x
Click to expand

cumfartz

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/14/2013
Last Login:3/03/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#35954
Highest Comment Rank:#9501
Comment Thumbs: 134 total,  885 ,  751
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 113 Comments: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Comments: Funny Junkie
Subscribers:3
Total Comments Made:500
FJ Points:175

latest user's comments

#15 - hurr durr ********* are pretty gurls too 02/21/2015 on The Atlas of Beauty -2
#1734 - L O N D O N O N D O N 02/15/2015 on Mods will draw or be your... 0
#48 - 50 shades of howdy 02/12/2015 on Woody loves you waifu +6
#218 - well that's because parts of the building apparently reached 1… 02/08/2015 on Investigate 3/11 0
#215 - dude SAG not melt SAG  [+] (2 new replies) 02/08/2015 on Investigate 3/11 0
User avatar #216 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
And my problem is that the steel literally did melt, it was still molten days after the collapse. it should not have.
User avatar #218 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
well that's because parts of the building apparently reached 1800 degrees.
#129 - "I'm a punk so I must rebel" ... well yeah..… 02/07/2015 on Hitler did nothing wrong +10
#191 - so as an engineer you should know that when steel loses 50% of…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/07/2015 on Investigate 3/11 0
User avatar #210 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
Yeah it gets weaker, it bends, it does not melt, no amount of heat can lower the melting point of steel.
User avatar #215 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
dude
SAG
not melt
SAG
User avatar #216 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
And my problem is that the steel literally did melt, it was still molten days after the collapse. it should not have.
User avatar #218 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
well that's because parts of the building apparently reached 1800 degrees.
#109 - we aint talking about melting point mate.  [+] (23 new replies) 02/07/2015 on Investigate 3/11 0
User avatar #110 - TwiztidNinja (02/07/2015) [-]
I am, as an Engineer i am truly facinated to find out how that steel melted in an office fire, losing its strength and buckling i can understand but literally melting into molten metal?
Now that is pretty fishy.
User avatar #191 - cumfartz (02/07/2015) [-]
so as an engineer you should know that when steel loses 50% of it's strength it expands, thus causing it to sag like granny titties
User avatar #210 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
Yeah it gets weaker, it bends, it does not melt, no amount of heat can lower the melting point of steel.
User avatar #215 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
dude
SAG
not melt
SAG
User avatar #216 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
And my problem is that the steel literally did melt, it was still molten days after the collapse. it should not have.
User avatar #218 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
well that's because parts of the building apparently reached 1800 degrees.
#165 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
Check this article out.

skeptoid.com/episodes/4054
User avatar #112 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Never mind the whole WTC Building 7 just collapsed and it was hit by nothing. Only thing that happened to it was it caught on fire, and if I am correct it was constructed out of the same graded materials that the towers were.

I don't care who the fuck was responsible. No one is for certainly saying Bush did 9/11, or a rogue agent, the CIA, Mossad, or a join operation. Who the fuck knows who did. The fact is - is shit does not add up in terms of science and logic - same thing as to why (I can't remember the exact percentage) but over half of Americans believe JFK's assassination had CIA and Mafia involvement, as well as LBJ.

It is perfectly OK for Americans to question the authenticity of the 9/11 reports as the U.S. government has been known to pull outrageous bullshit in foreign lands and historically domestically.
#169 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
Not true friend.

skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
User avatar #180 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Which part was "not true."

The only thing WTC7 came in contact with was fire and debris. It was never actually "hit" with anything besides that. As for the article, yeah, a lot of that does make sense - I already knew all of that though.
User avatar #114 - TwiztidNinja (02/07/2015) [-]
Yeah thats a bit fucky also, it looks like a controlled demolition anywho.
#170 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
User avatar #152 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Tall buildings are designed to collapse downwards so they don't hit other buildings incase of an earthquake or such.
User avatar #136 - truesmokewolf (02/07/2015) [-]
Maybe from a distance due to the sheer size, but they did not come down straight. They fell against the neighboring buildings.
User avatar #116 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
A lot of news agencies doing interviews reported hearing a set of constant controlled "explosion like sounds" before the towers fell.

Some people that were closer had gone farther to suggest in their interviews that they were for certain bombs went off.
User avatar #151 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Ya know, because massive metal pods sailing through the air colliding with a massive steel structure does tend to make a "boom" sound.
User avatar #153 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Ya know, because the towers didn't fall the moment the planes hit.

The constant and multiple 'boom' sounds were heard well after the planes hit.
User avatar #155 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound.
If they wanted to stage a terrorist attack, they'd have had "terrorists" smuggle bombs in and blow the load bearing columns at the bottom, then used that as an excuse. They wouldn't have used both a plane AND explosives, then blame it all on the plane, since that would raise questions, and questions aren't good if you're trying to cover something up.
User avatar #158 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Who said anything about staging a terrorist attack.

