Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

16

General / Re: I hereby offer my letter of resignation

« on: January 30, 2014, 06:04:24 PM »

Since Ian won't install the most basic spambot-blocking software, I find it rather tedious to be a moderator.  Also because banned people somehow think I care and will reverse the decision of other mods(??). Not sure how they got that into their heads. I have demoted myself and have no power to help you even if I did care. I'm not sure if "FTL Creative Team" is appropriate. I didn't see anything that looked just right. I will not be offended if mods feel the need to change it.

Yeah, this website is starting to show it's age..

Plus it tries to piece together like 8 pieces of software to create a unified experience - which it does actually pretty well..

But since social media is changing so fast..

I once thought about ripping all the FTL material and building my own website.. I didn't because:

1) Writing a script to rip the whole page would be disruptive..
2) I would offend countless people..
3) I am a pot head and then I got high.. (hehe j/k)

17

General / Re: Excellent Butts FEMALES ONLY

« on: January 30, 2014, 05:59:54 PM »

For a gay guy, you got great taste in women..

18

General / Re: Excellent breasts.

« on: January 30, 2014, 12:56:19 AM »

Then there are others that are too small and micro...not my thing either.

That one looks like it was surgically trimmed. You can see the faint line around it where the labia was attached. It's a lot like a circumcision. It's an increasingly popular surgery because a lot of women are seeing shooped vags on models and thinking that's what it's supposed to look like.

I dunno something looks off on it.. are they trying to make it look like an asshole?

I don't get it.. are you saying this is a surgical procedure? (not including the piercing) I mean.. I have never seen anything like this online either.. http://www.freexcafe.com/close-ups.html

but it's not as scary as this:

19

General / Re: I love big pecs and I cannot lie

« on: January 29, 2014, 11:08:09 PM »

I could play that same game with you. You really wanna go there?

I will so play this game with you. But just know - that response gave me 1 free pass..

I will even be HONEST..

20

General / Re: I love big pecs and I cannot lie

« on: January 29, 2014, 01:49:33 PM »

Is this really a turn on for you..?

21

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 26, 2014, 06:58:43 PM »

Wait, what???

So there were no plastics or paper items in either of the Twin Towers? No paper, no computers, fax machines, copiers, plastic bins. Surely there were tons of petroleum based products in the buildings that would have burned if Jet Fuel were introduced as an ignition source.

I am sure there were papers and plastics. However, the furniture were replaced with fire resistant materials.

I mean seriously, in an office building you don't think that office furniture takes up the most space?

And again, many buildings have been engulfed in flames - sometimes for more than 12 hours. Not only don't they collapse - they are usually renovated and reused without major structure rehabilitation.

22

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 26, 2014, 06:45:30 PM »

I'm asking because I truly do not know, but is there ever an account given for all the other petroleum products and other flamable materials that also burned (some even acting as an accelerant). I never thought that jet fuel was the only source of combustible material. With everything else that could have and did burn in that fire, I can't help but imagine that the heat was very high and sustainable.

Except after it was bombed the first time they removed all materials that were flammable.Plus a chair doesn't burn very hot - especially a flame retardant one..

23

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 08:41:37 PM »

Yeah, on that note, I conclude this debate. At least on my end......

I will just end with this:

It is still government's fault. They are so untrustworthy they, at the very least, have a large group of people convinced they could do this.

this comes from their demeanor and their secrecy..

24

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 08:06:02 PM »

I am using failed demolitions because they all have 1 thing in common, parts, but not all, of the structure was compromised. How doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. A failed demolition is instantaneous damage via explosions in a specific part or parts of the building which I would expect to have all kinds of different random effects depending on where they happened versus a spreading and long-burning fire that gradually reduces the structural integrity in a large area of a building--in this case very near the top of the buildings vs. really low, in which case I would expect them more likely to topple over.

No it doesn't and this is why people go crazy. In defense of your side you will accept models of child like proportions, but on other models you start talking about how you are missing complex data.

THE POINT, which you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CONSIDER is the EFFECT of the REST OF THE BUILDING. So first damaged the towers eh? Ok, lets give you that. THE WHOLE BUILDING? I don't think you are saying that. SO WHAT SHOULD THE REST OF THE BUILDING HAVE DONE?

So I show you EXAMPLES of BUILDINGS where suddenly PARTS OF IT ARE GONE - and you do not see this as having a relationship to another building that had sectional failures?

SERIOUSLY? I MEAN FUCKING SERIOUSLY?! THAT'S HOW OBTUSE YOU WANT TO BE? Yeah. I am yelling now. I mean what should happen if aliens teleported the 60-80 floors into space? The building should not have completely crumbled.

Umm.. It shows how buildings do not fail uniformly. Really? You are going to just rely on the whole jet fuel thing? WTC 1-2 were DESIGNED to be HIT by a FULLY LOADED 747.

The videos you appear to now be watching address this quite well. A 747 was the biggest plane at the time they were built, decades ago. They're much smaller and slower than what hit the towers. The size, amount of fuel, and speed were all significantly greater. The difference of all combined amount to an exponentially larger amount of destructive energy.

