He probably also had cybernetic eyes to see in the tunnel.



>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^Darkhand:
Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...

You guys didn't get that he was some kind of cyborg that controlled technology with his hands? And yes, given enough time, trees will grow anywhere.
I would be more skeptical of a skinny hipster surviving the apocalypse, along with his own suicidal style of motorcycle riding.

>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Darkhand:
Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...


You guys didn't get that he was some kind of cyborg that controlled technology with his hands? And yes, given enough time, trees will grow anywhere.

I would be more skeptical of a skinny hipster surviving the apocalypse, along with his own suicidal style of motorcycle riding.

>> ^Darkhand:

Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...

I've lived here for a decade & I don't know about the Castro but public nudity outside of there is rare. I've seen a lot of naked people here that is for sure but it's usually apart of an organized thing where it's pretty much expected & funny. If you don't like it you'll probably know when & where that shit is going down and just make sure you're not around.

I mean of course, if you live downtown in a high-rise you should expect to see nude people because you're living in a fishbowl & there is always that one weird guy that loves walking around his apart naked with the blinds open. I still remember looking up from a bus stop on the corner where I used to live with my girlfriend and seeing some guy jacking off in his apartment staring down at us... CREEEPY.

It's nonsense like this post that causes these kind of discussions to devolve into mudslinging matches. There is no credible evidence that fires caused the collapse either. Sure some fancy physics modelling produces something that could be a scenario for the collapse but please don't expect me to believe that this is proof.
There are no mountains of proof because the evidence was removed from the scene. It's all just theories. You like the official version. I don't buy it. That doesn't make me religious or a conspiracy theorist any more than you.>> ^lucky760:

>> Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel
Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.
It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.
It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs, but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.
I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.
Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always quality, but always interesting.

>> Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel

Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.

It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.

It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs (their primary evidence usually seems to be in the form of questions), but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.

I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.

Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always *quality, but always interesting.

>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?


It's worse than just "questioning authority" -- questioning authority can be a very positive thing.

We're talking about the people who think Obama was born in Kenya, that global warming is a hoax, that vaccines are dangerous, and that the government is gonna send the army to take away their guns any day now.

America seems to have been totally overrun by a strain of people who have absolute, unshakeable faith in things that aren't supported by even a shred of evidence, or worse, are demonstrably false.

They aren't questioning authority -- they're lashing out at people who question their authority.

I didn't miss that memo, but after reading their opinions I decided to put more stock in the opinions of the other 99% of architects and engineers in the US alone who either didn't agree or didn't think the issue was worthy of comment.

You apparently missed the memo about the fallibility of professionals including architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers (especially), and accountants (see Arthur Anderson and Enron). There are just as many people wearing tinfoil hats in the professions as in any other field. >> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

>> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?



I suggest that those engineers and architects wouldn't simply be saying "hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire" and might not come under the scope of people i was referring to I would hope those people have a bit more to say.

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?

These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.

So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.

This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:

A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.