#6553

I understood trigger discipline at 5. I see more adults acting like jackasses with guns. It’s safe to assume these people were not brought up, being educated on how to properly handle a weapon.

#6554

then you was taught well . but the point stands , a child shouldn’t be firing a round larger than a .22/.410 until they’re about 12 . in my opinion .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:6553, topic:21032”]
. I see more adults acting like jackasses with guns. It’s safe to assume these people were not brought up, being educated on how to properly handle a weapon.
[/quote]of course . idiots come in all shapes , sizes and ages .

i believe ive told the story of the girl who pointed a rifle at my balls on here before . in response to it jamming .

i kicked her off the range . (Indian girl ) naturally .

1 Like
#6555

Well for me that depends. I’m not against people under 12 hunting, and they might need a larger caliber round for that.
But if they’re hunting, then they’ve gone through an extensive safety course.

Although i think the legal age for big game hunting is 12, although i’m not positive on that.

#6556

What are they extra fucking stupid or something? :smile:

#6557

I don’t know enough about the structural design of the towers to make an assessment either way.

It wouldn’t need to be airtight to have blow outs, several floors falling would compress enough air to to cause massive displacement. If it was air tight that pressure would be blowing every window out on the way down.

Within an elevator shaft there are no floors separating each level of the building the pressure would build through the whole shaft and then blow out and area it can find an exit. So lets say the 15th floor elevator doors were open, all the air pressure displaced from the floors above would find that exit and would potential come out with enough force to blow a section of windows and debris out like an explosion.

#6558

extra extra fucking stupid . she had passed her weapons handling perfectly fine . i nailed into them time and time again , keep the rifle facing down range at all times .

she fired a few rounds off . put up her hand . so i went over " sir duuuhhhhh its stopped firing " goes to hand me the rifle , barrel facing my balls (did not ask her to hand it too me what so ever ) . no safety on . nothing .
that was it . made her sit in the minibus for the rest of the day . tried giving me all the fucking water works :slight_smile: she soon found out i dont give out much sympathy to someone who just had a loaded rifle inches from my bollocks

1 Like
#6559

Makes sense, although i still think it might blow the the entire floor out if that were the case.

Have your opinions changed on 9/11 or do you still believe it was an inside job?

#6560

Did you get flak from her parents? :smile:

#6561

It was planned and orchestrated by a group other then the ones being blamed for it, who that is for sure we honestly may never know.

I personally do not buy the air pressure elevator shaft theory however it is plausible.

There are so many variables of what could have happened to that building its hard to keep things straight.

So far the one thing I have yet heard debunkers have plausible explanation for is the molten steel that was found several weeks after the building collapsed.

1 Like
#6562

Indeed, they always try to deny it too. I often argue with my oldest brother about this. He got brainwashed in collage and came back dismissing all conspiracies that i told him about.

When i brought up molten steel at ground zero he fucking tried to say that a building collapsing on itself can create enough heat and pressure to melt concrete and steel. :laughing:

#6563

i didnt no . but she left soon after . i only help out very occasionally. on things like shooting or when they go on a exercise on the weekends where we teach them the basics of operating as a soldier .

camouflage , how to attack as a section , and a company . setting up a harbour position (like base camp ) , how to carry out an ambush . then give them a little mission . like move tactically to this position (like 5 miles away ) then plan and carry out an attack to get this object or capture the position .

great fun for me . a few of us that help out who used to be cadets there and all joined the army . team up and attack the kids during the night . sneak up and drag 1 or 2 away during the night . then bollock them for not protecting the position well enough :slight_smile: or using blanks ambush them . things like that .

1 Like
#6564

Terrorizing 12 year olds? Sounds like great fun :smile:

1 Like
#6565

BB gun at 8 years old, .22 at 12, 12 gauge at 14 (ouch), .308 semi auto at 18.

2 Likes
#6566

This isn’t entirely impossible, in fact its plausible.

There were allot of fires that lasted a very long time in the lower levels of the building (major sub levels). The building had enough documents to fuel fires for a very long time.

I think what is likely is that the planes used were altered, perhaps loaded with more then regular jet fuel or potential an abnormal quantity.

My biggest issue with it not being controlled demo, is noon can ever provide evidence of similarly constructed building collapsing from a fire.

Occasionally someone with find evidence of structural failure from fires but the damage never comprises the entire strutuce.

#6567

ohh its brilliant . in reality they dont stand a chance at spotting us sneaking up :slight_smile: or dragging their very scared friend away into the forest :slight_smile:

1 Like
#6568

watch the video . he looks like a tit . but he handled that firmly and well . like a leader should do .

#6569

Yes but the heat caused by paper burning is 451 degrees. To melt concrete and steel you need temperatures of 2000+ degrees. I just don’t see oxygen starved fires, fueled by paper creating that kind of heat.

Perhaps, although most of the jet fuel is burned up in the initial explosion. The fires were also very oxygen starved (you can see this from the black smoke). The fire fighters said they were confident they could knock out the fires with one water line.

Exactly. You have buildings, that burned for 72 hours straight, and did not collapse.

#6570

it doesnt need to melt fully . only soften and the weight of the building would snap it . remember that .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:6569, topic:21032”]
Perhaps, although most of the jet fuel is burned up in the initial explosion. The fires were also very oxygen starved (you can see this from the black smoke). The fire fighters said they were confident they could knock out the fires with one water line.
[/quote] well russia claims to have evidence of a controlled nuclear explosion taking place . they threatened obama with it . when MH17 when down after he was accusing russia of doing it . obama then went very quite about it all after that .

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/10/pravda-putin-threatens-to-release-satellite-evidence-of-911/

a small thermonuclear device would melt the steel in a matter of a second . then its a matter of letting the weight of the building do the rest

1 Like
#6571

Yes but molten steel was found all over ground zero. The big question is, what could have caused that?
The steel used in the Twin towers, was coated in fire proof material, and could hold its integrity far past the burning point of jet fuel.

Beams like this, that were found cut with laser like precision were found all over ground zero.

#6572

this guy needs to be higher up in British politics