614 mph (988 km/h)
Boeing 747-400, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   48,445 U.S. gal (183,380 L)

590 mph (950 km/h)
Boeing 777, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   31,000 U.S. gal (117,340 L)

Wrong on BOTH POINTS directly from Google (speed) and Boeing (Fuel)...

And, it remained standing for about an hour after it was hit. So how long do you think jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire burns?

No fucking idea. I'm not that kind of engineer. I engineer software. Repeatedly saying to me that what happened isn't scientifically possible still has no meaning to me other than certain people (truthers) keep repeating it like a mantra. Meanwhile, the alternative version--a controlled demolition, has no evidence to support it--no explosions*, no evidence of thermite (which wouldn't work anyway), no viable explanation for how they pulled it off in busy and heavily populated buildings, and no explanation for why they would go about it such an elaborately complex fashion in the first place. For instance, far simpler and less likely to fall apart would be just loading the planes up with enough explosives to blow the top of the building off and set fire to the rest. Wouldn't that be massively destructive and accomplish their goal and look more believable (to truthers) than the way it fell which is somehow, according to you, completely unbelievable?

What? Jet fuel on fire does not burn for very long.. It just doesn't. Making that simple question into a complex ball of shit shows you are not even TRYING..

It is just a no go in your mind - EXACTLY like the Mormon trying to rehabilitate his gay son.. He just will not accept that some people prefer other things.. His mind will just NOT go there. It just won't.

25

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 05:54:04 PM »

http://youtu.be/mmIjDfpTeMc?t=17m7s

Here we go.. debunked again.. I mean what is the point of putting explosives under the building? Well, that is how you get it to fall completely.

And Jet fuel caused the walls to crack?

In order to have an explosion you need trapped pressure, so:

A plane hit a building, the jet fuel enters an elevator shaft, goes all the way to the bottom, and then explodes? Why wouldn't it just burn?


http://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w?t=5m41s

Now this is good stuff. I got nothing here. It seems good. I still don't see it falling symmetrically, but this is the best explanation I have ever seen that makes any sense.


http://youtu.be/YxljFOCZ6TU?t=11m24s

This is good stuff too.. (I am linking to the exact time frames to save you time)

Like I said I stopped researching 9/11 and I am pretty sure this video came AFTER I stopped. Seems to show a plane..


Hrmm.. Well seems to kill off two "smoking guns" I had.. WTC7 and the Pentagon.. I can say I am definitely a lot less sure.

I still find it amazing that 3 buildings fell symmetrically .. but that's all I got.

26

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 05:21:30 PM »

evidence that steel can be weakened by a jet fuel fire.

Like here ya go.. Debunked right?

No so fast, they put 800 gallons underneath 1 I beam. But WTC1&2 had D beams They were 4 1/2 inches thick at the bottom and 2 1/2 thick at the top of the building. They are also in a grid pattern and were interlocked.

Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned in the explosion:


And at any rate, the steal would not have weakened uniformly causing the building to completely pulverize. It would have FELL OVER like a JENGA BOARD..

27

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 05:00:20 PM »

Your premise is ridiculous right off the bat.

But of course it is. Because you are denying any path to logical reason. Anything I say while I have my position and you know what my position is you will just not accept.

There was nothing uniform about it.

Umm, you don't seem to understand the meaning of uniform failure. Did one side of the building collapse differently causing the building to topple to one side? Nope. It fell uniformly. Magically, all the supports failed in similar fashion to produce a straight down effect.

I mean seriously, you are going to say that this is not uniform?

Debris scattered and severely damaged buildings all around it (not just WTC 7).

Seems to me you are mistaking uniform and orderly.

It looked like a Jenga game in slow motion to me, exactly what I would expect based on the damage it experienced.

SERIOUSLY? JENGA ALWAYS FALLS OVER TO ONE SIDE!

There's nothing bizarre to anyone about how they collapsed except truthers, and I can't for the life of me fathom why.

Because you are working backwards. It sounds like people claiming that light bulbs "suck up the darkness" instead of emitting light.

And... WTF? Why are you comparing it to demolitions? That begs the question.

Again, you are making mental links and denying my argument because you don't want to go there. I am using failed demolitions because they all have 1 thing in common, parts, but not all, of the structure was compromised. How doesn't matter. One building has the bottom 6-8 floors completely blown up. It then falls 60-80 feet, hits the ground. Now if you follow the rules exhibited on 9/11 the building should crumble from all the floors above it smashing down - but this doesn't happen. The whole building falls then hits the ground, smashes 1-2 floors, comes to a rest and stops.

What relevance could those videos possibly have? Compare it to videos of giant skyscrapers hit by the largest jet planes in existence full of jet fuel.

Umm.. It shows how buildings do not fail uniformly. Really? You are going to just rely on the whole jet fuel thing? WTC 1-2 were DESIGNED to be HIT by a FULLY LOADED 747. And, it remained standing for about an hour after it was hit. So how long do you think jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire burns?

You just keep on reaching.. I mean you want 5 so bad that every 2 numbers adds to five.. 1+1=5 1+2=5 1+3=5 2+1=5

This is as frustrating and pointless as arguing with someone about their religion. Why, oh why, did I even start this conversation with any hope for a rational discussion after having managed to largely avoid it for over a decade?

