wc3edit.net

You think?

_________________
My Warcraft III Tool Collection
If you want to chat/game with me:
Blizzard: Senethior459#1962
Discord: Kyle#7409
Steam: Spacekidkyle

american don't want to join in the world war 3. that why our government is gonna create something to make us mad and want to join in like what they did on december 7 1941. and like 9-11. same shyt they will get some1 to attack on american soil and than have the media talk about it days and night making america wanna go to WAR.

it's call Weapon of mass distraction. there never were any weapon of mass destruction.

the media is a powerful tool. 60 percent of the american population will believe most of the stuff they say on TV .

our government use the media to scare us.

things they say on the NEWS like american soilder have been kill by some terrorist in iraq. that is just to scare the american people or making them more angry at the terrorist. therefore they can use them excuses to keep the war going.

Wow. The media is separate from the government. First Amendment: Freedom of the press. They don't have to report what the gov't tells them to, and they usually won't. Sometimes the information they receive from the gov't has a spin on it, but honestly? Do you think there would be that many scandals if the gov't controlled the media? They'd be able to suppress it. Do you think Monica Lewinsky would have been known if the gov't controlled the news?
As long as they're watching the news from reputable sources like NBC, ABC, FOX, etc. then that's fine if people believe it. People believing what they see on Sci-fi is another. Have you ever heard about that radio version of War of the Worlds? Read up on what it caused. In retrospect, it's hilarious how gullible people can be.

Do you honestly believe that the American soldiers being killed in Iraq are made up stories? What the hell are you on? Get this: they actually die. They actually are killed by terrorists.
If you think about it though, we are too. We invaded their land and attacked their gov't and people. Doesn't that make us terrorists, too? People are hypocrites. Interestingly enough, by the way, in Newsweek last week, I saw an article that hypocrisy is a conscious thought pattern. If you need to, say, remember a 7-digit number while you're judging something, you're going to be a lot more honest.
The government didn't "create" something to influence us to join the world wars. Iraq... A little. That was part anger, part grief, and part idiocy (guess who THAT came from!).
They didn't GET someone to attack us in 2001. That was just... I don't know. Them attacking, I guess. It wasn't paid by the government, though. They could have done it much better if it was. There were gov't offices in the WTC, also. Stop spouting out conspiracy theories, and start using rational LOGIC.

----------------
Now playing: R.E.M. - It's the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine)
via FoxyTunes

_________________
My Warcraft III Tool Collection
If you want to chat/game with me:
Blizzard: Senethior459#1962
Discord: Kyle#7409
Steam: Spacekidkyle

Pretty much it's the reverse of what hyper said. The media controls the government by buying out a few of the senators and congress members such as the corporate media company "RIAA". Who else could go into a foreign country such as Switzerland and force their police to take over the TPB servers in which the Switzerland law states that Sharing of Data is NOT Illegal. The American government did that's who. They only did it because the RIAA can afford to pay a pretty penny to con politicians that would more than happily take an extra mil or 2 to their gross salary.

9-11? Don't even get me started... That was a setup all to begin with. Osama Bin-Laden the leader of Al'Queda was in our country during the attack. He was hospitalized at the time. There was one plane spotted on radar 2 hours after both planes hit and all airports made it mandatory that no plane was to be in the air. That plane that Bin-Laden was on left a military base and flew overseas and they escorted him back with military jets, F-15's I would presume. Any body that thinks logically knows that any building that tall doesn't fall straight. The only way for any building to even consider falling straight is through the use of demolitions (dynamite at the support beams). Those towers were built to survive a 7.0 richter scale earthquake and your gonna tell me a plane that hits the upper stories is gonna make it fall? I laugh at the people who believe that shit. You can watch any building that has been lit on fire and when it starts to fall it slides to one side. Heat doesn't equal out over areas, especially an area such as that. The fact that they both fell the same way and were hit at completely different angles should give you the impression that something doesn't add up. One plane hit an an upward angle giving it at least an 8 degree slope downward. The other hit a lil bit downward giving the building a slight 2 degree anlge upward and yet they both fall straight down. They said that the fuel would melt the beams. The last time I checked if you take a gas can and light it on fire, every ounce of gasonline explodes. So where the hell is all of that intense heat coming from? Anything that is steel would take several hours to even become that hot through the processes of normal materials burning, it's called chemistry. If that doesn't strike you as enough, what about this? How come when it fell all stories fell with the ground level falling first? If the top floors fell first and sunk in to hit the lower floors it still wouldn't have enough force to make the building fall. When they showed it falling it fell about a second off from the 9.8 m/s that everything falls and thats called free falling. The only way to free fall is if you had no support underneath you, easily telling you that it fell from the ground and since the ground floors had no damage in the first place it means demolitions were set prior. This confirms the reason why several "construction workers" had been walking in both buildings "examining" the supports for any wear and tear a week prior, it also explains why people in the substations heard what they said was a series of events of booms. If you have anything that can prove these things false, please say, because I can go at this all day. I'm logical, not practical.


