9/11. .. Looking in the comments I'd say more than one forth godhatestags
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (517)
[ 517 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
170 comments displayed.
#4 - learnthisline
Reply -135
(04/07/2014) [-]
Say what you want about "conspiracies", but give it 40-50 years and it will be a widely know historical fact, just like the Gulf of Tonkin is now a known false flag event.
#5 to #4 - Endofzeeworld
Reply -3
(04/07/2014) [-]
The Twin Towers burned with jet fuel, that is significantly hotter than a normal fire.
#9 to #5 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply +9
(04/08/2014) [-]
Just a bit of quick looking around... Call it what you will.
Unless the twin towers weren't up to code, they should of held.
The Critical Temperature (when it cannot safely support it's load anymore) for structural steel in the US is 1000–1300F.
Jet Fuel in an open air environment, will burn at about 500-700 degrees.
While jet fuel can reach higher temperatures, in an oxygen rich environment, as a controlled burn, (as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit), an office building is hardly open air, or oxygen rich...
Diving into the realm of speculation, I'm calling Termite charges; a few stories on how they found pockets of molten steel weeks after the building collapsed.
No way in hell jet fuel could burn hot enough to MELT the structural steel in there... Weaken it? Possibly... Melt? Hell no.
#25 to #9 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply +11
(04/08/2014) [-]
this is so stupid. for a structure to collapse it doesn't need to have it's frame melt into liquid, it just needs to be damaged or softened.

stop ******* trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about.
#243 to #25 - learnthisline
Reply +3
(04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

If you want to listen to expert engineers and architects, then watch this video - it's by a collection of over 1,500 architects and engineers who all argue against the official story.
They provide condemning evidence showing that the plane impacts could not have collapsed the tower.

You seem to need expert opinion, which is fari enough, as i did before I started questioning. Then I came across this group, of highly acclaimed engineers and architects, who set me straight.

I hope you listen to some experts, and then make up your mind, or do some further looking into it.
#27 to #25 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply +3
(04/08/2014) [-]
Who crapped in your corn flakes? It was a quick look around, and talking about the melting was all speculation.   
As I said, from what I saw, the average burning temperature is well below the softening Critical Temperature for american structural steel.   
Are you a structural engineer? Were you at ground zero to disprove my idea?   
If so, please share. Rage brings nothing to a conversation.
Who crapped in your corn flakes? It was a quick look around, and talking about the melting was all speculation.
As I said, from what I saw, the average burning temperature is well below the softening Critical Temperature for american structural steel.
Are you a structural engineer? Were you at ground zero to disprove my idea?
If so, please share. Rage brings nothing to a conversation.
#29 to #27 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply +15
(04/08/2014) [-]
I'm upset because there is an obvious and irrefutable explanation and there is a certain percentage of the population that, no matter what, won't believe it. it's like the people who don't vaccinate their kids.

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "

#407 to #29 - sabertoothmoose
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Can't say i know a whole lot about demolition work, but wasn't there some conpiracy on the way the towers fell as well. The straight down "free fall" effect was something that people claim; could only be done by controlled demolition or some ****.
I know nothing about this ****, but you seem smart - any opinion
there is no sarcam at all in this, i really just want to knowpleasedon'tkillme
#433 to #407 - guymandude
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
the thing with that is, if you watch the video, at least one of them falls sideways-and-downward. So that isn't really all that valid.
#437 to #433 - sabertoothmoose
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
yep, i see- that theory sucked
#154 to #29 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
there is a myriad of testimonies of people having seen melted steel at ground zero - you can only see melted steel spouting from one of the collapsing towers, if you watch the footage.

Yet the 9/11 commission claims there were NO melted steel at ground zero. One of many irregularities in the 9/11 commission report.
Independant scientists have found traces of nano-thermite in the 9/11 aftermath; a highly advanced explosive which when reacted burns at very high temperatures. High enough to melt steel.

But really, you just have to ask yourself, who really benefited from 9/11? cause it sure as hell weren't the mudslimes.
We dont adress the many irregularities of the attacks. Public opinion has been swayed so hard that questioning 9/11 is now "retarded"

Believe me when I say this America, for it is a very dangerous sign of things to come.
#412 to #154 - benjamino
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
>Things to come
>No things in 13 years?
#300 to #154 - durkadurka
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
>Implying that people giving the testimonies knew what they were talking about.   
>Implying that killing infidels isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted   
>Implying that the government is competent to pull off what would be the greatest conspiracy in history.
>Implying that people giving the testimonies knew what they were talking about.
>Implying that killing infidels isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted
>Implying that the government is competent to pull off what would be the greatest conspiracy in history.
#353 to #25 - learned
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Ok, let's suggest that the fire realy did damage the structure and made it alot weaker, which made it collapsed.
But no way in hell, does a building start collapsing due to a damage done in the upper part and then FALL together at the speed of any free falling object, that's insane. The upper levels should have of started crashing into the lower ones, making the fall time slower, and i doubt that it would of have flown debris at every trajectory with in 1000-1500 feet radius going at the speed of 300 miles per hour. That can only happen with an EXPLOSION, not when a building is supposedly collapsing. It's common for debris to fall, but that far and at such great speed and at every direction. I would understand if the explosion caused it, but the explosion didn't flew big chunks of debris at every direction.
Please enlighten me, why did the foundational metal beams have an 45 degree angle on them? Controlled construction of buildings also consists of blowing up the beams at a 45 degree angel.
Why was there also no theral investigation of the WTC site? Instead it was shipped into recycling as fast as possible.
Is 9/11 government made or not??? You decide
#405 to #353 - durkadurka
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
lrn2physics
1. Conservation of linear momentum
2. F = ma

What ended up happening is that the top portion of each tower could no longer be supported by the damaged sections. The weakened supports failed and the top of the towers began to fall.

Their first stop was to impact the next level of each tower, something they were never designed to handle. With each floor of that fails, momentum transfers and the falling debris gains energy (F=ma). This is why the floors give way with increasing speed.

I don't recall the building falling at free fall, (though it should have gotten pretty close to it at the end). Did you time the fall and then do the calculations? It shouldn't be hard. I'm inclined to believe that you assertions of "free fall speed" and "300 mph"
are arbitrary.
When the towers fell, they displaced a lot of air VERY quickly. This is what you see: dust and light objects being propelled by fast moving air. The larger debris fell around the base of the towers themselves (and impacted nearby buildings).

PLEASE don't go thinking these things before you have a basic grasp of physics. I think understanding some basic concepts would be of great help.
#261 to #9 - amperor
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I would also like to say that the fire from jet fuel would probably have been hotter than my oven when I toast my bread.
#96 to #9 - fishandkids ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the ******* planes ramming into the buildings would crack open a few windows through contact or shock waves.
#74 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well, think about it like this: how many buildings these days are designed to withstand impacts from 50 ton jets hitting them at 600 mph? Not many.

And besides, the WTC was very cheaply-constructed, so it wasn't a very good design anyway.
#19 to #9 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I dont know where you're getting that jet fuel burns only at 500-700 Degrees.... I've been searching around and found no such claim.
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
airportjetfuel.com/p134704-how-hot-does-jet-fuel-burn.cfm
worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493
#23 to #19 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel --- Open air burning temperatures 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
www.ask.com/question/temperature-of-burning-jet-fuel --- Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 410 degrees on start up. It can burn up to 1517 degrees with enough oxygen.
www.ask.com/question/what-temperature-does-jet-fuel-burn-at --- it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
Like I said, a quick look. Googled "temperature of burning jet fuel" and clicked around.
#24 to #23 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +3
(04/08/2014) [-]
You used a Wikipedia source and two ask.com sources. I used two published articles and a forum post (Albeit not the best source).
Frankly, I trust my sources more than yours.
#31 to #24 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Just looking through your links... I'm still iffy on the subject.
First one says: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Doesn't specify if this is in an engine, or in the open air.
Second one says: Jet fuels burn at about 1800 degrees. Surely that would be inside an engine?
Third one says: Maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel is 980°C (1796°F).
Now, yes, I openly admit jet fuel can get hot enough to surpass the critical temperature of structural steel. 1800° > 1000-1300°
But, that is with oxygen introduced to it, in a compressed environment, a perfect scenario; like inside a jet turbine.
Take a dump a bunch of it in a semi-closed building environment, it would use up the oxygen pretty quick, which is why flames shoot out windows, eats external oxygen.
It's all a bit off to me, but, whatever. You'll win this.
Need to stop speaking my view points. Opinions on the Internet, heh, that always goes over well.
#34 to #31 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Never stop speaking your viewpoints. This was a healthy and good debate that I think we both learned a fair deal from it. We didn't flame each other, and I think that's pretty nice.
#39 to #34 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
It's not your counterpoints, it's the incoherent rage leveled towards opinions.
A bit disheartening when you get a response like: "stop ******* trying to be a structural engineer, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Said it was quick research, and speculation on the melting aspects; nah bro, still wrong, rage inc.
C'est la vie.
#71 to #39 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being ****** like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
you know what? you're right. I apologize. i was grumpy earlier and i think i've had so many conversations that ended up being ****** like that that i forgot there are still people on the internet willing to have a civil, respectful debate. so I'm sorry, there was no need for me to be a dick like that. i un red thumbed your comments, have this gif that i like.
#42 to #39 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, I feel you.
Also just noticed your name/icon combination.
*******.
Fantastic.
#44 to #42 - carbohydrates ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Looks like the rage is stuck to this thread now, last post wasn't even pertaining to the conversation, still got a red thumb.
And yes, carbohydrates and Glucose, seemed fitting.
#244 to #19 - learnthisline
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
#7 to #5 - youhei
Reply -4
(04/08/2014) [-]
they could find charred bone fragments the size of fingernail clippings, but htey couldn't find an indestructable flourescent orange box