You are not even trying to have a logic debate. Nor have you ever. You were never open-minded. I might as well try to convince a catholic priest that homosexuality isn't a sin on your behalf. He will just keep pointing to Corinthians.. but in this case, you are the priest. You are using FAITH and not REASON to get to your opinion. Which is fine - call it your belief but don't call it logical.

28

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 03:14:58 PM »

That's pretty much been my position. People spend a lot of time researching this topic and that's an investment of time I just never understood.

You don't understand why people would look for positive proof their government needs to be replaced?

To me it's like if I knew there was this psycho killer on the loose and we knew with 100% certainty, I mean ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE AND HE TOOK PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY, that he had murdered 20 innocent people and yet no one cared somehow. Then one more murder happens and it's not clear whether he did it and a bunch of people get obsessed, I mean OBSESSED with proving he did as if that would be what makes the difference in swaying people.

It isn't tho. Many people do not think that "government is bad." No one would condone killing 3000 civilians tho.

I finally broke down and went to the trouble of watching those two debunking videos that I've already linked and every single point that Neal brought up as evidence is absolutely absurd--easily and thorougly debunked with a relatively small investment of time (not hours and hours of tedious research).

No they aren't. And you have that mental sickness too. Name me the one structure with 1000's of interconnecting supports that fails uniformly - naturally. I mean if a structure such as you house just fell you would be curious as to how, but a building with a height of 1,368 ft falls completely symmetrically down in under 20 seconds and there is nothing strange in your mind? It happened again for WTC7, this time 741ft in ~8 seconds, still PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL?!

Here is how a building behaves normally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvWWp_Pi88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSPSgFNnMcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fms8r2dRu_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtIjUn7_erY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SR87czZOPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkblWwWP_do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6EhpVRWQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsV1wr52Ak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSH1vAtZoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnnBtKCYQsM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OR85XTk1Mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTZq1--2Jg

I'm not seeing the truther 9/11 version as being very likely at all. But so what? It still doesn't matter.

It does, because it means your thought patterns in the critically thinking area are severely compromised. Who knows - maybe you are not even gay...nah lol

There's still a proverbial crazy psycho killer on the loose. It's not like I switched sides over that one incident and now I'm suddenly pro-government. I'm a freakin' anarchist for crying out loud. I still see politicians and the powerful people who control them as lying, greedy, murderous bastards.

Maybe, but that still doesn't much work. The problem that plagues governments will infect anything involving mankind. It doesn't much matter. It has to do with not wanting to give up a sure thing for a better thing. So even a system of anarchy can corrupt itself into anything. In fact, since I consider anarchy the lowest form of "governance" on the evolutionary scale, it is certain that anarchy was the original system. That system spawned into what we have. So in the same way this guy says this:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

-Lysander Spooner

Same thing can be said about anarchy..

I just had someone link me to over three hours of video and "challenge" me to deny the evidence or some such. OVER THREE HOURS! The first minute went by of emotional music playing and buzz words slowly coming out of the screen and I knew this person had no respect for my time and was just preaching to the already thoroughly religious crowd of 9/11 truthers who will sit through those tedious 3+ hours of hyper-emotional video and feel like they're going to change the world with this amazing revelation.

WOAH WOAH WOAH.. No wonder you have your head up your ass. A 3 hour documentary stresses your mind that much? Plus there is a fast forward.

But you don't need to watch all that. JUST CRITICALLY THINK. In what scenario does a structure collapse IN UNIFORM?

Imagine watching a radio tower fall uniform.. how does it do that? Well in has WIRES that keep it from going too far one direction. Now how could a building do that without the wires?

And don't you dare cop out like "you dunno". Or you are "just some silly fag" and what do you know about structures.. This is common sense shit. If you build a WTC1 model out of BALSA WOOD and PAPER (and spray it with a heavy fire retardant), then smash into it with a model 767 and then pour jet fuel in it and set it on fire - At what point are you expecting it to completely crumble at the same time?

Just accept Christ as your savior and you will be saved!

OMG please tell me you are fucking joking..

29

General / Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories

« on: January 24, 2014, 03:11:45 AM »

Dood... how long did you spend on that post?

I dunno - 10 minutes? I am very well versed in 9/11 hoopla..

I do agree with the "FTL" position of it obviously doesn't matter. Whatever the truth is - people don't care. I remember from like 2003 til like 2010 I tried convincing everyone. It is just impossible.

ALL BULLSHIT ASIDE the problem is really this:

If people admit that 9/11 was done by the government then that means that the government has run afoul, and that means GREAT HARDSHIP and HUGE RESPONSIBILITY is now required.

So it is just easier for people to say it's all bullshit and people with box cutters hijacked planes and ran them into buildings -

GAME ON! You going to watch the game? Stop talking about fag stuff.. (Idiocracy reference)

30

General / Re: Is it okay to rape Hitler? Joffrey?

« on: January 23, 2014, 06:56:04 PM »

Not, Hitler, no.

But, Joffrey is an asshole. So yes.

LOL you are not serious..