No one wants to do the research and that is why the media can provoke wars to start. Most of the people who run the media are dumbasses, but the people who watch it 24/7 and believe every last word are the king of the crop. The Monica Lewinski deal, haha, it's called Republican politics. They would have thrown that out there to begin with. The same with dumbass Cheney shooting his best friend at a hunting range where the animals are fenced in. If you were VP or even the President wouldn't you want to cover that up? Why of course, but the democrats are in office and they want that stuff to be wide-spread too. It's all a mind game man. If you screw up they are gonna try to nail you to the cross the best they can.

_________________
Do you support Durchdringen? If so, add the spoiler to your sig. Durch cares for you, so show your support for Durch!

There was a US military plane a few hours after, but it didn't have Osama bin Laden. It had other bin Ladens though. Bush was getting them out of the country, even though the FAA had declared planes couldn't fly, to protect their safety. He got the bin Laden family the hell out of here, and the FBI couldn't even check them. Actually, even though all planes were grounded, it went around the country, picked up a bunch of people, and then left. The FBI couldn't hold them for questioning, because they weren't in the country anymore.
Booms in the subway- sonic booms? I doubt it... If you think about it, subways resonate sound extremely well. A collapsing building is likely to make some unusual noises. Support beams snapping could make the type of noise that in a subway could be interpreted as an explosion.

The gas doesn't explode... Read up on your own physics. Gas doesn't burn. Not at ALL. Pour gas on the ground, and drop a match in. It won't light. Wait a few minutes, until it's gotten smaller, and THEN drop a match in. Then you'll get flames. Gasoline WILL NOT BURN. Gasoline vapors burn. The only reason gas explodes in the movies is... it doesn't, they have explosives set up.
If liquid gas doesn't burn, it could very well weaken the support beams. Plus, airplane fuel is a much stronger version of gas, so it's probably going to corrode the supports pretty well. And there's a lot of it, since the flights were all from the east coast going to California, nonstop. That's a lot of fuel. Obviously, some burned, and the fumes that were given off burnt when they evaporated, but most of the flames were from the materials in the building.
The building collapsed downward because the supports were weakened on all sides. The flames didn't melt them enough, though you're right. Heat isn't transferred equally, but it radiates from a source, so it's unlikely that it fell that way because of the flames. If the flames are hot enough, it won't actually take as long as usual to melt something. Try boiling water at very low heat, then go build a bonfire and boil it. Big difference.
No, something else weakened the supports. I'm inclined to believe that the gasoline did that, and maybe it reacted with the air, or asbestos, or something, but it ended up eating away the supports.
If the top part of it falls on something... Even just the top part was heavy. If it collapsed on the bottom parts, the lower supports could just have catastrophic failure.
It is a little illogical how it appeared, but things aren't always as they seem. For example, the JFK assassination. He was shot from the back and his head was thrown forward by the bullet, but then it snapped back. It can be proved with physics that there was only one shooter, yet some use that as a reason for there being two snipers there. It may have looked like the bottom fell first, but I think that the bottom supports failed. They could support the weight of the top, but not if it fell onto it, even for just a moment or two. As you said, the rate of acceleration of objects on earth is 9.81 meters per second. That would be a pretty big shock when the top collapsed, it could very well cause the bottom supports to give way.
Sorry, but I'm not buying into any of the theories. It was a terrorist attack, but less people died in it than most of our attacks on "them". We aren't attacking them, we're attacking their land. And the natives are getting pissed, and fighting back. We're creating our own enemies in this war. You wonder why people don't like us? Maybe it's because after one attack on us, with a few thousand killed, we decide to invade their country and kill quite a few more. I feel sorry for the people that got killed on 9/11, but we seriously overreacted on that one. We should have improved security after that, not become paranoid (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (Yeah, it's an acronym. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)), and we shouldn't have gone on the offense. Using it as an excuse to start a war to get rid of someone is not a good way to earn respect among the world...

----------------
Now playing: Theory of a Deadman - Bad Girlfriend
via FoxyTunes

_________________
My Warcraft III Tool Collection
If you want to chat/game with me:
Blizzard: Senethior459#1962
Discord: Kyle#7409
Steam: Spacekidkyle

The subway stuff. The booms weren't contained in the lower section of the building. The WTC Towers were built 6 floors underground as their foundation. They did that to evenly distribute the weight and have a lot of force throwing anything back up to the top so that it all equaled out. If a support brace were to snap they would not have heard it from where they were at. It is very unlikely that the supports snapped equally on a few floors. If they were to snap in an uncontrolled environment one side would snap or the other one would. Not both sides at the same time so that it could fall straight downward. If it was a smaller building I could see it, but to be 100+ stories tall, it's a long shot.

Lol, liquid gas doesn't burn. Ok, do me a favor and prove it to me. Put one leg in a 3 gallon bucket filled to the top with gasoline and drop a lit match in it. You gotta video tape it though and let's see what happens. Once the vapors catch fire all of it catches fire, maybe you need to research your physics Jet fuel burns much hotter and faster than gasoline which is why it would have exploded and burned almost every ounce in a matter of 10 mins. The buildings didn't last an hour before they collapsed.

Here is a building that burned in China, it was Shanghai's World Financial Center and it burned from the 40th floor all the way up to the 101'st floor. It was on fire for 2 HOURS and did not fall. Why? Because it wasn't rigged that's why. The Twin Towers were built with a better structure than that building. Not convinced yet? How about the Windsor Tower located in Madrid? It burned for a total of 28 hours and still stood standing. Why? Do I need to explain any more. The WTC was rigged man. No other steel structured building has fell in a matter of an hour without the help of demolitions. Hell even a house can't fall that quick unless every last bit of it is smothered in kerosine or gas. You can shoot out your so called facts all day. Logic is far smarter than what you get off the news. The great Harry Houdini said "What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." Put a bit of know how and logic and you can defeat that crap. I have no idea where you got the abestos either lol. Abestos was required to be mandatorily removed from all public buildings about 10 years ago because it was so carcinogenic and more than half of it was removed from both all the WTC buildings. Anything above the 40th floor and more did not contain any in the first place because of the amount of money they had spent in the first place. Also abestos was used as a fire prevention method in the first place, thats why so many schools, churches, and other public buildings contained it. So we can rule that one out.

The falling of the building from the top. That building was mostly made of glass in the first place. Sure it had concrete in it, but the steel-structure was more than enough to hold it up. If either could withstand a 7.0 on the Richter scale I would very comfortable in saying that 20+ floors on top of it hitting it would not budge it. Anything on the top would have snapped like toothpicks anyways from the intense heat it had suffered from the initial blow. Also if a plane that came in a 400+ mph hit it at the upper floors and it didn't sway enough to even cause major structural damage, it wasn't gonna fall. A 7.0 Earthquake is huge. A 6.9 caused havoc in China, so just think of the forces in that and compare it to a measly jet flying in and hitting it. Then compare 56 mins of total blazing time. If you think it would fall then my friend you and several other people aren't observing the situation as good as I am.

_________________
Do you support Durchdringen? If so, add the spoiler to your sig. Durch cares for you, so show your support for Durch!

the stories of american soilder getting kill are not made up but why don't they ever tell you about the innocent lives that are involved in it. and there ton of video on youtube that show how abusive american troop are to the iraqi people. those should be on the front pages of the news papar. but do we see that more or we see more of how they keep saying terrorist this terrorist that. if it's freedom of speech than why does you get arrested for asking the government question. have u heard about the incident at the university of florida? when this guy asked john kerry about the skull and bones and he got arrested for it.
Freedom of speech being abused in the hall of education. <<<<<<<<<<<<


Don't Taze me BRO!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlnIkhYCS4w

The liquid never burns, it's actually the gasoline vapors that mix with air and burn. Because gasoline is volatile, there are always some vapors present and the fuel can be lit. The gas gas is what burns. That's why cars mix air with gas, you need oxygen to undergo combustion also, not just the fumes. The liquid gas could have lasted long enough to react unfavorably with materials in the building. I suggested asbestos because I remembered that there was some in the building, and people were worried when it came down. And I was saying perhaps it reacted with the gas and something bad happened. The fireproofing would have helped against the fire, but how reactive is the stuff?

It's possible that it fell straight on its own. I don't remember the specifics of why it did that... I forgot most of what I read right after I read it, it was a rather boring book. Have you ever read the 9/11 Commission? It's the findings of a committee that studied the events of 9/11. It had a bit about the towers and why they fell because a large plane hit them.

Subways are underground, foundations are underground. Even if the foundations were lower, them snapping could have caused a large enough vibration that it could be heard in the subway.
It may have been designed to survive an earthquake, but that's a little different from part of the top collapsing down onto the rest of it. The top falling on the rest could cause the next few floors to fall, and it would just stack up as it fell.

I really don't feel like arguing about the towers, so I'm going to step out of this argument, unless the topic changes for the third time.

----------------
Now playing: Red Hot Chili Peppers - Love Rollercoaster
via FoxyTunes

_________________
My Warcraft III Tool Collection
If you want to chat/game with me:
Blizzard: Senethior459#1962
Discord: Kyle#7409
Steam: Spacekidkyle

Senet is avoiding important fact and question lolz. America need to wake up
find out the truth about 9-11.

Lol, I can argue all day

The Twin Towers were the first skyscrapers to EVER fall from any sort of fire. They were the only buildings to fall quicker than 1 hour after being lit on fire. They were designed to be hit by a minimum of a Boeing 707 since at that time it was the biggest jet, but they knew there was gonna be a bigger jet such as the Boeing 757 so they planned ahead. Every ounce of jet fuel would have burned off in the impact.

I understand what your saying about the liquid of gas not being able to burn, but that is not the case in this scenario. When the planes hit they immediately exploded upon impact, meaning every drop of fuel went up with it. Steel is rated at a melting point of 3000 degrees F before. Jet fuel only tops at about 1300 degrees F, far from what it would take to melt any steel. The amount of heat that was registered from satellite infared was only 1500 degrees F. At the basement level when they so called "booms" were heard, there was a sign of 3500 degrees F for brief periods, meaning that explosive dynamite was placed inside the building. 2 weeks prior to the attack bomb-sniffing dogs were not allowed into the buildings. Why?

Before that day data shows that more than 4 times the daily average of put-options (A bet that a stocks will fall) was put on each of the major airlines. Some put options were more than 10 times the daily average. Why? in July 2001, 2 months, before the towers were hit the Land Lord Larry Silverstein who had already ownedTower 7 signed a 3.2 Billion 99 year lease on insurance that specifically covered "Terrorism." Why would he do that then?

Before the towers were hit a 10 wheeled truck that was moving gold from under Tower 4 in a service tunnel and was found under Tower 5. It as heavily secured with armed forces. It was estimated that over 120 Billion dollars worth of gold was kept under Tower 4. Under 300 million dollars was retrieved in the wreckage after the towers fell. One company has proof through computer records that it had invested over 950 million dollars worth of gold. More than 80 companies stored gold under the towers. So where is the rest? The computer mainframes that had thought to have been destroyed was invested by a german data recovery company in which New York made it mandatory for all records to be backed up in financial businesses. The Business brokers of the Trade Centers kept saying that all data was destroyed. Well it was found out that illegal trading had been done 2 weeks prior to the 9-11 event and Billions of dollars were stored in hundreds of off-shore accounts. Why would anyone do this?

I'll tell you why, because it had been planned out from Point A. People who can't think for themselves believe everything they hear in the media and don't look at the wide view point of things. If steel takes 3000 degrees Fahrenheit to melt, then why would it even begin to collapse. If they were the first two skyscrapers to have ever fallen why did they fall so quick, when taller buildings had been on fire for longer? Why would anyone move the largest stock pile of gold 2 weeks before the incident occured? The "terrorists" that were said to have been killed, lol, 9 of them have been proven to be found living. 9 out of 19 thats 47% lol. The funny thing is, there is no proof of who the actual hijackers were, except a passport, that survived the fire. Are you gonna believe that, when 3 black boxes were found and the data was destroyed? Black boxes are made of the strongest metals known to man and keep all the important information for the planes flight such as altitude, speed, heading, etc. The data inside is protected by a simple mechanism. When the box is impacted it takes the hit from inside to outside so that the middle (data location) is not harmed. They have ran so many tests on these black boxes that no data has EVER been destroyed. No black boxes have EVER been destroyed by a fire of any type and this has been tested extensively.

9-11 was the biggest setup from the American government so that a lot of rich and wealthy business owners could become richer. Most of those business owners are your very own President, his Vice President, and the Bush brothers.

It amazes me how we have the most advanced technology in the world where we can allow planes to fly by themselves, have satellites monitor the movement of almost anything, yet we cannot find 1 man. A man that is 6 foot 8 inches tall, wears a turbin, has a beard, and lives in Afghanistan. Our Satellites can detect heat measurement several miles under the earth's surface. But we can't find one man? Doesn't that seem strange to you also?

I understand why you don't want to participate in this argument, and don't take this as any offense because it's not. I back up my statements with a lot of facts and a lot of logic. It's hard to fight those, but I always try to get the truth out of subjects like these. And when people see the truth behind it, they begin to realize what a setup 9-11 truly was.

_________________
Do you support Durchdringen? If so, add the spoiler to your sig. Durch cares for you, so show your support for Durch!