because that makes sense
#20 to #7 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Source?
I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know what you're talking about.
#22 to #20 - youhei
Reply -7
(04/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#155 to #4 - darkdoughnutz
Reply -1
(04/08/2014) [-]
dude don't sweat these sheep.
#236 to #155 - learnthisline
Reply -3
(04/08/2014) [-]
That's why I'm affording them like at least 50 years at the max to get over it.
It's ******* hilarious being a history student, reading daily about how Government's orchestrate these false flags to justify their entrance into war, and then seeing how so many people can deny something so obvious.
But I suppose most people during the time preceding the Vietnam War probably believed the Gulf of Tonkin was a real thing as well.
So it's not that they're stupid just ignorant of the facts. But time will tell, just like it always does - it's the one fail safe that all historians are granted.
#17 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
the WTC were built to collapse on top of themselves so they don't topple over and destroy everything it lands on, weren't they?

Also the buildings in your picture don't say they were hit by passenger airplanes.

posting as anon because im a faggot scared of red thumbs
#265 to #4 - fagmastertwotausan
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
jet fuel burns so much hotter than wood and furniture
#282 to #4 - thebrownydestroyer **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#376 to #4 - glorinar
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I thought FJ was smarter than this.
#427 to #4 - BabyJake
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
your tin foil hat is on a wee bit too tight
#15 to #4 - tomahawkkit
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
the gulf of Tonkin involved false accusing enemy "ghost missiles" while 9-11 involved blowing up two world trade centers.

for some reason I think the two are different, we'll find out when its declassified though
#35 to #4 - phinkles
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim
Having skyscraprs that don't collapse due to fires means nothing if they aren't built the same way as the WTC towers were
#89 to #4 - crackedpepper
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
you dense ************. do you not realize that a fire burning with furniture and wallpaper and carpet etc. is different in heat to a fire that's been supplied SEVERAL PLANES WORTH OF JET FUEL
#121 to #89 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I believe he's referring to Tower 7, which was not hit by any plane. It collapsed anyway. Non-conspiracists suggest shockwaves and heat weakening the structure. Conspiracists suggest government-planted explosives.
#180 to #121 - crackedpepper
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
can you show which tower this tower 7 is? all sources im seeing state that both the north and south tower were hit
#445 to #180 - welfarekid
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Tower 7 was hit by debris, fire started and it burned well into the afternoon and collapsed 7 hours after the other 2.
I think anything would collapse after burning for 7 hours.
#98 to #4 - lereturnedtroll
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Of course!
everyone knows that 9/11 was just a fire in a building! nothing more!

the two passenger airlines that rammed the **** into them were all an illusion by the nazi jews!
#32 to #4 - apellon
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
no, but buildings with jet fuel traveling down the central elevator shaft do
#69 to #32 - yeorey
Reply +6
(04/08/2014) [-]
There wouldn't have been enough fuel for that. That all burned up on impact.
#239 to #32 - learnthisline
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel frames. Ergo, it simply cannot be used as a justification for a tower collapsing.
If you fancy looking into it, I'd highly recommend this video - made by an organization of architects and engineers whom all argue that it would have been impossible for the towers to have collapsed due to plane impact.
I used to completely side with the "official story", until I spent 5 minutes looking into it.
I hope you have a watch, there's no harm in being open to the other side.
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
#355 to #239 - brisineo ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
>jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel
Open air temperature is different than what happens to any fuel source that burns in an insulated, enclosed area, such as an office space. Anyone who knows how a blacksmith furnace works would know it. And not to mention steel doesn't even need to reach such temperatures to fail, it rapidly looses its strength starting in the few hundreds of degrees.

>Video
WTC7 was severely damaged by the WTC1 collapse which aided it's own failure. Heavy smoke (and choice of which video people choose to show) blocks most visuals of the true extent of the damage, but as firefighters came close, they noticed a large gash in the lower third of the building, around the same area fires were raging unchecked. Firefighters noticed that the building was bulging outward on it's south face, along with the building's supports beginning to creak so they knew it was going to collapse and marked the area off. They didn't show much surprise either when it finally did collapse. The building had an awkward asymmetrical design with 3 trusses on one side that supported the entire upper section above, and when one failed after a series of floor collapses, you see the vertical collapse reach the penthouse on top. 8 seconds later the other two trusses failed from the additional stress, which took the rest of the inside of the building with it, and lastly the outer walls. From certain angles the building does appear to be relatively sound when it collapses, but from other angles it was said to be obvious that it was going to fall.

Not to mention if this was caused by explosives there'd be det cord, blasting caps, detonation wires and such everywhere, as many demolition experts have said on the subject.
#487 to #239 - Shenanigins
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
It doesn't need to melt it, only weaken it.
#441 to #239 - welfarekid
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
obviously it is very ******* possible because it happened.
#255 to #239 - atma
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Are there any official government statements rebutting these claims? This is nearly three years old, after all
#324 to #255 - learnthisline
Reply -1
(04/08/2014) [-]
I'm sure the video explains that the government rejected at least three attempts to open up an independent inquiry... But to my knowledge the Government hasn't responded to these claims, no.
But you must realise why?
If they engage debate on it, they recognise it's something to be debated, legitimizing the criticisms against them.
One they open up debate and engagement they open themselves up to investigation.
They've blocked all attempts to open independent investigations, even though there was a spate of independent investigations for JFK's assassination.

And have you seen in the news recently that the CIA is trying its hardest to prevent the White House from investigating the torture program - and the evidence which has been leaked so far all suggests that the information received from said program revealed no information whatsoever.

All the facts keep on pointing one way.
That's why I said we need to give it 40-50 years before it's accepted as a historical fact - once all the perpetrators are dead and buried.
#513 to #324 - yeorey
Reply +1
(04/14/2014) [-]
>statists thumbing you down because they can't comprehended government being this incompetent and dishonest
#514 to #513 - learnthisline
Reply +1
(04/14/2014) [-]
I know, it's not like the US Government has a notorious history for ******* with its citizens, or even spying on every single one of them as we currently speak...
#104 to #32 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
oh wow. this takes the cake.
#21 to #4 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +7
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, but building that have a ******* airplane parked in them DO collapse.
#161 to #21 - xxmemosxx
Reply +5
(04/08/2014) [-]
Like that time the Empire State building was hit by a plane and DIDN'T fall down?
#372 to #161 - moviexplain
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
That's probably because they weren't hit by the same sort of plane, going the same speed.
#118 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I believe he's referring to Tower 7, which was not hit by any plane. It collapsed anyway. Non-conspiracists suggest shockwaves and heat weakening the structure. Conspiracists suggest government-planted explosives.
#240 to #118 - learnthisline
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
If you want to look into the facts, then I suggest watching some of the videos made by a collection of Architects and Engineers who all argue that, due to the building falling at the rate of gravity; the fact that people on the ground heard explosions; etc. it must have been a controlled explosions.

