• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know it says something about me--something very bad--but I'd invite this guy to appear on the show if I didn't think he'd rip all of us apart with his teeth.

There are loons, and there are loons, but this...

See it? Touch it; kiss it. It's the mother lode--the mother lode.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You are placing side bets on me putting this up, aren't you?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Again, I apologize for thrusting reality into your universe, but the BBC did explain how the story about the hijackers was a case of mistaken identities. I know how silly I am to attempt this, but imagine for a moment that you possessed critical thinking skills (please, don't ask). How long would it take you to figure out that a real conspiracy would not allow any of its patsies to remain alive?
 
Civilized Worm said:
Wow, that makes no sense.


What's so racist about "jap"? Should I be offended if someone calls me a "scot"?
Click to expand...
"jap" tends to be used in a derogatory manner a lot, although since it is a natural shortening of japananese its also used by peopel who dont mean it in a bad way

i cant think of anything else to equate it with, but to some people its no different than calling a chinese man a "chink"
 
defaultdotxbe said:
why the deck? as cptcolumbo mentioned angle of attack (not relative strength of the aircraft) is what makes this difficult

heres the side of that battleship again
[qimg]http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h98000/h98062.jpg[/qimg]

heres some info on the type of ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham_class_destroyer
Click to expand...

Aircraft carrier - battleship - destroyer, what's the difference.
Thickness of steel maybe. You have a shot of the damage caused by a plane full of explosives. How much greater would the damage have been, had the plane been full of passengers?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
"jap" tends to be used in a derogatory manner a lot, although since it is a natural shortening of japananese its also used by peopel who dont mean it in a bad way

i cant think of anything else to equate it with, but to some people its no different than calling a chinese man a "chink"
Click to expand...
It was used in a derogatory way during WWII, and has been akin to the "n" word, maybe not that offensive, but still not a term of endearment. Considering the usual makeup of our truther friends, I would not be surprised if that's exactly the way he meant it.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
"jap" tends to be used in a derogatory manner a lot, although since it is a natural shortening of japananese its also used by peopel who dont mean it in a bad way

i cant think of anything else to equate it with, but to some people its no different than calling a chinese man a "chink"
Click to expand...


Speaking as a person of Japanese descent, I tend to view it as lazy more than offensive. There are certainly worse terms that can be used . . .
 
I'm confused. Is he claiming that wood is harder than metal, and therefore metal airplanes can't penetrate wood (unless the metal is pointy)?
 
pomeroo said:
Again, I apologize for thrusting reality into your universe, but the BBC did explain how the story about the hijackers was a case of mistaken identities. I know how silly I am to attempt this, but imagine for a moment that you possessed critical thinking skills (please, don't ask). How long would it take you to figure out that a real conspiracy would not allow any of its patsies to remain alive?
Click to expand...

That would depend on how bright the conspirators were. In the case of 9/11, just fractionally brighter than you.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Aircraft carrier - battleship - destroyer, what's the difference.
Thickness of steel maybe. You have a shot of the damage caused by a plane full of explosives. How much greater would the damage have been, had the plane been full of passengers?
Click to expand...
well, a zero weighed 5,313 pounds fully loaded and had a "never exceed" speed of 410 mph

a 767 weighs 176,000 pounds empty and f175 hit the WTC at 590 mph

i think the effect of explosives is overshadowed by the much greater force of a 767


BTW, what happened to "the japanese forgot to put pointed noses on the planes so they couldnt damage the ships" ?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Show me a jap kamikaze that got through a carrier deck (they were all made of wood) and I'll agree that half the hijackers are not still alive.
Click to expand...

16 April 1945: Kamikaze struck Intrepid's flight deck. The engine and part of her fuselage went right on through to the hanger deck, killing 8 men and wounding 21. In less than an hour the flaming gasoline had been extinguished and within 3 hours after the crash planes were again landing on the carrier. Repaired San Francisco 19 May to 29 June 1945. On 6 August her planes attacked Wake Island as a "live fire" exercise, her last combat operation of the war.
Click to expand...
tech-042_Intrepid_pic.jpg


Several such photos of different ships here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm


I take it that we now have your agreement that the 9/11 hijackers are not alive. Correct?
 
Yes, he IS the mother lode! Pedophiles, foil planes, living hijackers, drone planes from Nebraska, pods... Is there any idiocy Malcolm won't buy into?

Well, beam weapons, perhaps, but still...

I take that back, though, because he still hasn't given us any theories about the other tower, WTC7, the Pentagon, or Flight 93. Chances are his stupidity will run the gamut from uh to duh.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Aircraft carrier - battleship - destroyer, what's the difference.
Thickness of steel maybe. You have a shot of the damage caused by a plane full of explosives. How much greater would the damage have been, had the plane been full of passengers?
Click to expand...

Backtracking are you?

You said that the kamikaze had troble penetrating a wooden deck yet have been shown one that penetrated a steel hull. So ante up and admit that all of the hijackers are dead.

Now, had the kamakazee aircraft been a 100,000 pound aluminum aircraft travelling at 500 MPH rather than the paltry 250- 300 MPH that they were, it would have almost cut the ship in half and rolled the remains over so hard that it would have sunk in seconds.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
That would depend on how bright the conspirators were. In the case of 9/11, just fractionally brighter than you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're not getting away so lightly. Imagine that the conspirators are one intelligence-level above you. In other words, they are morons. Would they allow any of their patsies to remain alive and expose the whole scheme?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom