Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTAForums does NOT endorse or allow any kind of GTA Online modding, mod menus or tools. Do NOT post them here or advertise them, as per the forum rules.
Magic_Al

[Ned Luke PSA video] Michael opens unusually safety-conscious Ammu*Nat

Recommended Posts

Niobium

 

 

 

 

All this thread has taught me is that the youth of some parts of America is just as bat sh*t crazy as the generation they have followed. Sandy Hook a hoax.....paranoid about their own government.....using the Guns don't Kill people do, crazy argument......probably think that 9/11 was a hoax..........probably believe that area 51 has an alien ship.......and almost 100% believe in religion.

 

Some people are just too uneducated or to indoctrinated into a twisted way of thinking that they have lost the ability to think for themselves and dont realise that they can actually search for real evidence that has been studied and peer reviewed by the intelligent people of the world.......Instead they sit back and take their info from bias from corrupt or small minded people (NRA or idiotic parents)

 

The fact is the USA has the highest gun crimes per capita in the whole of the developed world. And even if you are scared of your government and this is your reason to keep guns.....if it did kick off I know who would win.

 

There also hasn't been a gun massacre in the UK since 1996.....guess what.....They passed laws after to pretty much ban owning private hand guns. Exactly the same situation in Australia.......guess what......no massacres since 1996 (same year coincidentally)

 

Just educate yourself think for yourself.

 

The Chicago argument is also a bullsh*t excuse. The USA has open state borders so this makes this argument irrelevant.

 

The Guns don't kill people is also an almighty stupid argument. Go into a place with a Semi auto or go into a place with a knife.......which is going to cause more damage? Plus of this argument was even slightly true here in the UK you would get people trying to go on massacres with knifes or other types of weapons ie Cars.......guess what.......that never happens. So its either the USA has more psychos per 100,000 people than the UK or the more logical argument.........Guns give the ability/intrest/lust for these psychos to carry out these killings.

here you dropped this:

 

 

138899.jpg

 

I should get a picture of a dunce hat or a blindfold for you. Or both. Then if you put your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALALALALALALA you can pretend that everything I just wrote didn't happen.

 

you equated religious people with conspiracy theorists pal. i think YOU should be wearing a dunce hat

 

Hahaha hahaha you completely misunderstood.......what an idiot. Read it again it might sink in. Also why did you pick out that one part and ignored all my other highly logical brilliant points?

 

 

because some of your other points are not so brilliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kraftwerkd

If I was at an American gun store and the clerk told me that someone was killed or injured using the particular I was looking at, it wouldn't hugely affect whether I liked the gun or was gonna buy it.

My only question would be, "how many bullets did it take?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saliva

Every case he mentioned has negligence and mental health issues at its core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fwenshy

The population is spread in a more balanced way across Europe than it is in the US, so no, it's not a proper evaluation, most crimes in the US happen in the places where most people are, California, Florida, so if there's more population per distance, of course there's gonna be more crime.

 

I'm not defending the US, not because i'm not against the US gun laws means i'm supporting them, i'm fully aware people gets killed with guns, but banning them wont solve a single thing because there's too many guns in there.

 

I never said other countries are backwards either, you're just creating assumptions, the government thing is because you allow a slippery slope, which will create a chain of events that when you realize what happened, it will be too late.

 

You should stop thinking in such a bilateral way.

 

The guns have been in there for 200+ years, it's too late now to ban them, it worked in Europe because there werent so many.

 

Not because someone is american makes them right neither, it's just that if you actually lived in the country and you are TALKING about the country you will have more knowledge than a foreigner who's talking about subjects basing his sources on movies and the internet.

 

In my country WAY more people gets killed than in the US with guns and they're banned here.

I don't base my arguments on movies and the Internet. I Base my arguments on facts and peer reviewed studies and real Data. And being from another country makes no difference to these facts. You are the one that is making MASSIVE assumptions by saying things like "it's too late to ban them" or "banning them won't work" or "there will be more crime without guns"......These are all huge assumptions not backed by any data or studies (peer reviewd ones not youtube ones or NRA backed ones) and you will happily spout this nonsense and think that it's fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All this thread has taught me is that the youth of some parts of America is just as bat sh*t crazy as the generation they have followed. Sandy Hook a hoax.....paranoid about their own government.....using the Guns don't Kill people do, crazy argument......probably think that 9/11 was a hoax..........probably believe that area 51 has an alien ship.......and almost 100% believe in religion.

 

Some people are just too uneducated or to indoctrinated into a twisted way of thinking that they have lost the ability to think for themselves and dont realise that they can actually search for real evidence that has been studied and peer reviewed by the intelligent people of the world.......Instead they sit back and take their info from bias from corrupt or small minded people (NRA or idiotic parents)

 

The fact is the USA has the highest gun crimes per capita in the whole of the developed world. And even if you are scared of your government and this is your reason to keep guns.....if it did kick off I know who would win.

 

There also hasn't been a gun massacre in the UK since 1996.....guess what.....They passed laws after to pretty much ban owning private hand guns. Exactly the same situation in Australia.......guess what......no massacres since 1996 (same year coincidentally)

 

Just educate yourself think for yourself.

 

The Chicago argument is also a bullsh*t excuse. The USA has open state borders so this makes this argument irrelevant.

 

The Guns don't kill people is also an almighty stupid argument. Go into a place with a Semi auto or go into a place with a knife.......which is going to cause more damage? Plus of this argument was even slightly true here in the UK you would get people trying to go on massacres with knifes or other types of weapons ie Cars.......guess what.......that never happens. So its either the USA has more psychos per 100,000 people than the UK or the more logical argument.........Guns give the ability/intrest/lust for these psychos to carry out these killings.

here you dropped this:

 

 

138899.jpg

 

I should get a picture of a dunce hat or a blindfold for you. Or both. Then if you put your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALALALALALALA you can pretend that everything I just wrote didn't happen.

 

you equated religious people with conspiracy theorists pal. i think YOU should be wearing a dunce hat

Hahaha hahaha you completely misunderstood.......what an idiot. Read it again it might sink in. Also why did you pick out that one part and ignored all my other highly logical brilliant points?

 

because some of your other points are not so brilliant

Good detailed comeback argument....well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

2ec.png

>be American

>get shot

 

 

Everyone has an opinion, although I don't understand what does "gun history" have anything to do with anything, is it like, going to make the gun haunted?

 

And yes, I do agree that guns should be legal for self-defense, by the way.

 

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

>be American

>get shot

 

 

Everyone has an opinion, although I don't understand what does "gun history" have anything to do with anything, is it like, going to make the gun haunted?

 

And yes, I do agree that guns should be legal for self-defense, by the way.

 

Gun history...

 

In this case, the story attached to the person that shot, or the people that were shot by the guns. Clearly, this PSA went right over your head. Those stories attached to the guns were used to illustrate the needless violence that can occur simply because people own guns and don't store them safely - like the child who fished a hand gun out of his mother's purse and shot her with it.

 

The gun she bought to protect herself.

 

Guns should be legal for self defence? People wouldn't need guns for self defence if gun control... y'know, actually existed.

Edited by Fuzzknuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W1ddL3

 

Everyone has an opinion, although I don't understand what does "gun history" have anything to do with anything, is it like, going to make the gun haunted?

 

And yes, I do agree that guns should be legal for self-defense, by the way.

 

 

I should think if one is going to spend serious money on a second hand product, they might like to know it's history, especially if it was involved in a crime.

 

Of course the real reason for declaring the gun history in this instance is an attempt to convince the shoppers not to buy guns by laying on "the feels" and guilt tripping them straight back out the door. I'm sure it must have failed on some customers, but of course we'll never see that.

 

Thanks to GTA V, I think Ned Luke is a cool guy, but clearly he must have a dog in this fight and I don't buy the argument that he is just an actor and it's not his opinions. Actors typically choose their roles to some extent (unless he's really hard up at the moment) and I don't think most get involved in these kind of overly-sentimental claptrap ads unless they agree with the message. They are not major projects like Film or TV and they have strong, not at all subtle political messages so I just don't believe that ads like this are "just a job".

 

I bet if Luke had appeared in some hard right-wing ad, the resident liberals here would be losing their sh*t right now and the actor argument just wouldn't wash.

 

Also, for the record, I don't mind if Luke is anti guns, that's his business and it's not the worst political opinion in my book. I'm just making a point.

Edited by Waldie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Vercetti

 

 

>be American

>get shot

 

 

Everyone has an opinion, although I don't understand what does "gun history" have anything to do with anything, is it like, going to make the gun haunted?

 

And yes, I do agree that guns should be legal for self-defense, by the way.

 

Gun history...

 

In this case, the story attached to the person that shot, or the people that were shot by the guns. Clearly, this PSA went right over your head. Those stories attached to the guns were used to illustrate the needless violence that can occur simply because people own guns and don't store them safely - like the child who fished a hand gun out of his mother's purse and shot her with it.

 

The gun she bought to protect herself.

 

Guns should be legal for self defence? People wouldn't need guns for self defence if gun control... y'know, actually existed.

 

 

About a thousand times this. But gun nuts will never get it. Ya know, because it's their "right."

Edited by King Vercetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W1ddL3

Watching the video again, I can't help but suspect that the main customers shown in the video were actors as well. I just find it difficult to believe that all these people walk into a gun store with the intention of buying a gun and then leave empty handed because they're told a sad story.

 

Surely they must have heard about about Sandyhook, Columbine, Virginia Tech etc already, as well as the countless homicides, suicides and accidental killings involving firearms? And yet they still thought it was a good idea to buy a gun up until they walked into this store? I don't buy it.

 

I thought New York was supposed to be one of the more enlightened parts of the U.S? :D They're either actors or just plain ignorant / retarded, in which case it's probably best they didn't buy a gun. Then again, perhaps Ned Luke is just a very convincing guy.

Edited by Waldie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperar

Watching the video again, I can't help but suspect that the main customers shown in the video were actors as well. I just find it difficult to believe that all these people walk into a gun store with the intention of buying a gun and then leave empty handed because they're told a sad story.

 

Surely they must have heard about about Sandyhook, Columbine, Virginia Tech etc already, as well as the countless homicides, suicides and accidental killings involving firearms? And yet they still thought it was a good idea to buy a gun up until they walked into this store? I don't buy it.

 

I thought New York was supposed to be one of the more enlightened parts of the U.S? :D They're either actors or just plain ignorant / retarded, in which case it's probably best they didn't buy a gun. Then again, perhaps Ned Luke is just a very convincing guy.

 

Oh, they don't share your opinion, then they are fake, ignorant or retarded, great thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W1ddL3

It's not about different opinions, it's about being logical and rational which I wasn't seeing a whole of from the people in this video.

 

Average New Yorker apparently - "Hey look! A gun store! Cool! I'm gonna go buy a gun!"

Ned "acting" - "Hi welcome to the store! Want to buy a gun? Guns kill people you know, like this one here."

Average New Yorker - "What, people have actually been killed by guns?"

Ned - "Yep"

Average New Yorker - "Oh well in that case, I'm not going to buy a gun after all. I now realise guns are bad! Goodbye"

Edited by Waldie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperar

It's not about different opinions, it's about being logical and rational which I wasn't seeing a whole of from the people in this video.

 

No no, different opinions would ahve been something like "i don't buy it", but you went like "they are ignorant, retarded or actors", Do you see the difference?.

 

Edit: It's perfectly possible that they are all actors, i don't know.

Edited by hyperar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W1ddL3

I did say that I "didn't buy it" but in my opinion, yes, that based on their implausable behaviour that they probably are actors and if not they must be just stupid.

 

I already said that while I don't personally agree, I have nothing against people who are "anti-gun" but I struggle to see how people go from being apparently pro-gun to anti-gun in this brief visit to a fake store. I imagine most pro-gun people are well aware of all the killings, they just don't give a f*ck. This little stunt is hardly going to change that.

Edited by Waldie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

I did say that I "didn't buy it" but in my opinion, yes, that based on their implausable behaviour that they probably are actors and if not they must be just stupid.

 

I already said that while I don't personally agree, I have nothing against people who are "anti-gun" but I struggle to see how people go from being apparently pro-gun to anti-gun in this brief visit to a fake store. I imagine most pro-gun people are well aware of all the killings, they just don't give a f*ck. This little stunt is hardly going to change that.

They've obviously carefully selected the few people that actually changed their minds. I'm sure many went in there and said "whatever, just give me the gun".

 

They're clearly not actors though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cdgl

Obviously making the guns illegal will get rid of 300+ million guns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26e.gif

Edited by cdgl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

Guns should be legal for self defence? People wouldn't need guns for self defence if gun control... y'know, actually existed.

If someone is a lunatic enough to hold you at gunpoint, they're also a lunatic enough to get their hands on one illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Goldcard

He's obviously discouraging people to buy guns so he can rob the bank across the street without interruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minifat

Every case he mentioned has negligence and mental health issues at its core.

Then keep guns away from those who are negligent and mentally deficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zondar

This thread is brilliant, just brilliant. Lol

I love hearing from the type of Americans that us Europeans (and many of their fellow Americans too) like to have a little chortle at. You know, the kind who'll happily take their kids to a gun range, but will lose their sh*t , if their kid sees a flash of Janet Jackson's nipple when watching the super bowl. :D

Keep up the debate , it's def brightening up my day :p

 

Edit: Loving those conspiracy vids too, keep em coming!

Edited by Zondar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

 

Thanks to GTA V, I think Ned Luke is a cool guy, but clearly he must have a dog in this fight and I don't buy the argument that he is just an actor and it's not his opinions. Actors typically choose their roles to some extent (unless he's really hard up at the moment) and I don't think most get involved in these kind of overly-sentimental claptrap ads unless they agree with the message. They are not major projects like Film or TV and they have strong, not at all subtle political messages so I just don't believe that ads like this are "just a job".

 

 

 

I don't want to wade into the whole gun control debate, but I believe you are incorrect about actors and roles they play.

 

Most actors, not your celebrity types, but real actors have other job(s) on the side. Acting isn't a stable profession, so unless your in a Theatre Company or television show, the work is hit or miss. Even though Mr. Luke has been on several TV shows in the past, it wasn't a reoccurring role. Now I haven't glanced at his IMDB profile, but I'd guess that it would be smaller projects like this one. Even though he was in the largest video game ever, it was more akin to a voice acting role. So I'd be willing to guess that he did't get paid the same as a movie actor in a big film. As example the falling out between R* and Niko's voice actor about money. I'm guessing that Mr. Luke was probably in need of the cash and jumped at the first opportunity.

 

Having said that I do find it hilarious that the murdering bank robbing character played in V is doing anti-gun PSA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XIantonioIX

 

 

The only place where guns can protect you are where other people have guns. Australia, where I live, has not had a major gun incident since the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true, but it takes a hell of a lot longer to kill 20+ people with a knife.

 

I DARE you to see how many America has had in the past few years alone.

 

I, for one, like that Ned has done this. Great guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Anyway, best example of why anti-gun people are always wrong is Chicago. Chicago has one of the most strict gun laws in USA (I think ever more strict than California/Washington DC) yet it has highest gun crime rate out of any cities. Common sense - gun laws/taking away guns from civilians isn't going to fix homicide rates, because generally speaking, the guns involved in 80% of crimes are illegal, NOT bought from legit shops.... sure there will be a case when one nutjob shoots up his workplace with his gun, or a parent doesn't leave his gun locked, but you can't fix stupid - same thing could've happened with say, a knife. I checked the webpage on this and it's ridiculous by the way, there's a poll that's suppossed to answer if you need a gun or not - and no matter what you check, it still says you don't need a gun lol. Libtard propaganda.... by the way, the Sandy Hook shooting is a hoax, there's no death records of the victims and the pictures show that all the gun related evidence (bullet holes/broken glass) was done by a police breaching shotgun.....read the interviews with kids done by independent journalists, they all claimed they were 'having a drill'.

