Agree. What he cares about and cares less about is prolly quite sad.Bertster7 wrote:
On an unrelated tangent:I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.
Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
To clear it up, it was a typing error.usmarine2005 wrote:
Agree. What he cares about and cares less about is prolly quite sad.Bertster7 wrote:
On an unrelated tangent:I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.
Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?
@ USmarine: Nice opinion. Now go fuck yourself.
+1, that's something that's bothered me for ages. I don't know if it's a typographical thing, or Americans just have weird expressions. But I've noticed people doing it for ages and it rather annoys me. Not having a go at you personally M4A44.Bertster7 wrote:
On an unrelated tangent:I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.
Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?
Well then I take it back.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
To clear it up, it was a typing error.
@ USmarine: Nice opinion. Now go fuck yourself.
Now you go fist yourself for the typing error.
Is it just a typo?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
To clear it up, it was a typing error.usmarine2005 wrote:
Agree. What he cares about and cares less about is prolly quite sad.Bertster7 wrote:
On an unrelated tangent:
I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.
Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?
I'm sure I've heard people saying it too.
I'm not having a go at you, it's just a phrase that I've been a bit confused by.
This is old right?
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simu … index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/
Anyways seen it some time ago... it does not explain anything. And by the way the government paid 16+ million dollars on a computer simulation, that it has not released to the public for independent verification. The model was used in the official NIST report. The report is so full of holes - it is, well, ridiculous - even if you are not an engineer.Prudue wrote:
Use the simulation results to understand what the extent of damage done by the impact has been. Effects of the subsequent fire are not under consideration in this phase of the project.
Use the simulation results also to construct animations and visualizations that vividly reenact of the impact, as it plausibly has been. This work will be Phase IV.
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
A hijacked subway train hit it.LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
how bout we ask all the victums family's that went down in the four planes, or wait they prob didn't really exsist either? their have been other video's of the planes crashing into the tower, where are all those at? why just pick one video and try to make up a story? You are crazy to think that fox/cnn would make up something to cover up a conspiracy, haha wake up and join the real world and stop watching the xfiles. America didn't need to bomb themselves to go to Iraq, when they put sadamm in power many years back that plan was already in the making.
You start complaining about conspiracy theories, then you go on to say that the rise of Saddam was all a plan that was supposed to end how it has.cobraa29 wrote:
how bout we ask all the victums family's that went down in the four planes, or wait they prob didn't really exsist either? their have been other video's of the planes crashing into the tower, where are all those at? why just pick one video and try to make up a story? You are crazy to think that fox/cnn would make up something to cover up a conspiracy, haha wake up and join the real world and stop watching the xfiles. America didn't need to bomb themselves to go to Iraq, when they put sadamm in power many years back that plan was already in the making.
Anyway, the thread wasn't meant to be about theories, it was just a video showing the physical aspects of what happened. Being a Science/Physics dude (how lame does that sound, all the cool military guys will laugh at me now) i found it really interesting, good find.
LOLOL....These videos are junk....I personally know a group of New York Policemen, who run a security firm, who were on site when the second plane hit. They saw it, heard it and even took photos of the jet engine on the ground after both planes hit. They witnessed plane debris from both planes below both towers and witnessed people jumping to their deaths all around the buildings. I get tired of these idiotic theories. When something is happening right at that moment...a lot of speculation happens. Time tells the truth and there is no doubt that 2 planes hit the towers...PERIOD!!--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx
I am an architect by trade and even the collapse of the buildings were not surprising. What was more surprising to me was that it didnt happen faster and if anyone knows even a little about demolition, it would be impossible to hide such a huge demolition operation. Do you understand what it takes to even take down a 10 story building, let alone buildings that are over 100 stories tall. Also, demolitions are created at the bottom of structures at their bases. It would take like 2 minutes to search and see what a demolition team needs to do to demo a building and you would quickly realize how moronic a lot of the conspiracy trash is.
lol....phobia and his bollocks.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
LOLOL....These videos are junk....I personally know a group of New York Policemen, who run a security firm, who were on site when the second plane hit. They saw it, heard it and even took photos of the jet engine on the ground after both planes hit. They witnessed plane debris from both planes below both towers and witnessed people jumping to their deaths all around the buildings. I get tired of these idiotic theories. When something is happening right at that moment...a lot of speculation happens. Time tells the truth and there is no doubt that 2 planes hit the towers...PERIOD!!--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx
I am an architect by trade and even the collapse of the buildings were not surprising. What was more surprising to me was that it didnt happen faster and if anyone knows even a little about demolition, it would be impossible to hide such a huge demolition operation. Do you understand what it takes to even take down a 10 story building, let alone buildings that are over 100 stories tall. Also, demolitions are created at the bottom of structures at their bases. It would take like 2 minutes to search and see what a demolition team needs to do to demo a building and you would quickly realize how moronic a lot of the conspiracy trash is.
Good post death.
I heard that the buildings were intentionally destroyed and that it wasn't covered up and that, they were supposed to be destroyed because they became so F'd after the WTC collapsed.LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
Again, this is not entirely true. Talking with the policemen that were there. The other buildings that collapsed were severely damaged by the towers debris and their collapse. Then the fire and then the final collapse. They knew which buildings needed to be evacuated and knew which ones were in danger of collapsing. No conspiracy and no way would a team of demolition experts go into a burning building to set up a demo. Anyhow,,,it takes days to set up a demo, not a few hours...that would be impossible.Mekstizzle wrote:
I heard that the buildings were intentionally destroyed and that it wasn't covered up and that, they were supposed to be destroyed because they became so F'd after the WTC collapsed.LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
I really don't want to get into it, but if you look around the net, there are pictures that show why it fell. There was a hole like 18 stories high in the side closest to the north tower. When the north tower fell, the rubble smashed into wt7 and cause an insane amount of damage. All the pictures you see of the fires were from the side where some flames were visible. They have photographic proof that the entire south side of the building had thick black smoke coming from it, so much so, you could barely see the building.LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
There are also documented quotes from firemen that were at the corner of wt7 that said the building was swaying and creeking noises were heard. They were told to vacate once it became COMMON knowledge and nobody died putting out the fires on a building that they knew was going to fall no matter what.
WT7 CT's are idiots. Plain and simple.
Last edited by too_money2007 (2007-06-21 14:15:34)
lol, I didn't read all the way down. +1 sir.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Again, this is not entirely true. Talking with the policemen that were there. The other buildings that collapsed were severely damaged by the towers debris and their collapse. Then the fire and then the final collapse. They knew which buildings needed to be evacuated and knew which ones were in danger of collapsing. No conspiracy and no way would a team of demolition experts go into a burning building to set up a demo. Anyhow,,,it takes days to set up a demo, not a few hours...that would be impossible.Mekstizzle wrote:
I heard that the buildings were intentionally destroyed and that it wasn't covered up and that, they were supposed to be destroyed because they became so F'd after the WTC collapsed.LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
Only thing that pisses me off about all of 9/11 still, is that they got rid of all the rubble from the towers before the investigation was complete.
damn, i didn't want to throw my hat into this one but here goes.
1. This video is just about the impact right? Not about the structural collapse of the building.
2. I used to think there was a sinister force involved more directly in the WTC collapse, until I read a really good explanation of what happened to the metals. Its not a simple an equation as some people think and I would say run some numbers and seriously read the information debunking the controlled explosions theory. IMO, put aside the desire for a conspiracy and take an honest look.
3. And from what I understand about WTC 7, its structural elements were badly damaged. Once I looked @ the floor plan, it made more sense.
1. This video is just about the impact right? Not about the structural collapse of the building.
2. I used to think there was a sinister force involved more directly in the WTC collapse, until I read a really good explanation of what happened to the metals. Its not a simple an equation as some people think and I would say run some numbers and seriously read the information debunking the controlled explosions theory. IMO, put aside the desire for a conspiracy and take an honest look.
3. And from what I understand about WTC 7, its structural elements were badly damaged. Once I looked @ the floor plan, it made more sense.
Last edited by golgoj4 (2007-06-21 14:26:08)
HUHHHH??????????....The investigation took years to complete...what are they going to do..leave it all there for years. The rubble was removed from the site and taken to other sites for evidence gathering, human remain identification and so forth. The info they gathered from the site was taken (plenty was taken as needed) well before all the rubble was removed. The rubble pile itself was 10 stories high above ground. Nobody that investigated was limited and they were able to gather what they needed. Your statement is sadly very misinformed.too_money2007 wrote:
lol, I didn't read all the way down. +1 sir.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Again, this is not entirely true. Talking with the policemen that were there. The other buildings that collapsed were severely damaged by the towers debris and their collapse. Then the fire and then the final collapse. They knew which buildings needed to be evacuated and knew which ones were in danger of collapsing. No conspiracy and no way would a team of demolition experts go into a burning building to set up a demo. Anyhow,,,it takes days to set up a demo, not a few hours...that would be impossible.Mekstizzle wrote:
I heard that the buildings were intentionally destroyed and that it wasn't covered up and that, they were supposed to be destroyed because they became so F'd after the WTC collapsed.
Only thing that pisses me off about all of 9/11 still, is that they got rid of all the rubble from the towers before the investigation was complete.
Could have been the fire that bent the metal gurters?LaidBackNinja wrote:
I still wonder why that third building went down (WTC-7).. you know, the one that wasn't actually hit by a plane?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/ … forget.gif
There are restricted areas in and near the pentagon, and the government does not want video of it floatong aroundMason4Assassin444 wrote:
I agree to an extent.lavadisk wrote:
Conspiracy theorists need to get a grip. Anyone who says that the September eleventh attacks were set up by the government is just as crazy as the people who deny that the holocaust ever went on.
My only 2 questions about 9-11;
What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.
Was the flight over Penn. shot down like Rummy slipped up and said?
Im not doubting a terrorist attack happened. But I feel we're not getting the whole story either.
I'll bet the penn flight was shot down though. i heard that one of the engines was found over a mile away, and a ground impact would have kept the debris in a fairly close field.
More speculation. You "heard". If you found it, or have photographic proof verified by more than one person, I'd believe the engine story. Thing is, true about all conspiracy theories, they're all speculation.S.Lythberg wrote:
There are restricted areas in and near the pentagon, and the government does not want video of it floatong aroundMason4Assassin444 wrote:
I agree to an extent.lavadisk wrote:
Conspiracy theorists need to get a grip. Anyone who says that the September eleventh attacks were set up by the government is just as crazy as the people who deny that the holocaust ever went on.
My only 2 questions about 9-11;
What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.
Was the flight over Penn. shot down like Rummy slipped up and said?
Im not doubting a terrorist attack happened. But I feel we're not getting the whole story either.
I'll bet the penn flight was shot down though. i heard that one of the engines was found over a mile away, and a ground impact would have kept the debris in a fairly close field.
Also, I watched those movies on liveleak last night. Beyond pathetic attempt to be funny and make whoever made that video famous. I mean, really, he was basing his evidence off of, at the time, a live feed where news anchors probably aren't watching the televisions and making comments when they see an explosion.
There are some truely sad people out there.
Its true. Every single video claiming that there was a conspiracy speculated off mostly first hand accounts from people in the streets when the building first got attacked.
Word.lavadisk wrote:
Its true. Every single video claiming that there was a conspiracy speculated off mostly first hand accounts from people in the streets when the building first got attacked.
Loose Change is the biggest shitpile of a film ever created. Alex Jones, or whatever his name is, is the dumbest fuck I've ever heard of. I love how people like him choose not to believe, and then make films that take PROOF of what REALLY happened, and then shape them into lies. I would literally murder that fucking twat if I ever came across him... really, I would.
he could only care less if he tried? implying that any less caring would thus be a consious effort not to care, a repression of emotion, rather than a lacking of concern, a lack of emotion.Bertster7 wrote:
I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.
Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?
I still remember smelling the smoke the next morning.
Oh wait, that was fake too. An scent concoction made by the government.
Oh wait, that was fake too. An scent concoction made by the government.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack