Well, who wouldn't resent it?
By the way, sir, you're delusional.
Posted on 12/16/2004 9:12:06 AM PST by jmcclain19
I'll agree with him on that, but only because the United States was not defeated. We were hit, but we are far from defeated.
To my mind, nobody has ever seriously looked at the performance of the fire suppression systems in those buildings. There were a lot of rumors at the time that they had been sabotaged as part of the plan. Of course, such a thing would be relatively easy to do, and is no indicator of a large government-abetted conspiracy.
Surely there is no way that a moving truck full of explosives brought down the federal building in Oklahoma City then.
Weren't there similar conspiracy theories about that too, additional explosions that were allegedly heard? Wasn't Clinton president then?
A quick Google:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
But it's SO much more fun to hear of how this guy wastes his money instead.
$3M so far... LOL.
Well, who wouldn't resent it?
By the way, sir, you're delusional.
If my dad had left me 11 million and I was pissing it away like this he'd reach out of the grave and slap me stupid(er)!
Is this nut job the son of THE Jim Walter? Purveyor of fine cardboard castles.
Those hovels were the precursor to the double wide and built even worse.
Brother Dave Gardner used to crack jokes about "them Jim Walter homes."
Cool! Good link to refute these conspiracy theorists.
The one engineer in it should apply for the 100G prize. hehe Say, "Oh yeah, I just came up with this! Yeah, that's the ticket...."
This blowhard should look at the engineering studies that went into the construction of the twin towers. The architects were very up-front about saying that a collision of an airliner (they modeled based on a Boeing 707) would bring the towers down after four hours, as the fire degraded the steel. It was thought at the time that this would leave sufficient time for evacuation using helicopters from the roof.
As it turns out, they were off by a few hours, but a few things changed from their model. For one thing, the fireproofing was replaced with a less effective non-asbestos subsitute. Also, the fuel load of the 757s was considerably more than the fuel load they used in the 707 model. Also each of the two turbofan engines of the 757s were much bigger and heavier than any of the four engines of a 707.
In any case, the original engineering analysis seems pretty close to right on the money to me. Crash airliners into those buildings, and they will burn for a period of time, and eventually fall down. The difference between one and four hours means the analysis was 99% right.
Anybody that uses this basis to collect owes me 20%...
I don't think sprinkler systems are designed to survive the impact of a fully loaded jumbo jet. I've always found that cutting pipes in half limits their ability to pump water or anything else.
You are so cute!
Wouldn't it make more sense for this whack job to spend his daddy's money proving:
1. That TWA800 blew up the way the government says it did.
2. That the middle-eastern looking guy who rented the truck with McVeigh was really just a film anomoly and the guy really doesn't exist.
Why would I take seriesly an article written by one of The Three Stooges?
www.stoogeworld.com/_Biographies/Larry.htm
Wasn't Clinton president then?
Government conspiracies are only possible when a Democrat is President.
For some extra moonbat brownie points, be sure to also throw in that the Mossad was also involved.
Osama says he did it. Does he get the 100K award?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.