Off Topic

Osama bin Laden dead

140 replies · 1,920 views
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
 
 
 
?????
 
 
 

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tards redefine the term "kissing cousins".

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
While some conspiracy theories could well be true I find few things more painful than people who want to believe them and then get into it and start believing them because of that.

And Robb, your joke about the sanitarium made me lol (literally out loud, well done).
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Leggy wrote:
Nz Seb wrote:
Wake up man. You really think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a war on terror? That is bollocks. 9/11 gave the US an excuse to get into the middle east. What does the middle east have that the US would benefit from? Oil. You have got to realise that there are many people and many corporations that profit from war big time.



�

If brocolli was Iraq's main export we wouldn't be there.

�

Think about it. Who REALLY benefited from 9/11? The Middle East is in turmoil. What you dont hear on the news is the�MILLIONS of innocent civilians that have been pointlessly murdered as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

�

"Kill a couple of us, you're a devil, if you kill a couple million of them, you? get stripes and medals"

"Kill a man from the military your a wierdo, kill a wog from the middle east your a hero"

�


Afghanistan does not have any oil.
The USA is the 3rd largest iol prudcers in the world.
Iraq is the 14th largest oil producer in the world.
Millions of people have NOT been killed in Iraq & Afghanistan. Thousands perhaps.
Get your facts right.


Iraq's the 12th largest producer of oil currently.

But in itself, that doesn't mean much - the critical issue is who has the most proven oil reserves. And the reality is that over half of the proven oil reserves are in the Middle East - Iraq's contribution to that is just over 8% of all the world's available reserves, but it's still much more than the less than 1.5% that the US has. Given that the US is easily the largest oil consumer in the world, it'd be foolish not to think that US interest in the Middle East is at least partly driven by the oil issue.
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
I�agree to disagree with most of you here. No hard feelings..
�

Whatever you believe about 9/11, I recommend watching the documentary "loose change"


�
You really believe America would go through all that trouble, only to let a few bored students sitting in their dorms let out the great secret?

20 legend2011-05-07 22:34:27
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Leggy wrote:
Nz Seb wrote:
Wake up man. You really think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a war on terror? That is bollocks. 9/11 gave the US an excuse to get into the middle east. What does the middle east have that the US would benefit from? Oil. You have got to realise that there are many people and many corporations that profit from war big time.



 

If brocolli was Iraq's main export we wouldn't be there.

 

Think about it. Who REALLY benefited from 9/11? The Middle East is in turmoil. What you dont hear on the news is the MILLIONS of innocent civilians that have been pointlessly murdered as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

"Kill a couple of us, you're a devil, if you kill a couple million of them, you get stripes and medals"

"Kill a man from the military your a wierdo, kill a wog from the middle east your a hero"

 


Afghanistan does not have any oil.
The USA is the 3rd largest iol prudcers in the world.
Iraq is the 14th largest oil producer in the world.
Millions of people have NOT been killed in Iraq & Afghanistan. Thousands perhaps.
Get your facts right.


Iraq's the 12th largest producer of oil currently.

But in itself, that doesn't mean much - the critical issue is who has the most proven oil reserves. And the reality is that over half of the proven oil reserves are in the Middle East - Iraq's contribution to that is just over 8% of all the world's available reserves, but it's still much more than the less than 1.5% that the US has. Given that the US is easily the largest oil consumer in the world, it'd be foolish not to think that US interest in the Middle East is at least partly driven by the oil issue.
 
Well said.
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago


It was released last year that Afghanistan maybe sitting on possibly the world's largest deposits of mineral wealth.

"Sharing rewards the weak"- Steven Colbert

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago


WASHINGTON � The United States has discovered
nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits
in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known
reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the
Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war
itself, according to senior American government officials.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

"Sharing rewards the weak"- Steven Colbert

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Lithium for batteries. Good market to be in atm.Azevo2011-05-08 18:11:24

We will never fully decide who has won the football.

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
timmymadden wrote:
Come on guys, engineers have been testing their buildings to ensure they don't collapse under the strain of being hit by aeroplanes for decades.

