapon, or a really small war mace as you can swing them really quickly.

They are obviously made for a single hand and so natural with a shield but they are not very good weapons in my opinion. One of the main reasons is the pummel is pretty heavy generally speaking because it also functions as a grip and a counter balance on them, but the issue is because the hilt is so short rather than the counter weight being below your wrist its equal to your wrist which puts a lot more stress on your hand and forarm to keep it steady. If you have ever swung them around for any amount of time you feel like you will destroy your wrist. Part of that is not using something like them often like a soldier might you would build up those muscles so it would be less of a problem but in ancient times as well as modern usability for weapons tends to trump other benefits.

items

Total unique items point value: 160 / Total items point value: 1820

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)