What USA has been trying to do for years now is quite clear, it's just trying to disarm citizens while at the same time militarizing the police, so in case they want to pass any bullsh*t laws (like we let polish politicians do) a riot won't be much of a problem for them considering citizens would be unarmed. The reason why 2nd amendment was ever estabilished was to prevent this (so citizens could fight back against corrupt goverment)

Here's a great speech by someone who obviously knows his work for all ppl interested in this topic:

 

EDIT: some good points http://bearingarms.com/desperation-gun-control-group-lies-gun-buyers-attempt-sell-fear/

strict gun laws or not murder comes from ghetto neighborhoods with people trying to survive anyway they can and in these neighborhoods people will kill you for drugs,change,being a gang rival etc its not strict gun law its poverty. Any ways from what I seen from people who have "legal guns" tend to end up commiting massacres, or kids shooting up schools or murder suicides so less guns= less murders Edited by XIantonioIX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Deadite

It's not about different opinions, it's about being logical and rational which I wasn't seeing a whole of from the people in this video.

 

Average New Yorker apparently - "Hey look! A gun store! Cool! I'm gonna go buy a gun!"

Ned "acting" - "Hi welcome to the store! Want to buy a gun? Guns kill people you know, like this one here."

Average New Yorker - "What, people have actually been killed by guns?"

Ned - "Yep"

Average New Yorker - "Oh well in that case, I'm not going to buy a gun after all. I now realise guns are bad! Goodbye"

there's a word for that: "half sttepers"

Maybe they left the reactions they were aiming for in the video, i bet there were some that just bought the gun anyways and some that maybe recognized Ned.

 

Or could be all acting, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cdgl

Although it's fine if people want to have guns, using it to defend yourself against the government only worked 200 years ago when they had similar technology lol

 

theres no way citizens can face the government actually only with firearms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnWeazel

Personally, I don't understand the point of discouraging these people from becoming gun owners purely because their previous owners were irresponsible with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Son of Zeus

I point you in the direction of my previous post about the amount of work and people(weeks of work and 100s of people) to demolish a building even the quarter of the size of one of the twin towers.

Pish tosh. The Twin Towers were...... TOWERS. To bring down a 100 storey tower you don't need to wire every floor. Explosives placed at critical support points will bring all floors down. BLAM! Support blown out at, say floor no. 30. What happens? The floors above it, having no support, will come crashing down. The floors below it, unavle to take the weight, would fall.

 

That work wouldn't need thousand people.

 

Plus it wasn'tsn't just the burning temp of jet fuel you retard........it was jet fuel plus all of the combustible material in the towers combined with the high winds at that altitude.

Now, now. Be mature and don't resort to name calling.

 

' Other combustible materials'

Oh, so these other 'combustible materials' provided fuel for a fire to burn for more than 3 hours? Nice joke.

 

As for that air speed at high altitude argument, here's what the engineers had to say:

 

According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

 

Key point in bold.

A ton of planning went into building those towers, you think they wouldn't have considered wind speeds?

 

But yeh your conspiracy based "physics" trumps that of people with master degrees that have actually explained this In DETAIL.

Oh, its not my conspiracy theory. Physics professors have researched and explained that it's impossible that the Towers collapsed by just jet fuel.

 

Excerpt from J. Mc Michael's book 'Muslims suspended laws of physics!'

 

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel!

...

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.

...

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce. And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it.

 

BYU Physics professor Steven E. Jones's statements:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

 

FACT: 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".

Steven Jones, one of the planners of the WTC towers, found the original blue print of the WTC towers. Here's what he said:

 

Although the WTC was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it, the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

 

Skillinga recognized expert in tall buildingsdoesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. 'However, he added, I'm not saying that properly applied explosivesshaped explosivesof that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.

 

Read the bold parts. That's coming from an expert in tall buildings, one of the engineers of WTC. Way more authentic than a fire chief.

 

Source: http://arabesque911.blogspot.in/2007/05/world-trade-center-building-designers.html?m=1

 

Do read it.

 

1) If the towers were truly demolished by explosives, how did the explosives get there?

 

Q2) And how did the government manage to get all the people involved in getting the explosives in place (including prepping both buildings with 1000s of meters of ignition lines and 1000s of pounds of explosives to be "in" on this plan and not say anything after?

1) Naive question. Inside the towers, who would give a second thought to what 'workers'(demolition experts hired by the Bush administration) were doing?

 

2) It did not require 1000 of ignition lines. You've already read above how the designers of the WTCs had not considered demolition. Nuclear explosives are way more powerful than explosives used in normal demolitions.

 

 

As I will say AGAIN. Conspiracy nuts believe in the unbelievable when the logical answer is directly in front of their eyes.

 

This is the effort and preparation that has to be put into demolishing a building 1/10 the size of ONE of the twin towers. Bearing in mind this building is empty the whole time they are prepping it and not full of thousands of people everyday.

 

https://youtu.be/3oSJfXMAIgo

This video proves nothing. This shows how a building in normally demolished using explosives, not using nuclear explosives. The WTC buildings share no structural similarity with the building shown here.

 

Here's what Frank deMartini, construction manager of the WTC towers, said in 2001:

 

In regards to the Towers' immense solid steel construction, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intensegrid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

http://grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/towers/demartini.html

 

That, I'm afraid, blows your argument to smithereens. Those who don't believe the official 9/11 story aren't conspiracy nuts, they've roped in physists, engineers, fire men, scientists and taken the story apart.

 

If you still believe the official story that "19 Muslims hijacked four planes, crashed two of them into WTC towers and the third at Pentagon and one of them was shot down", its time to WAKE up.

 

The Pentagon has cameras on 24/7, but surprisingly only two were on that day. Strange! The FBI reached Pentagon 10 minutes after the' 'plane' crashed into it and confiscated the video tapes. Later two videos were released, in which the supposed 'plane' looked nothing like a plane.

 

The 'plane' had made a 16 feet wide hole in the Pentagon. No debris of the 'plane' were ever found.

 

The official 9/11 report is a joke, its riddled with flaws.

 

 

1, 8 of the 19 'hijackers' were found to be fake profiles of people who never existed.

 

2, No forensic examination of the debris of WTC towers.

 

3, WTC 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, came down by itself in 6.5 seconds. 6.5 seconds!

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

 

4, Usually when a commercial jet goes off radar, it is intercepted by the air force. That day, nothing.

 

5. No plane debris found around Pentagon.

 

6. The planes performing manouvres which would be impossible with 767 jetliners.

 

More interesting stuff here: http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

 

Wake up. If you're an American, you're being lied to by your leaders. Bush got 9/11 done because he wanted war. White House LIES. Don't let them mislead you.

 

Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

 

Pretty incriminating, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fwenshy

^ Nuclear explosives......

 

Somebody just went full retard. Never go full retard.

 

 

Just a bunch of links to websites made by people with massive confirmation BIAS and not looking at a story from both sides.

 

The difference between me and you.....and the difference between intelligent people and dumb nuts.....and the difference between proper Science and Pseudoscience is that we look at all the options and rule out each bit of evidence using LOGIC until we reach a theory that fits perfectly with all the evidence. This difference between me and you is that I've looked at all the conspiracy videos and evidence out there but then to come up with a balanced opinion I've also looked at all the evidence debunking these crazy claims. And it soon became apparent wich ones were the truth.

 

 

Please also tell me how many people you think it took to execute this wacko plan of yours? 10,20,30,40,100,1000,10000? Or was it one special agent?

Edited by fwenshy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yu Jian

^ Nuclear explosives......

 

Somebody just went full retard. Never go full retard.

Can't you at least just appreciate the fact he put a little bit of effort into his post? I don't think there was a controlled demolition in the buildings the planes hit. I do however believe that WTC-7 was demolished by explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fwenshy

 

 

^ Nuclear explosives......

 

Somebody just went full retard. Never go full retard.

Can't you at least just appreciate the fact he put a little bit of effort into his post? I don't think there was a controlled demolition in the buildings the planes hit. I do however believe that WTC-7 was demolished by explosives.

If he put as much effort into being a bit more skeptical then I wouldn't have to insult him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Son of Zeus

^ Nuclear explosives......

 

Somebody just went full retard. Never go full retard.

 

 

Just a bunch of links to websites made by people with massive confirmation BIAS and not looking at a story from both sides.

 

The difference between me and you.....and the difference between intelligent people and dumb nuts.....and the difference between proper Science and Pseudoscience is that we look at all the options and rule out each bit of evidence using LOGIC until we reach a theory that fits perfectly with all the evidence. This difference between me and you is that I've looked at all the conspiracy videos and evidence out there but then to come up with a balanced opinion I've also looked at all the evidence debunking these crazy claims. And it soon became apparent wich ones were the truth.

 

 

Please also tell me how many people you think it took to execute this wacko plan of yours? 10,20,30,40,100,1000,10000? Or was it one special agent?

"My arguement was taken apart point by point, so let me resort to petty insults".

 

Had a feeling you were a troll earlier, just got confirmed. Might consider reporting.

 

So where's the official evidence about 9/11? Why doesn't FBI release tapes they confiscated? Why was Bush in Florida for an extended time that day? So many questions still unanswered.

 

Did you read about the WTC planners? How they tested the building? Apparently not, judging from your retort.

 

Next time, try to come up with better rebuttals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fwenshy

 

^ Nuclear explosives......

 

Somebody just went full retard. Never go full retard.

 

 

Just a bunch of links to websites made by people with massive confirmation BIAS and not looking at a story from both sides.

 

The difference between me and you.....and the difference between intelligent people and dumb nuts.....and the difference between proper Science and Pseudoscience is that we look at all the options and rule out each bit of evidence using LOGIC until we reach a theory that fits perfectly with all the evidence. This difference between me and you is that I've looked at all the conspiracy videos and evidence out there but then to come up with a balanced opinion I've also looked at all the evidence debunking these crazy claims. And it soon became apparent wich ones were the truth.

 

 

Please also tell me how many people you think it took to execute this wacko plan of yours? 10,20,30,40,100,1000,10000? Or was it one special agent?

"My arguement was taken apart point by point, so let me resort to petty insults".

 

Had a feeling you were a troll earlier, just got confirmed. Might consider reporting.

 

So where's the official evidence about 9/11? Why doesn't FBI release tapes they confiscated? Why was Bush in Florida for an extended time that day? So many questions still unanswered.

 

Did you read about the WTC planners? How they tested the building? Apparently not, judging from your retort.

 

Next time, try to come up with better rebuttals.

I'll give you one bit of evidence that people should read to prove that you are a full of crap.

 

This Steven Jones you claimed was one of the PLANNERS(whatever that means) of the world trade centre has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC.

 

He is a rouge old Physics lecturer that was quickly forced to retire from his position after coming up with a paper that was NEVER PEER REVIEWED and was rapidly disputed by the whole Engineering community. He is a NUT with a hidden a gender.

 

And the reason I haven't picked apart all your long list of crazy claims is because I haven't got the time, I'm just on my way to watch a rugby game. But I think that one debunk I just gave you is a pretty huge dent in your main argument.

 

And just to let you know.....The Peer Review system is the foundations of proper science. His paper on this is worth sh*t without being peer reviewed....it's just another CRAZY claim

Edited by fwenshy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.