�



It's still bollocks.(my opinion)
You can believe anything you want.(or read)

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
timmymadden wrote:
Come on guys, engineers have been testing their buildings to ensure they don't collapse under the strain of being hit by aeroplanes for decades.

�

The contents of this blog have been rebutted and disproved in links others have already given you.

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Right. So its bollocks.. its bollocks even though this is coming from the mouth of the guy that designed the world trade centre towers. And what has been reputed exactly? You still havn't told me how a building that was not even hit by a plane came down through the area of most resistance at the SPEED OF GRAVITY. The government admits that it came down at freefall. Freefall means it was demoed. Its as simple as that. Its just another word for controlled demolition because it defies physics. The only way a building can fall at free fall is to remove all resistance. If you try to "debunk" this, you are arguing against physics and you cant do it.
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
Right. So its bollocks.. its bollocks even though this is coming from the mouth of the guy that designed the world trade centre towers. And what has been reputed exactly? You still havn't told me how a building that was not even hit by a plane came down through the area of most resistance at the SPEED OF GRAVITY. The government admits that it came down at freefall. Freefall means it was demoed. Its as simple as that. Its just another word for controlled demolition because it defies physics. The only way a building can fall at free fall is to remove all resistance. If you try to "debunk" this, you are arguing against physics and you cant do it.


Source?

O and tell me, if the govt brought down the twin towers, why would they bother bringing down a piddly other building.  Surely 2 massive buildings is enough to justify what ever you wanted to achieve out of doing it.  Or is that what they want us to think?
2ndBest2011-05-09 01:04:45
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The fact that you keep using the 'fact' that the buildings fell at 'the speed of gravity' really makes it hard to take you even remotely seriously given that "The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light.." (admittedly quote is from wiki).

The people who built the titanic also said that the Titanic was built so it was impossible to sink, does that mean that it wasn't an iceberg but a controlled demo that sunk it?
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In all honesty these conspiracy theorists are about as reliable as wikipedia, anyone can add to it and it's hard sometimes to decipher what is right and wrong. Also even if these buildings had been designed 'in theory' that they wouldn't collapse under the strain of having a plane fly into them, theory doesn't always mean reality.
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
Right. So its bollocks.. its bollocks even though this is coming from the mouth of the guy that designed the world trade centre towers. And what has been reputed exactly?�You still havn't told me how a building that was not even hit by a plane came down through the area of most resistance at the SPEED OF GRAVITY. The government admits that it came down at freefall. Freefall means it was demoed. Its as simple as that.�Its just another word for controlled demolition�because it defies physics. The only way a building can fall at free fall is to remove all resistance. If you try to "debunk" this, you are arguing against physics and you cant do it.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Game. Set. Match. Simple year 13 Phyiscs can prove it didn't fall at free fall. Thanks.

Or it you want to hear it from someone with a PhD: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf20 legend2011-05-09 13:21:07
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Exactly - there are always unforeseen things. I think, for example, that the towers were designed to take the impact from the planes without collapsing, but the designers perhaps did not take into account the effect the impact would have on the fireproofing of the steel beams, thus allowing them to be weakened by the fire and collapsing.
Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Sack Ricki!

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In all fairness to NZserb, he is only 18 years old.
When I was his age I too believed everything I read.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
almost 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nz Seb wrote:
Right. So its bollocks.. its bollocks even though this is coming from the mouth of the guy that designed the world trade centre towers. And what has been reputed exactly?�You still havn't told me how a building that was not even hit by a plane came down through the area of most resistance at the SPEED OF GRAVITY. The government admits that it came down at freefall. Freefall means it was demoed. Its as simple as that.�Its just another word for controlled demolition�because it defies physics. The only way a building can fall at free fall is to remove all resistance. If you try to "debunk" this, you are arguing against physics and you cant do it.

Debris from the Twin Towers falling on top of the smaller building causing impact loading, therefore increased live-loading which was significantly greater than the design, thus collapse.
One does not talk about the Speed of Gravity but Acceleration Due To Gravity which is 9.81m/sec/sec.
Permalink Permalink