Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No shit. So it looks like you owe me an apology for insulting me for saying the towers were mosly air, doesn't it?Ummmm.....when any skyscraper collapses the debris pile will be shorter than the building. That is why they call it a "collapse."
Sorry. I didn't know you had the franchise for insulting people on the internet.Dumbass. (And stop trying to shoplift my style you ignorant fuckwad)
Why should I ignore it? I said it first. Dumbass.Also, you're ignoring the fact he said the twin towers were "mostly air." Ignore that again you cocksucking crybaby.
No shit. So it looks like you owe me an apology for insulting me for saying the towers were mosly air, doesn't it?Ummmm.....when any skyscraper collapses the debris pile will be shorter than the building. That is why they call it a "collapse."
But you won't.
Sorry. I didn't know you had the franchise for insulting people on the internet.Dumbass. (And stop trying to shoplift my style you ignorant fuckwad)
Dumbass.
Why should I ignore it? I said it first. Dumbass.Also, you're ignoring the fact he said the twin towers were "mostly air." Ignore that again you cocksucking crybaby.
Can't help but notice, though, that while you called me a dumbass for saying it, you praise George for saying the same thing.
Oh, yeah, that's because you're a blind partisan hack. Not to mention a dumbass.
Oh, no, I understand. You're nothing but knee-jerk opposition to conservatives and slavish, unthinking support for fellow leftists.George didn't say the same thing but don't let "sub-atomic" nuke your nano-size cognition.
No, I didn't explain the time of the collapse. Dumbass. I explained that buildings are mostly empty space.You tried explaining the time of collapse by saying the towers were "mostly air" you fucking joke. It's just too stoopid to even entertain anymore.
Oh, no, I understand. You're nothing but knee-jerk opposition to conservatives and slavish, unthinking support for fellow leftists.George didn't say the same thing but don't let "sub-atomic" nuke your nano-size cognition.
No, I didn't explain the time of the collapse. Dumbass. I explained that buildings are mostly empty space.You tried explaining the time of collapse by saying the towers were "mostly air" you fucking joke. It's just too stoopid to even entertain anymore.
Perhaps you can explain why the volume of rubble was much, much smaller than the towers themselves.Oh, no, I understand. You're nothing but knee-jerk opposition to conservatives and slavish, unthinking support for fellow leftists.George didn't say the same thing but don't let "sub-atomic" nuke your nano-size cognition.
No, I didn't explain the time of the collapse. Dumbass. I explained that buildings are mostly empty space.You tried explaining the time of collapse by saying the towers were "mostly air" you fucking joke. It's just too stoopid to even entertain anymore.
yes, a truly inane, meaningless line lifted right from the pages of popular mechanics
Perhaps you can explain why the volume of rubble was much, much smaller than the towers themselves.Oh, no, I understand. You're nothing but knee-jerk opposition to conservatives and slavish, unthinking support for fellow leftists.
No, I didn't explain the time of the collapse. Dumbass. I explained that buildings are mostly empty space.
yes, a truly inane, meaningless line lifted right from the pages of popular mechanics
Put up or shut up, dumbass. I grow tired of the Troofer retardery.
What is it with you retards that you're incapable of debating what people actually say?Perhaps you can explain why the volume of rubble was much, much smaller than the towers themselves.yes, a truly inane, meaningless line lifted right from the pages of popular mechanics
Put up or shut up, dumbass. I grow tired of the Troofer retardery.
no one is saying a building has no empty space within it walls..but empty space does not break heavy steel columns and pulverize concrete now does it...duhman
what is it with you retards that you're incapable of debating what people actually say?perhaps you can explain why the volume of rubble was much, much smaller than the towers themselves.
Put up or shut up, dumbass. I grow tired of the troofer retardery.
no one is saying a building has no empty space within it walls..but empty space does not break heavy steel columns and pulverize concrete now does it...duhman
Wait...i think i just answered my own question.
No shit. So it looks like you owe me an apology for insulting me for saying the towers were mosly air, doesn't it?Ummmm.....when any skyscraper collapses the debris pile will be shorter than the building. That is why they call it a "collapse."
But you won't.
Sorry. I didn't know you had the franchise for insulting people on the internet.Dumbass. (And stop trying to shoplift my style you ignorant fuckwad)
Dumbass.
Why should I ignore it? I said it first. Dumbass.Also, you're ignoring the fact he said the twin towers were "mostly air." Ignore that again you cocksucking crybaby.
Can't help but notice, though, that while you called me a dumbass for saying it, you praise George for saying the same thing.
Oh, yeah, that's because you're a blind partisan hack. Not to mention a dumbass.
Oh, no, I understand. You're nothing but knee-jerk opposition to conservatives and slavish, unthinking support for fellow leftists.George didn't say the same thing but don't let "sub-atomic" nuke your nano-size cognition.
No, I didn't explain the time of the collapse. Dumbass. I explained that buildings are mostly empty space.You tried explaining the time of collapse by saying the towers were "mostly air" you fucking joke. It's just too stoopid to even entertain anymore.
Tell it to CurveLight. He called me a dumbass for pointing it out.what is it with you retards that you're incapable of debating what people actually say?no one is saying a building has no empty space within it walls..but empty space does not break heavy steel columns and pulverize concrete now does it...duhman
Wait...i think i just answered my own question.
you want to debate if empty space is contained within a building ???
Lol! Dishonest fuckfart! You claimed the towers were "hollow and mostly air" regarding the collapse you useless twat rot.
It was the thousands of tons of falling structural steel and concrete. Dumbass.Looking around my 400 square foot apartment I notice it is mostly air. Possibly the core area of each tower was also mostly air,but that doesn't explain what moved thousands of tons of structural steel and pulverized concrete out of the way as the towers collapsed.
How does Newton's Third Law "demand" that?In the cases of WTC 1 & 2 "mostly air" doesn't begin to explain why the towers didn't fall to the sides damaged by aircraft as Newton's Third Law demands.
Tell it to CurveLight. He called me a dumbass for pointing it out.what is it with you retards that you're incapable of debating what people actually say?
Wait...i think i just answered my own question.
you want to debate if empty space is contained within a building ???
You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
if they're not, how can you explain the volume disparity between the standing buildings and the pile of debris?Tell it to CurveLight. He called me a dumbass for pointing it out.you want to debate if empty space is contained within a building ???
No. I called you a dumbass for saying the towers were "hollow and mostly air."
Where did I mention time, dumbass?You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
So it had nothing to do with the time of the collapse? Lol! Dishonest dumbass!
What would have contained enough force to push the whole top of the tower to the side to make it get to the empty space you claim it should have fallen through?I watched a video of one of the towers collapsing and in the beginning it began to collapse to the side of the aircraft impact then mid-collapse literally got pulled back erect to go straight down with the rest of the tower. The path of least resistance was the empty space between the top of the tower and the ground. What contained enough force to pull it out of the path of least resistance?
What would have contained enough force to push the whole top of the tower to the side to make it get to the empty space you claim it should have fallen through?I watched a video of one of the towers collapsing and in the beginning it began to collapse to the side of the aircraft impact then mid-collapse literally got pulled back erect to go straight down with the rest of the tower. The path of least resistance was the empty space between the top of the tower and the ground. What contained enough force to pull it out of the path of least resistance?
Science simply isn't on your side, Slappy. No matter how much you stamp your feet and pout.
