x
FJ should now work well with mobile. Try it out on your mobile/tablet browser!
Click to expand

preacherQ

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/24/2010
Last Login:3/04/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13482
Highest Content Rank:#3015
Highest Comment Rank:#5601
Content Thumbs: 721 total,  824 ,  103
Comment Thumbs: 713 total,  826 ,  113
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 54 Content: Sammich eater → Level 55 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 156 Comments: Faptastic → Level 157 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:38917
Times Content Favorited:99 times
Total Comments Made:365
FJ Points:1108

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 31925
    Thumbs Up 733 Thumbs Down 94 Total: +639
    Comments: 45
    Favorites: 96
    Uploaded: 01/29/14
    Old but Gold Old but Gold

Funny Gifs

latest user's comments

#41 - What do you mean "enough"? Enough for what? Enough f… 02/21/2015 on Beautiful +2
#38 - The answer to what? More female leads in videogames? Who cares… 02/21/2015 on Beautiful +1
#30 - Now. See, the problem here is that this people are deciding th…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/10/2015 on Jet fuel can't do it but... 0
User avatar #32 - zeroqp (02/10/2015) [-]
The twin towers were constructed under very serious and precise conditions.
They were constructed to be able to take a Boeing 747 crash into a tower without falling.
The twin towers were the first steel-frame buildings to collapse completely from a fire. In history.
The fires in the twin towers were relatively cool, and burned for a short duration. Other steel framed buildings have burned much more intensely, with more widespread flames, and a much longer duration, and still not crashed.


If you actually bothered to look at the sources I showed, they'd explain this and more, much better than I did. These are experts behind this project, some with decades of experience. Some have designed or constructed over a dozen large and small buildings. They know much more than us FJers. And they're saying it just doesn't add up.
#59 - anonexplains (02/10/2015) [-]
The twin towers were not constructed "to be able to take a Boeing 747 crash into a tower without falling". That part is completely 100% made up.
User avatar #45 - alucardhell (02/10/2015) [-]
Read the sources. The first one is of a group of architects and not structural engineers. They have a basic understanding of engineering concepts and design, but only enough to design a building around, not enough to prove anything in terms of structural integrity of a building with jet fuel present.

On the point of jet fuel burns; it burns fast and between 800-1500F. Structural steel in the US has about 50% of its normal strength at 1100F well within the range for jet fuel. But beyond just that, that is just a catalyst for the fire, rugs, curtains, anything flammable in the radius would also have gone up in flames, this leads to a fire maxing out around 1800F which is where structural steel only holds 10% of its normal capacity. The reason that this doesn't happen in most cases of buildings going ablaze is that the fire-resistant foam put onto beams would have been knocked off by the force of the hit.

The towers were meant to be able to take a 747, but we weren't about to actually crash one into a building to test. We (the MS and PhDs in engineering) test the breaking points of the various components involved, put them into equations and make educated guesses from the results. It should have stood up to the hit, but you can't factor in all of the various angles of attack, speeds, masses, ect that would be present. We make assumptions and in some cases completely ignore various factors because they make the equations unsolvable.

On the fact of the collapse being so linear on its decent. It is a structural product called pancaking. Basically one floor lost enough structural strength to collapse, which caused it to add more pressure onto floor below it which was already weakened, this cases the force on each successive floor to increase (as a function of m^2 due to momentum adding a larger effective mass) until it reaches the bottom. It is a method used occasionally in control detonations for destroying buildings, but can be done with out explosions, it just requires an initial trigger. In this case the trigger was structural failure of one floor.

I have reviewed your sources and found them wanting.
#58 - veryspecialagent (02/10/2015) [-]
Sure, apply a bunch of "facts", all of which would have to happen perfectly in the perfect conditions to happen and say, look, it happened!

I swear to god, it's physically possible for all the air to condense itself into one corner of the room and have the rest of the room become pretty much a vacuum for a split second. It's totally happened to me before it was crazy. The odds are astronomical but not impossible so it totally happened to me once.
User avatar #53 - zeroqp (02/10/2015) [-]
"Architects & engineers for 9/11 truth" is comprised of architects and engineers, including structural engineers. To see an example of one member, click "home" in www.ae911truth.org/ and scroll down. you'll hopefully see Ron Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer.

Even if we assume your amazing statement about furniture burning at 1800F, you still have to consider the duration of the fire, not just the peak heat level. But even if that is what really happened, it doesn't explain how the whole building came down from a fire at the top, and at the rate that it came down. From ae911truth.org 's FAQ: "Residues of thermite and nanothermite were discovered in the WTC dust, which indicates they were used to destroy the WTC skyscrapers."

from www.science-writing.org/id29.html
"...architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to absorb (“Nerdcities: The Guardian” 2002). So, from an engineering perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, should have been able to withstand the collisions on September 11th."
#51 - anonexplains (02/10/2015) [-]
and yet a completely seperate building that did not get hit just fell down.... what an amazing surprize that the entire complex had recently been purchased and insured by a multi billionaire who also invests in defense.....on top of that you really think that a couple of dudes with tiny knives took over a plane and that the people and the pilots on board that plane decided to just ram into a building and kill everyone on board and the people in the building than take the guys out or crash somewhere else.
User avatar #82 - dorfdorfdorf (02/10/2015) [-]
you are clinically retarded
#132 - Skeptical about the third one. Don't think the red gear can be fixed. 02/05/2015 on good feelin comp 0
#48 - What is this, a comp for ants? I NEED MORE THAN THUMBNAIL RESO… 02/05/2015 on Food porn comp 0
#215 - That's not what she did. She said, "if I can't be in my u…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/30/2015 on + Size compilation 0
User avatar #216 - imdrwiggles (01/31/2015) [-]
All I'm saying is she wants to post her unclothed pictures like everyone else, she should be able to. No questions asked. No pictures removed. No account banning. Other people finding her unattractive should not be reason enough to remove her pictures.
Deleting her pictures was wrong of them and good for her for doing what she thinks is fair in return.
#208 - She wasn't banned for posting pictures of herself, she was ban…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/29/2015 on + Size compilation 0
User avatar #210 - imdrwiggles (01/30/2015) [-]
She was flagging pictures for the same reason that hers were flagged. I think it is good of her to fight for her own right to post her own pictures the same as anyone else can.
User avatar #215 - preacherQ (01/30/2015) [-]
That's not what she did. She said, "if I can't be in my underwear, NO ONE CAN!" Writing an appeal to the moderators or starting a petition would have been fighting for her privilege. Because it ISN'T a right; it's a private company that she neither works for nor pays. The company and the other users owe her nothing. Was it rude of them to take down her photo? Maybe, but it was within THEIR rights to do so. Throwing a tantrum about it and flagging hundreds of other people's pictures solved nothing. A mod has to look at every one of the images that she flagged and they decided that having her as a user was not worth all of the man-hours she was wasting with the false flagging she was doing. (In violation of the user agreement) Seems like a reasonable response to me.
User avatar #216 - imdrwiggles (01/31/2015) [-]
All I'm saying is she wants to post her unclothed pictures like everyone else, she should be able to. No questions asked. No pictures removed. No account banning. Other people finding her unattractive should not be reason enough to remove her pictures.
Deleting her pictures was wrong of them and good for her for doing what she thinks is fair in return.
#30 - He did not want a fish, he wanted to strike a fish. Mission ac…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/26/2015 on Straya cunt +26
#31 - endodoobiesmoke (01/26/2015) [-]
thats not how you strike a fish!
< this is how you strike a fish!
#20 - Meh, its not too crazy, they probably use an optical sensor to… 01/17/2015 on Interactive Sandbox +1
#34 - I think its just a leaf  [+] (1 new reply) 12/27/2014 on Double fail 0
User avatar #35 - usarmyexplain (12/27/2014) [-]
No, he is hamstering
[ 317 Total ]

user's friends

Comments(0):

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