But if you want to keep the option of the table, then fair play. As I said initially, it took people a while to accept that he Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag.
#371 to #118 - wtfduud
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
There actually was aluminium dust found on the grounds after the incident, which is one of the components for thermite, which would have been hot enough to melt the steel frame.
So the thermite has to have been either smuggled on to the planes or planted there before.
#18 to #4 - combatplatypus
Reply +452
(04/08/2014) [-]
They do when you hit them with a plane you ******* dingo
They do when you hit them with a plane you ******* dingo
#37 to #18 - roflsaucer
Reply +11
(04/08/2014) [-]
Two. Two planes, I believe.
#45 to #37 - thebaseballexpert
Reply +12
(04/08/2014) [-]
two towers, one plane each
#183 to #45 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
wrong. tower 7 was nit hit by a plane, yet fell the same way as other two.
#55 to #45 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Three towers, a plane and a half. Take it or leave it.
#143 to #55 - bann
Reply +91
(04/08/2014) [-]
#172 to #55 - anonymouscat
Reply +14
(04/08/2014) [-]
2funny
2funny
#425 to #55 - propanex ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
omg you. I love you.
#144 to #55 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
halflife 3 confirmed
#251 to #18 - trustust
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
My roommate is an edification engineer and he told me that it is unlikely that a plane can make a building like this collapse. Do you even know anything about architecture? If yes maybe my roommate is wrong idk.
#432 to #251 - welfarekid
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Was the Titanic unsinkable? HMMMMM?
#245 to #18 - kivanctezoren
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#157 to #18 - darkdoughnutz
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
you really don't know much about steel or architecture do you?
#185 to #157 - anonymoose
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Do you?
#518 to #18 - Thunderrr
Reply +1
(05/15/2014) [-]
"You ******* dingo"
#384 to #18 - songemot
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Or if they happen to be near a building that was hit by a plane.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
#306 to #18 - lordzak
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Do they really? I am no expert but most of the structural integrity be in the frame of the building? Not so much the faces.
#451 to #18 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
It was a reference to Tower 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, you dingus.
#370 to #18 - wtfduud
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
The fire started after the planes hit.
#338 to #18 - timelordjam
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I watched through that to see how many people knew in it. The only way i knew the loop was over was when i saw Doctor Cox. I feel happy
#250 to #18 - anonefgthree
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
They do when you hit them wiith a plane after they've been weakened by explosives ))))))))
#241 to #18 - learnthisline
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

You sound like someone who knows **** all about architecture or engineering.
Here's a video by a group of over 1,500 Architects and Engineers, backed by 9/11 Family Members, who strongly disagree with the official story.
I hope you watch it, as it really points out some critical flaws in the official story.
#160 to #18 - xxmemosxx
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Like that time the Empire State building was hit by a plane and didn't fall down?
#119 to #18 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I believe he's referring to Tower 7, which was not hit by any plane. It collapsed anyway. Non-conspiracists suggest shockwaves and heat weakening the structure. Conspiracists suggest government-planted explosives.
#391 to #119 - paradoxander
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
WTF is a "conspiracist"?
#72 to #18 - sirsolo
Reply -7
(04/08/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash
"Only a 40 min burn doe! Only two floors doe!"

Your Government is lying to you. But hey, most are.
#438 to #72 - welfarekid
Reply -1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Lol, and your government isn't?
#495 to #438 - sirsolo
Reply +1
(04/09/2014) [-]
Most are
#28 - istoleyoursoxs
Reply +226
(04/08/2014) [-]
Looking in the comments I'd say more than one forth
#283 to #28 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
fourth* retard
#386 to #283 - mattyjay
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
I thought it was funny
#148 to #28 - niggernazi
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
lol im not even from america retard
#86 to #28 - mrbuu
Reply +38
(04/08/2014) [-]
funny junk is 3/4 of the 1/4 of retards living in america.
#453 to #86 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
And other countries-
#430 to #86 - ugoboom
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#33 - biebergotswag
Reply -2
(04/08/2014) [-]
it's not nice to say the r word
#36 to #33 - priestoftheoldones
Reply -3
(04/08/2014) [-]
Oohh no.
#56 to #33 - mrdavidamnesia
Reply -2
(04/08/2014) [-]
I thought you liked us mentioning your name...
#115 to #33 - popnotes
Reply -1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Drat, I liked ricotta ch- I mean "r" cheese.
#373 to #33 - redcookiemonster
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
how about the F word? Faggot.
#398 to #33 - xxTheJesterxx
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
They actually banned the word "retard" in my school.
They actually banned the word "retard" in my school.
#420 to #33 - xerotic
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
re·tard
verb
:delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.
#130 to #33 - wertgf
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
#136 to #130 - granate ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
You aren't biebergotlettuce , get out.
#137 to #136 - wertgf
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
But this is cabbage.
#168 to #137 - granate ONLINE
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
Should we call biebergotvegetables then?
#312 to #33 - biebergotlettuce
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#43 to #33 - putindispencerhere ONLINE
Reply +197
(04/08/2014) [-]
yfw when you post
yfw when you post
#463 to #43 - alexownz
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
This picture makes me super sad. It made me realize how much i miss Jon grumps.

