Conspiracy theory : Government staged Sandy Hook to take away our guns
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 4 of 7  
Message
re: Conspiracy theory : Government staged Sandy Hook to take away our guns
Posted by Porky on 1/12 at 7:49 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:

1 in 4 people believe 9/11 was an inside job. 1 in four people is retarded. Coincidence?


Whether it was an inside job or not, I do believe all 3 buildings were brought down to rubble with explosives. Most demolition experts agree.
LINK


This post was edited on 1/12 at 7:55 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Jake88 on 1/12 at 9:29 pm to Porky
quote:

Most demolition experts agree.


No, they don't.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Porky on 1/13 at 12:07 am to Jake88
quote:

No, they don't.

Do you also believe Building 7 fell in the manner of a controlled demolition because it was weakened by small fires...with the steel reinforced structure falling straight down upon itself (at the rate of a free falling object) at 32 ft./second per/second due to these fires?


This post was edited on 1/13 at 12:40 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by CherryGarciaMan on 1/13 at 1:37 am to Porky
quote:

Do you also believe Building 7 fell in the manner of a controlled demolition because it was weakened by small fires...with the steel reinforced structure falling straight down upon itself (at the rate of a free falling object) at 32 ft./second per/second due to these fires?



It is a shame that we can't have unbiased and unemotional discussions about this incident.

Every time you bring it up, you are automatically labeled a "truther" or a conspiracy nut, but looking at the evidence-something is up with Building 7.

It was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission, and the public is unaware of the actual evidence of free-flight. If you were to show every American a picture side-by-side of a building being demolished and the Towers falling, then show them Building 7 on the evening news, there would be chaos the next day, as people could calmly and rationally discuss the evidence without the ad homenem labels.

Sadly, this will never happen.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Porky on 1/13 at 2:02 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:

It is a shame that we can't have unbiased and unemotional discussions about this incident.

Every time you bring it up, you are automatically labeled a "truther" or a conspiracy nut, but looking at the evidence-something is up with Building 7.

It was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission, and the public is unaware of the actual evidence of free-flight. If you were to show every American a picture side-by-side of a building being demolished and the Towers falling, then show them Building 7 on the evening news, there would be chaos the next day, as people could calmly and rationally discuss the evidence without the ad homenem labels.

Sadly, this will never happen.

Maybe I'm crazy... but it is sad and truly strange.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by kingbob on 1/13 at 2:04 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:

Building Seven fell without resistance. No plane hit it. Inexplicable.


The massive firestorm that resulted from the collapse of the other two towers burned at high enough temperatures to significantly weaken the steel until it began to deform and eventually collapse.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Tiguar on 1/13 at 2:07 am to CherryGarciaMan
I vehemently argued that a.9/11 conspiracy was retarded until F&F came out. Now I'm not so sure. If one side is capable of it, so is the other. This country is an absolute mess.

This post was edited on 1/13 at 2:08 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by CherryGarciaMan on 1/13 at 2:09 am to kingbob
But, it weakened the ENTIRE steel structure enough to bring it down at the rate of free fall?

From the top to the bottom of the building, it was weakened that much to have no measurable resistance whatsoever?

I could understand the floors where the fires were burning, and those in close proximity, but not the entire building...



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by kingbob on 1/13 at 2:17 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:

But, it weakened the ENTIRE steel structure enough to bring it down at the rate of free fall?


No, it weakened the bottom floor's steel column's, thus causing the other floors to pancake onto it and fail in rapid succession at free-fall velocity. So yes. As a Construction Management student, we learned this on the very first day of our intro class. We also studied this more in depth in our structures class, which focuses on the yield strength of steel at various temperatures as well as the strength of various connections, trusses, and support structures.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by BayouBandit24 on 1/13 at 2:27 am to Toddy
quote:

Does anyone on here believe this ??


i generally find anyone who instantly discredits a conspiracy theory to be foolish



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by CherryGarciaMan on 1/13 at 2:30 am to kingbob
There was no fire on the first floor.

The fires were on floors 7-9, and 11-13, and they burned out of control due to the lack of water from the sprinkler system because of the lines being cut due to the towers falling.

It is impossible to have no resistance when a building collapses, as this government link asserts:


Government Propaganda



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Vegas Bengal on 1/13 at 3:50 am to bamafan1001
quote:

I dont necessarily think that is the case. I do think it possible. This administration was ok with supplying guns to be used to murder innocent Mexicans for the sake of gun control. I do believe that 100%.


No they didn't. This is yet another lie from you right wing yahoos. And your crocodile tears underscore your hypocrisy. Let me explain.

The US Govt did not supply guns to anyone. Rather they had information that these were gun runners and they didn't stop them but attempted to follow the trail to the big fish.

So that's your lie, heres your hypocrisy:

1. You nutjobs don't want any restrictions whatsoever on 2nd Amendment rights. Yet you believe the govt should have stopped the citizens from buying guns.

2. Even if they stopped the purchase of those particular guns, do you have any doubt they would have found other guns? I mean isn't that you yahoos mantra? If you make it harder to get guns, only criminals will be buying the guns.

It's laughable that you walking regurgitations of Rush Limbaugh don't see the stupidity in believing that those people killed would not be killed but for the Feds stepping in.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/13 at 6:45 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:

The US Govt did not supply guns to anyone. Rather they had information that these were gun runners and they didn't stop them but attempted to follow the trail to the big fish.
There is little evidence of the "attempt" you reference.

The government's actions and inactions (in the face of gun-shop-managers expressed concerns) were absolutely tantamount to supplying guns to be used to murder innocent Mexicans. That is not even debatable.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Progress on 1/13 at 7:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:

Exactly. I've seen people at funerals that were the life of the party one minute cracking jokes etc.... Then within seconds they are weeping uncontrollably.


That may be the case in adult funerals who were suffering or lived a fairly long life but people never laugh or smile during children's funerals.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Signal Soldier on 1/13 at 7:59 am to bamafan1001
weird


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by drunkenpunkin on 1/13 at 10:03 am to Progress
quote:

That may be the case in adult funerals who were suffering or lived a fairly long life but people never laugh or smile during children's funerals.


I agree with this. If something happened to one of my children, someone would have to heavily drug me just to keep me from being hospitalized. I have seen people who have lost children. They are usually medicated for a while, their eyes are vacant, and they go from being almost unresponsive to completely inconsolable. There's no laughter. The only ones I've seen who will somewhat smile are the ones who have had a sick child for a long time, and they will give a little smile when talking about them here and there, but it's a sad, lost smile that almost always leads to tears.

I'm not saying I believe these theories, but that Parker guy is in no way acting normally after losing a small child like that.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by mouton on 1/13 at 10:37 am to drunkenpunkin
Good lord folks! People grieve differently!!! I can't believe some of you idiots actually believe this is an actor.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by drunkenpunkin on 1/13 at 10:40 am to mouton
No parent grieves like that. No way in hell. But, I said I don't necessarily believe the conspiracy theories, just that that dude is off.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by mouton on 1/13 at 10:56 am to drunkenpunkin
You have no way of knowing that.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by drunkenpunkin on 1/13 at 11:24 am to mouton
I know I've never see a parent who just lost a child act anywhere remotely like that. It's just bizarre.


Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 4 of 7           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Score Board
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 SEC Score Board
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 News
 LSU
 More Sports
 Sports Lite
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Score Board
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.