I don't personally care who did what, rather there are questionable things about the after-action reports.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

Not to mention first responders found the explosions questionable aswell as the shockwave produced from them was strong enough to force them onto the ground.

There's a large difference between "Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound." and demolitions.
User avatar #164 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Have you any idea the force behind heating and crumpling steel? Hit one end of a steel rod with a hammer while holding the other end. It'll fucking hurt. Now add the heat of the fire and the cooling of high altitude winds. Cool a piece of red hot steel in water while holding a already cool end. You can feel a sort of cracking or popping.
Multiply that by 100,000.
And put it into an enclosed area.
Yeah, there's going to be a lot of pressure displacement throughout the building, possible shockwave.
User avatar #173 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Yeah, I am aware - and you could be totally right.

The fact is though there is a lot of fair debate here. Quite literally either possibilities are applicable - I am by no means jumping on the Bush did 9/11 wagon.

Since no one really knows what happened on the inside entirely - we probably will never know. As literally both possibilities can produce the same results.
User avatar #175 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
The gov wouldn't have placed explosives at the bottom, and even if they did, they would have been crude, homemade explosives with homemade thermite, and the gov would have blamed it on the terrorists too.
User avatar #178 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Quite honestly I don't buy government involvement period. At least, not as a whole.

A job like that would have been conducted by sectors of the CIA. Which is practically a rogue agency anyway.
#103 - MATERIALS RESISTANCE 101 FOR STUPID ******* : STEE…  [+] (32 new replies) 02/06/2015 on Investigate 3/11 +21
User avatar #107 - TwiztidNinja (02/07/2015) [-]
It was A36 steel, which has a melting point of 1,538 °C, (2500ish F)
The thing everyone has a problem with is that steel melted, it did not just bend and collapse, it melted, and it should not have.
User avatar #150 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Jet fuel can light aluminum on fire.
And aluminum burns hot enough to melt steel, if I'm not mistaken.
User avatar #209 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
You are mistaken... Alloy can not melt steel, its melting temp is around 700 degree C
User avatar #211 - heartlessrobot (02/08/2015) [-]
If there was iron rust present, the force of the plane could easily combine aluminum with the iron oxide, making thermite, which not only melts steel but eats through that shit like a fatty at a donut buffet.
User avatar #212 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
No iron was used, the steel was laced in Cemented carbide to stop rust and help retain the strength of the steel in the case of a fire (the cemented carbide coating would last maybe 45 mins in an office fire before degrading and allowing the steel to bend/buckle)

Just sayin from an engineering standpoint the whole thing surrounding 9/11 is fucky, i have talked to countless engineers that all have the same opinion.
User avatar #213 - heartlessrobot (02/08/2015) [-]
Jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees.
At that temperature, you could grab the steel (with pliers) and bend it like foam rubber.
User avatar #214 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
Jet fuel, or Kerosene (thats what jet fuel is) burns at around 700 degree C actually, the office fire burning was hotter than the jet fuel lol.
You are right though the steel would have buckled and bent after an hour or so and the tops of the buildings should have fallen off to the side.
Should not have collapsed on themselves and there should not have been molten metal in the underground car parks weeks later.
User avatar #138 - truesmokewolf (02/07/2015) [-]
I'm fairly certain before it melted 100% away, it would lose it's strength. Also >>#113.
User avatar #109 - cumfartz (02/07/2015) [-]
we aint talking about melting point mate.
User avatar #110 - TwiztidNinja (02/07/2015) [-]
I am, as an Engineer i am truly facinated to find out how that steel melted in an office fire, losing its strength and buckling i can understand but literally melting into molten metal?
Now that is pretty fishy.
User avatar #191 - cumfartz (02/07/2015) [-]
so as an engineer you should know that when steel loses 50% of it's strength it expands, thus causing it to sag like granny titties
User avatar #210 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
Yeah it gets weaker, it bends, it does not melt, no amount of heat can lower the melting point of steel.
User avatar #215 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
dude
SAG
not melt
SAG
User avatar #216 - TwiztidNinja (02/08/2015) [-]
And my problem is that the steel literally did melt, it was still molten days after the collapse. it should not have.
User avatar #218 - cumfartz (02/08/2015) [-]
well that's because parts of the building apparently reached 1800 degrees.
#165 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
Check this article out.

skeptoid.com/episodes/4054
User avatar #112 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Never mind the whole WTC Building 7 just collapsed and it was hit by nothing. Only thing that happened to it was it caught on fire, and if I am correct it was constructed out of the same graded materials that the towers were.