R.I.P JON GRUMPS 2012-2013 YOU WERE PRETTY COOL
#318 to #43 - disasterbater
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
what is this, a jontron cartoon?
#332 to #318 - skyblueshinx
Reply +3
(04/08/2014) [-]
I come bearing sauce:   
   
It's a Game Grumps animated      
   
Gif somewhat related
I come bearing sauce:

It's a Game Grumps animated Game Grumps 3d Animated - You Don't Know, Jon! - by Esquirebob

Gif somewhat related
#231 to #43 - putindispencerhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Oh, my gaaaaaaawd. Almost in tears I never thought I'd ever make a comment that would make this far. Thank you everyone, thank you. This was the only picture of "crying" I had on me
#268 to #231 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
does it really mean this much to some of you?
#339 to #268 - putindispencerhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well I'm not actually in tears.
#12 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
"One Fourth"? Only a retard would say that... Quarter... Mongs...
#367 to #12 - chimpaflimp
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
They're synonyms, you *******.
#26 to #12 - generaljosh
Reply +93
(04/08/2014) [-]
How is that any more correct?
#53 to #26 - EpicTie
Reply +11
(04/08/2014) [-]
its 1/4 more correct
#315 to #53 - ferriuszg ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Either you're really, really clever. Or it's just brilliantly unaware of your own genius with that comment
#319 to #315 - ferriuszg ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
not It's
#316 to #315 - ferriuszg ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
you're*
#84 - bigdogmt
Reply +80
(04/08/2014) [-]
anyone else play Stick of Truth?
anyone else play Stick of Truth?
#100 to #84 - wholesomeburn
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yes.
#111 to #84 - iamkagji ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
i did and I loved it
#156 to #84 - threadcreator
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
That game is ******* hysterical. I'm on my way out of Canada right now.
#88 to #84 - ivoryhammer
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Nope, just you.
#294 to #84 - bosskiss
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
I Finished the game. Damn it is so good.


not gonna spoiler it.
#336 to #84 - ogvind
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Loved it, really makes me look forward to the Faggot of Truth!
#274 to #84 - gorillaztwentyfour
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
Got it yesterday, I'm at the part where your character that you put so much time into gets anally "probed".
Twice.
#142 to #84 - trollwoopnazi
Reply +15
(04/08/2014) [-]
Simlpy incredible
#414 to #142 - Nintendokami
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
I love it so much.
#139 - implication
Reply +22
(04/08/2014) [-]
The jews did 9/11!

PROVE ME WRONG
#158 to #139 - killerblue
Reply -3
(04/08/2014) [-]
I can't because your right
#465 to #139 - notacop
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
hitler
hitler
#260 to #139 - alimais
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
Huehuehue
#145 to #139 - hargleblarg
Reply +79
(04/08/2014) [-]
There was money in the Towers, everyone knows Jews don't blow up money.
#152 to #145 - implication
Reply +8
(04/08/2014) [-]
Didn't that kike owner of the twin towers buy an insurance a few days before 9/11?
AND he also wasn't following his daily routine when the towers blew up, he didn't show up at WTC.

