Update!!!

Every once in a while, a liberal ass pours through our archives and comments on one of our older posts. When they type something particularly stupid, I like to call attention to it. You may recall Danbo's post entitled: 9-11 Untruth. A good read, by the way. He more or less takes a giant shit on myspace's most popular conspiracy nut group. Here's what an anonymous coward, er, I mean commentor had to say about it:


YOU UGLY FAT FUCK - BUILDING 6 FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED WHEN NOTHING HIT IT - YOU DUMB PIECE OF REPUB FAG SHIT! A HIGH RISE IN BRAZIL BURNED FOR 2 DAYS ABD THE STEEL CORE WAS INTACT - THE TWIN TOWERS WERE BUILT BY WORLD CLASS ARCHITECTS DUMBSASS, STEEL DOESN'T MELT AND COLAPSE AT FREE FALL SPEED YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Posted by JEFF to Cult of 7G at 11/14/2006 09:47:02 PM

To which I replied:


I presume you're actually referring to Tower 7. That was the one that collapsed. Idiot.
Tell me, in your expert opinion, what's the difference between "free fall speed" and normal building collapse speed? I always heard that if you dropped a bowling ball and a paperclip at the same time, they'd both fall at the same rate. Elementary physics, really. You might look it up before you make an ass of yourself again. The steel didn't all melt, retard. Some of the support structures could no longer bear the weight and the building collapsed. You don't have to melt all the steel in a building to make it fall down, idiot.




I'll reiterate for any slow people that may be reading this:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO MELT ALL THE STEEL IN AN ENTIRE BUILDING TO MAKE IT COLLAPSE. JUST DAMAGE ENOUGH OF IT'S SUPPORTING STRUCTURE. GOT IT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?