I don't care who the fuck was responsible. No one is for certainly saying Bush did 9/11, or a rogue agent, the CIA, Mossad, or a join operation. Who the fuck knows who did. The fact is - is shit does not add up in terms of science and logic - same thing as to why (I can't remember the exact percentage) but over half of Americans believe JFK's assassination had CIA and Mafia involvement, as well as LBJ.

It is perfectly OK for Americans to question the authenticity of the 9/11 reports as the U.S. government has been known to pull outrageous bullshit in foreign lands and historically domestically.
#169 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
Not true friend.

skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
User avatar #180 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Which part was "not true."

The only thing WTC7 came in contact with was fire and debris. It was never actually "hit" with anything besides that. As for the article, yeah, a lot of that does make sense - I already knew all of that though.
User avatar #114 - TwiztidNinja (02/07/2015) [-]
Yeah thats a bit fucky also, it looks like a controlled demolition anywho.
#170 - popeflatus (02/07/2015) [-]
User avatar #152 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Tall buildings are designed to collapse downwards so they don't hit other buildings incase of an earthquake or such.
User avatar #136 - truesmokewolf (02/07/2015) [-]
Maybe from a distance due to the sheer size, but they did not come down straight. They fell against the neighboring buildings.
User avatar #116 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
A lot of news agencies doing interviews reported hearing a set of constant controlled "explosion like sounds" before the towers fell.

Some people that were closer had gone farther to suggest in their interviews that they were for certain bombs went off.
User avatar #151 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Ya know, because massive metal pods sailing through the air colliding with a massive steel structure does tend to make a "boom" sound.
User avatar #153 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Ya know, because the towers didn't fall the moment the planes hit.

The constant and multiple 'boom' sounds were heard well after the planes hit.
User avatar #155 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound.
If they wanted to stage a terrorist attack, they'd have had "terrorists" smuggle bombs in and blow the load bearing columns at the bottom, then used that as an excuse. They wouldn't have used both a plane AND explosives, then blame it all on the plane, since that would raise questions, and questions aren't good if you're trying to cover something up.
User avatar #158 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Who said anything about staging a terrorist attack.

I don't personally care who did what, rather there are questionable things about the after-action reports.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

Not to mention first responders found the explosions questionable aswell as the shockwave produced from them was strong enough to force them onto the ground.

There's a large difference between "Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound." and demolitions.
User avatar #164 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
Have you any idea the force behind heating and crumpling steel? Hit one end of a steel rod with a hammer while holding the other end. It'll fucking hurt. Now add the heat of the fire and the cooling of high altitude winds. Cool a piece of red hot steel in water while holding a already cool end. You can feel a sort of cracking or popping.
Multiply that by 100,000.
And put it into an enclosed area.
Yeah, there's going to be a lot of pressure displacement throughout the building, possible shockwave.
User avatar #173 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Yeah, I am aware - and you could be totally right.

The fact is though there is a lot of fair debate here. Quite literally either possibilities are applicable - I am by no means jumping on the Bush did 9/11 wagon.

Since no one really knows what happened on the inside entirely - we probably will never know. As literally both possibilities can produce the same results.
User avatar #175 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2015) [-]
The gov wouldn't have placed explosives at the bottom, and even if they did, they would have been crude, homemade explosives with homemade thermite, and the gov would have blamed it on the terrorists too.
User avatar #178 - thatoneiranianguy (02/07/2015) [-]
Quite honestly I don't buy government involvement period. At least, not as a whole.

A job like that would have been conducted by sectors of the CIA. Which is practically a rogue agency anyway.
#10 - I remember back when funnyjunk was yellow (mind you I was like… 01/26/2015 on just an old repost.. +15

user's friends

What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - dehumanizer (12/24/2014) [-]
gorilabull
User avatar #8 to #7 - cumfartz (12/24/2014) [-]
sick brah
#9 to #8 - dehumanizer (12/24/2014) [-]
use a diffrent avatar next time
User avatar #10 to #9 - cumfartz (12/24/2014) [-]
I like my avatar
User avatar #1 - mrwightproductions (12/26/2013) [-]
I'm watching you.
User avatar #2 to #1 - cumfartz (12/27/2013) [-]
u fukin weirdo u best stop that **** or I'll take your thing
User avatar #3 to #2 - mrwightproductions (12/31/2013) [-]
Still. Watching. You.
User avatar #4 to #3 - cumfartz (12/31/2013) [-]
why r u watching me
User avatar #5 to #4 - mrwightproductions (01/08/2014) [-]
Always and forever.
User avatar #6 to #5 - cumfartz (01/08/2014) [-]
not gonna lie that kinda sexy]
 Friends (0)