It was Larry Silverstein
>Silverstein
>stein
JEW
#380 to #152 - songemot
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
OY VEY
#151 to #145 - niggernazi
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
its not about the money

its about sending a message
#232 to #151 - thesticklebricks
Reply +5
(04/08/2014) [-]
and some money
#49 - icespine
Reply -42
(04/08/2014) [-]
a cartoon says that 911 was real and not an inside job, i better take it as a fact that 911 is EXACTLY as it has been known to be!
i know that conspiracies can be a little too much, but ive seen documentaries and there is just way too much evidence that suggests 911 didn't happen the way were were told.
#65 to #49 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
holy **** you've seen some documentaries? you must have done so much research to reach your conclusion!
#92 to #65 - icespine
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
please tell me how reliable your news source is which tells you otherwise
#94 to #49 - icespine
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
you guys wanna thumb me down, i don't care, i made a point and i dont see why it isn't valid. how reliable is the news and what the government tells you? at least what i know about 911 for example it is the only time that a skyscraper was able to collapse due to an airplane hitting it as wellas other PROVEN facts which will disclaim 911. at least i am basing my decisions off of EVIDENCE and notjust what ifeel is right.
i do think it is a shame that all those people died in the collapse and the people dying in war and how everyone's lives have been affected by it, but the truth will come out oneday.
#101 to #94 - toensix
Reply -2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Whenever did a passenger jetplane hit a skyscrapper head on?
#383 to #49 - mrmegot
Reply +1
(04/08/2014) [-]
it's ok to raise the question
but some documentaries lie
they put up fake facts, they interview people who lie just for the fame, etc etc
you should fact check what you see more
the fact is some aspects are still unclear about what exactly happened, but you cannot either be sure it's a conspiracy because it's based more on assumptions than true facts (correct me if i'm wrong)

If you think documentaries all say the truth, I can show you some about pyramids, jews, ufos, ghosts, and probably a ******** of other subjects like that with made up facts. critical mind is important
#491 to #383 - icespine
Reply 0
(04/09/2014) [-]
you are correct, there are ****** documentaries out there and a lot of false facts have been added, so you have to take these things with a grain of salt, and trust only the true hard facts.
but at the same time, there are plenty of trruths in documentaries which cannot be ignored. and to completely shut out all facts is an ignorant thing to do.
you are right, though
#99 to #49 - kyrill
Reply +4
(04/08/2014) [-]
i agree with you that there's a lot of evidence. but there's literally no point arguing. If they agree with you nothing will have changed.
#59 to #49 - feelythefeel
Reply +65
(04/08/2014) [-]
Found the retard.
#317 to #59 - schnizel
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
no kek
#61 to #59 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
so did I, it's you
#62 to #61 - feelythefeel
Reply -2
(04/08/2014) [-]
What a twist!
#58 - llpanic
Reply +41
(04/08/2014) [-]
Im totally having a clue right now
#64 to #58 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Never seen that one either. Mind sharing it?
#68 to #64 - iplaylol
Reply +3
(04/08/2014) [-]
That is the Hardly Boys episode. I believe it's called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce"
#70 to #68 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Thanks.
#2 - konradkurze
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#3 to #2 - phisko
Reply +26
(04/07/2014) [-]
Are you serious? Practically everyone has mental problems, it's just a matter of if and how you medically label them, and that varies a lot by country.
This content is about dumb people though. The US has a lot of dumb people but also has a lot of brilliant people, witch is a product of the relatively large social and economical differences.
#208 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
which*
#57 to #3 - konradkurze
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#76 to #57 - damping
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
What did you say? Also, take your red thumbs like a man like I do.
#103 to #76 - konradkurze
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#46 - kaboozle123
Reply +18
(04/08/2014) [-]
i don't necessarily believe 9/11 was an inside job but i don't believe that there might not be any involvement. maybe not from the government but from a wealthy family that may have something to gain from going to war. but then again maybe not maybe it was just crazy extremists.

either way i really don't believe that we aren't lied to about really important events. i have no shadow of a doubt that we're not lied to by our governments and that secret **** goes on that can be major events in the nations history. it's just a matter of not thinking everything is crazy and not thinking the government is completely honest

gotta be able to look at things from both views and consider the possibilites
#81 to #46 - shrolen
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#60 to #46 - anon
Reply 0
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well said! But you meant to say " I have no shadow of doubt that we ARE lied to "
#150 to #46 - niggernazi
Reply +7
(04/08/2014) [-]
911 wasnt an insaide job, the plane came from the outside
#363 to #150 - kaboozle123
Reply +2
(04/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture