0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I must admit I find it a little incredible that less than 24 hours after killing him, they've disposed of the body.
They should have paraded the Kitson like a trophy through the streets of New York.
Nice to see Doncaster can produce a bigger red neck than the yanksQuote from: \"MrFrost\" post=154904They should have paraded the Kitson like a trophy through the streets of New York.
Quote from: \"NorthNorfolkRover\" post=155071Nice to see Doncaster can produce a bigger red neck than the yanksQuote from: \"MrFrost\" post=154904They should have paraded the Kitson like a trophy through the streets of New York.Aye.After all, we're fighting this war to preserve our western values.Or is that Wild Western values?
It's been a good week for Obama. He's also put Trump in his place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkTzqIW-qw&feature=related
Quote from: \"bobjimwilly\" post=154977Quote from: \"RobTheRover\" post=154932If anyone hasnt seen \"Loose Change\", here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWEvery interesting video that rob.Christ up above, that is the biggest load of half baked b*llocks I've ever seen.Trust me on this one. I KNOW what I'm talking about. The subject of the mechanisms of collapse of buildings like the WTC is something I've worked on for 20 years. And every single comment that the narrator of that film comes out with is either factually incorrect or an ignorant/deliberate (take your choice) warping of the facts to suit his argument. There is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER on how and why the WTC towers came down. Respected world authorities on the subject had it nailed years ago. Instead, the film pulls out crack-pot self-publicist academics from obscure low ranking universities, with absolutely no knowledge of structural engineering, or the effect of fire/impact/explosions on them to spout \"Well I think that...\"The comment that the WTC towers were designed to withstand an aircraft impact is factually incorrect. What the designers did in the late 60s was check whether the buildings were massive enough to resist being KNOCKED OVER by the momentum of an impact. They did no analysis whatsoever of the effect of losing 60% of the columns on one face, pancaking of internal floors and weakening of the structure through elevated temperature. They couldn't because no-one could back then - the knowledge simply did not exist.Structural steel begins to lose it's strength and stiffness at temperatures above ~500C. There are MANY examples of severe structural damage to steelwork from fires of this sort of temperature. You do NOT need to melt or vapourise steel to cause partial or complete collapse.Whether a building then collapses due to this damage depends entirely on the structural form of the building and the extent of the damage. The WTC towers were of a design which we now recognise as being particularly vulnerable. I'm more than happy to bore the pants off anyone who really wants to understand this, but trust me - it's the case.The clean central collapse of the towers is perfectly to be expected by anyone who has properly looked at the structural form of the buildings. Again, I'll expound at length if anyone is interested.The poentential energy released by the mass of ONE floor slab in the WTC building falling by ONE storey height is about equivalent to the detonation energy of 7kg of TNT. In fact, 110 floors fell by an average of 55 storeys each - that would release energy equivalent to the detonation of about 50 Tonnes of TNT!a)Is there any wonder that people who have never in their lives heard a high explosive detonation claim to have heard explosion noises?B) Is there any wonder that the buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed? The structural resistance of the lower floors was negligible compared to the energy developed by the falling structure. As far as decelerating the collapse was cocnerened, it might as well have been meccano.I find it deeply depressing that people are led astray by ill-informed shite like this. There are REALLY important nasty thngs that Governments do in our name without getting carried away with this sort of rubbish.
Quote from: \"RobTheRover\" post=154932If anyone hasnt seen \"Loose Change\", here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWEvery interesting video that rob.
If anyone hasnt seen \"Loose Change\", here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
Reports are that they commanded him to surrender, which he politely declined, so they shot him in the head.Seems fair enough.Buried at sea was the only option. Anywhere on land would end up a shrine to extremists.Apparently Adolf was gutted though.....http://qld.so/osama
Madelline McCann is officially the hide and seek world champion now then?
Quote from: \"Kenny_Senior\" post=155026Madelline McCann is officially the hide and seek world champion now then?And that is the funniest joke on this thread!Shudda got a babysitter!BTW, the t**t was six foot five or something, so if he refused to surrender I'd have just shot him anyway. Those SEAL guys are all tiny you know, so they can creep into small spaces. Osama would have had 'em in hand to hand fighting, no problem. SO don't blame 'em for shooting him, I would have! It's like a lion coming towards you - you don't wait till it get's it teeth into yer!
Not just that, he was threatening to beat the Seals with the soggy end of one of his stinky wives.