|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 11, 2011 10:54:40 GMT -5
When you can tell the difference between real fighting and wrestling, I'll stop being condescending. Okay, sweetie?
By the way, you do know that WWE and TNA do multiple "takes" when someone screws up, right? Oh snap! Just like Hollywood! A good chunk of their programming is recorded for airing later. The major exceptions are Raw and PPVs for both companies. And even they're not exempt from edits sometimes.
Wow, it's like they don't even show the "real" action quite often.
Getting back up from a real injury and continuing doesn't make the combat any less fake. In fact, it kind of highlights the fakeness due to the disparity between the programming and the reality. Wrestlers will spend ten minutes working over a joint, but when someone is legitimately injured will not exploit that joint. Why? Because the thing is faked for entertainment purposes.
And serious injuries do stop matches. They've even led to changing the card or a title changing hands.
Now, I'll let you get back to trying to reconcile how I'm a "smark" if I believe wrestling is "fake."
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 12, 2011 9:31:23 GMT -5
Ok this derailing is getting ridiculous. Here's a Truther site to distract from all this. rememberbuilding7.org/10/ (Video Autoplay Warning) There is also another Salon article which goes a lot into how divorced the Truthers are from reality and evidence, but doesn't go into the why until this last quote: I don't necessarily agree, but I do agree that the Truthers see a lot more competence and malice than most governments are capable of, from which this conclusion is extrapolated. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 7:56:34 GMT -5
So....You're whining about derailing in a thread that was dead for a day. Wouldn't it have been less stupid to just add your link instead of calling attention to it?
Or are you one of those geniuses who thinks protesting actually lowers the amount of content? You know, like Jack Thompson and the anti-games lobby who are busy making Rockstar rich?
Also, to be on topic so I don't hurt your pweshus feewings, basically everything you said is completely redundant with regards to this thread. Yay you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 15, 2011 9:15:48 GMT -5
And you dredged up the thread after 4 days to tell me this.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Sept 15, 2011 9:49:51 GMT -5
That said, Jesse Ventura (and Charlie Sheen, and Rosie "Fire Can't Melt Steel" O'Donnell, Marion Cotillard, and Mos Def, and Willie Nelson, etc.) are at best ignorant and at worst batshit crazy about 9/11. She seriously said that fire can't melt steel? Wow, when you fail hard enough at science that a medieval swordsmith could prove you wrong, there is just no hope for you. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Sept 15, 2011 10:58:59 GMT -5
That said, Jesse Ventura (and Charlie Sheen, and Rosie "Fire Can't Melt Steel" O'Donnell, Marion Cotillard, and Mos Def, and Willie Nelson, etc.) are at best ignorant and at worst batshit crazy about 9/11. She seriously said that fire can't melt steel? Wow, when you fail hard enough at science that a medieval swordsmith could prove you wrong, there is just no hope for you. That's something the conspiracy clung to that annoys me to no end. "The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel". So what? It was hot enough to weaken it. The chicken wire with kerosene "demonstration" was the worst thing I've ever seen come out to try and prove the towers couldn't come down from the fires |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 11:23:49 GMT -5
And you dredged up the thread after 4 days to tell me this. First day of looking at the boards after major illness. Your excuse seemed to solely be to pretend you weren't being a hypocrite, which thankfully you dropped by continuing the derail. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 11:27:44 GMT -5
That said, Jesse Ventura (and Charlie Sheen, and Rosie "Fire Can't Melt Steel" O'Donnell, Marion Cotillard, and Mos Def, and Willie Nelson, etc.) are at best ignorant and at worst batshit crazy about 9/11. She seriously said that fire can't melt steel? Wow, when you fail hard enough at science that a medieval swordsmith could prove you wrong, there is just no hope for you. Variations on "fire can't melt steel" are very common amongst truthers, though. It's more common to say "jet fuel can't bun hot enough to melt steel," Which is true. Two things there, though: -Steel didn't need to melt to weaken the structure. Jet fuel burns hot enough to cause something like 50% loss of steel's integrity. -You know what can burn hot enough to melt steel? OFFICE FURNITURE, SUPPLIES, AND OTHER SHIT PRESENT ON 9-11 BECAUSE THE WTC WAS MORE THAN A STEEL FRAME COVERED IN JET FUEL. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 15, 2011 11:34:33 GMT -5
She seriously said that fire can't melt steel? Wow, when you fail hard enough at science that a medieval swordsmith could prove you wrong, there is just no hope for you. Indeed. Admittedly, it might just be the phrasing, but it wasn't just "a building fire" or "jet fuel", it was Now I am sure she would dispute the intended meaning, but as phrased, she seems to think that steel is like adamantium. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 11:53:54 GMT -5
Now I am sure she would dispute the intended meaning, but as phrased, she seems to think that steel is like adamantium. A shame it's still not true. The Madrid-Windsor building is the best example. In fact, it seems what kept it from falling was the concrete. What they mean is a high rise building, and it is unusual. Why it's unusual, of course, is due to fireproofing (Which is only rated in terms of minutes or hours and was not designed to survive a plane impact) and aggressive firefighting (made impossible by circumstances of the day of 9/11, again, due to the attacks). Not because steel is some magical metal or something. They had to pull out of my building because they were afraid the steel wouldn't hold. And this isn't some tens of stories monstrosity. This is a real thing that really happens in real life all the time. This was with agressive firefighting and calls to SEVENTEEN fucking firehouses. And our sprinklers worked. Conspiracy? |
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Sept 15, 2011 12:24:23 GMT -5
That said, Jesse Ventura (and Charlie Sheen, and Rosie "Fire Can't Melt Steel" O'Donnell, Marion Cotillard, and Mos Def, and Willie Nelson, etc.) are at best ignorant and at worst batshit crazy about 9/11. She seriously said that fire can't melt steel? Wow, when you fail hard enough at science that a medieval swordsmith could prove you wrong, there is just no hope for you. Marion Cotillard, is one also. Fuck, I gotta go erase some pics on my hard drive. I'll be back in an hour. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 15, 2011 12:43:10 GMT -5
My favourite part is when they bring up the incident where a plane crashed into the Empire State building. Never mind that these are different buildings with different designs, or that the planes on 9/11 were much larger, modern, commercial jets carrying significantly more fuel, or that the 9/11 hijackers were intentionally trying to bring the buildings down after years of planning, whereas the ESB incident was an accident, or, y'know, a zillion other factors that make the two scenarios completely different. But other than that, they're totally the same thing, right?
Another is the argument that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of being hit by a plane. Yes, they were -- and they did withstand the impact. It was the resulting structural damage and, more than anything, the continuous burning/heat from the fire (coupled with poor upkeep of fire proofing) that caused the collapse -- the force from the impact itself didn't bring the towers down.
In any case, they were designed and built in the 70s, and were meant to withstand a hit from the planes that existed during that era -- i.e., ones that weren't as large and didn't carry as much fuel as the ones hijacked on 9/11.
And of course, it doesn't help that the whole thing makes no fucking sense in the first place. Why fake a plane impact and cover up the alleged charges used for demolition when they could have fabricated a story about the terrorists planting said bombs? I mean, really, who the hell would try go for "planes crashed into a building and brought them down" over "terrorists planted bombs" in a pre-9/11 world? Are we supposed to believe that the American government was like, "Planes hitting buildings is fine -- but bombs? In MY towers? No one will believe that!"
Sorry for the rant, but the inanity of these conspiracy theories makes me want to smash my head against a wall. Better I use my words than destroy my skull. Just be glad I didn't get started on WTC7.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 13:26:25 GMT -5
Ooh! Did someone say WTC7?
I hear it collapsed without anything touching it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 15, 2011 15:19:06 GMT -5
Totally!
Other than the fire that rage on inside for hours, and the huge chunks of the collapsed towers that fell on it. CONSPIRACY
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 15:42:40 GMT -5
Totally! Other than the fire that rage on inside for hours, and the huge chunks of the collapsed towers that fell on it. CONSPIRACY XD. That's my favourite part of this CT. Not just with 7, but they like to pull things out of context. They act like 7 should have stayed up there was no apparent damage (Bullshit), no reason for it to be damaged (After all, WTC7 was nowhere near 1 and 2), and no reason for the fire (see the first two). With WTC 1 and 2, they keep acting like "Fire alone couldn't do it." And "Planes alone couldn't do it." Or "Buildings won't fall like that on their own." Emphasis mine. And for the other two flights, they play what I like to call "My Idian Drum." |
|
