EminemBase

[flyingmonkey10]

EmBase...coolest nigga on teh interwebs

[Sam.]

What's your typing speed, base?

[cheeseburger]

He shares my love for Yelawolf.

/thread

[EminemBase]

What's your typing speed, base?

(I just did an online test to check) - 81 words per min. On a good day I think I've gone above 100, so between 80-100.

[CrashBand]

EminemBase, do you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or have you grown out of that?

[viJilance]

Oh, I'm 1990 man, lmao. I'm not actually 23 yet, I'm two months away, I just say 23 as I'm weeks away from being that. I'm not a faggot

I think you meant... "fuck all you 1990 faggots... apart from EmBase "

My roommate was born in 1990, I don't hate all of them, just most of them. Excluding you as well.

Well this thread is about you-what are you doing for your birthday?

[EminemBase]

EminemBase, do you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or have you grown out of that?

Well I don't know who did it, I just go by science and facts...

And, the science and facts point to all three buildings coming down by controlled demolition. Did planes hit? of course, were Islam extremists involved? Perhaps... but all three buildings DID come down by controlled demolition... I don't argue with reality.

I don't react emotionally: whatever your opinions on America, the government, 'conspiracy theorists', Islam or ANY aspect are - the fact is, those buildings could NOT, just physically could not have, by the laws of damn physics fell how they did, by natural collapse. End of.

Building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane and it fell in 7-8 seconds... do you realize the scientific impossibility of that happening naturally? That's near free-fall ACCELERATION. It imploded from the top and collapsed symmetrically at free-fall speed... that cannot happen if it was a natural collapse, as natural collapses meet natural resistance. Thousands of tons of steel and concrete that would break the fall and slow it down... free-fall only happens in controlled demolitions as floors are blown out from underneath the top as it falls down, to clear the path.

And again, the symmetry... lol, do you realize all three buildings fell symmetrically? Do you realize why and how that never happens. Why do you think that only happens in controlled demolitions? it's because they're controlled, and they need the building to come down cleanly and not to damage surrounding structures, it doesn't 'just happen by chance' let alone three times on the same day.

Here's a side-by-side comparison video of Building 7 falling, and a real controlled demolition. Spot the difference? Me either. Know why it looks identical to a controlled demolition? Because it is lmao. Those characteristics - the speed, the symmetry, the way it falls... they don't just 'happen', those are the results of highly focused efforts of demolition experts. Hence why you have so many 9/11 groups speaking out (Such as AE911Truth where highly acclaimed architects and structural building experts are putting their rep on the line / with no monetary gain) ; we're not talking 'fake moon landing' here, we're talking an incident that led to the illegal invasion of two countries for America's continued world raping... it's what they've done over, and over and over: instill fear to garner overwhelming public approval for otherwise illegal war acts for the continued building of an empire behind closed doors. America have never been out of war.

I don't understand why you or anybody else sees it as so unrealistic or implausible either... you don't address the facts, you've just bought in to this idea that 'America doesn't do that'... really? Do you know any history at all lmao. Do you realize governments have done these kinds of things time and time again: do you realize that it's not easy to convince your people to go and risk their life for you, they need to convince you that if you don't, your entire country is at threat - your kids, your way of life, it's textbook fucking tactics. America just do it whilst pretending to be noble.

All three collapses are completely consistent with demolitions. None are consistent with natural collapses. So, until you explain away the science, you can make as many chips as you like, but all you're really doing is reacting emotionally and not addressing facts.

[EminemBase]

July baby? <3

EmBase is not one to be fucked with. If anyone was around in 2009 to enjoy or be on the receiving end of one of his career ending posts, then you'd understand the brilliance that is Base.

Also, he comes with the real exclusive shit, yo. Messiah 2013.

I'm honoured

Can't wait for Messiah dawg.

[Dante]

Every time EminemBase posts something I want to rip my arms off and bash the screen furiously with my forehead. He just irritates me. Last night, he was in my dream and I beat the shit out of him, verbally.

[EminemBase]

Every time EminemBase posts something I want to rip my arms off and bash the screen furiously with my forehead. He just irritates me. Last night, he was in my dream and I beat the shit out of him, verbally.

Every time I'm reminded you exist, I question the value of human life.

[CrashBand]

I've gone through the stage you have, and been an advocate for virtually everything you've just said, with just about as much gutso.

However, after watching the guys from Popular Mechanics destroy the idiots from Loose Change I then started to question myself, and just how 'scientific' I was being.

You've just stated that it can't fall down like that from the planes/fire and has to have been controlled demolition.

And you've pulled a straw man saying I don't adress the facts, lol. You have to show how the "facts" point to it being a controlled demolition.

Here's the thing with conspiracies. It is far easier to exaggerate or make up a "fact" than having to go through the steps necessary to disprove it. (Not implying you are exaggerating/making up anything).

But all the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists shout out about - like the thermite or structural damage in the pentagon - has certainly not gone through things like peer review etc etc. It's often just relaying from conspiracy websites.

[EminemBase]

I've gone through the stage you have, and been an advocate for virtually everything you've just said, with just about as much gutso.

However, after watching the guys from Popular Mechanics destroy the idiots from Loose Change I then started to question myself, and just how 'scientific' I was being.

You've just stated that it can't fall down like that from the planes/fire and has to have been controlled demolition.

And you've pulled a straw man saying I don't adress the facts, lol. You have to show how the "facts" point to it being a controlled demolition.

Here's the thing with conspiracies. It is far easier to exaggerate or make up a "fact" than having to go through the steps necessary to disprove it. (Not implying you are exaggerating/making up anything).

But all the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists shout out about - like the thermite or structural damage in the pentagon - has certainly not gone through things like peer review etc etc. It's often just relaying from conspiracy websites.

Loose Change? lmao, that doc had the right intentions but was retarded.

I'm not talking about Loose Change.

Go seek out AE911 truth.

You want me to show facts? I mentioned a few of them... let's go one at a time, let's start by addressing Building 7 falling at free-fall acceleration (which by the way, NIST / gov appointed agency in-charge of investigating, admitted)... symmetrically. Explain how that can happen naturally, as... it never has, and there's no scientific explanation known as to how that can happen naturally... and NIST couldn't explain it either lmao...

So, let's start there.

Don't let other people and the media make you feel stupid or reverse on you views man. Look at the facts and forget media, history, other people, hysteria, emotions, forget it all... the FACTS are what? That Building 7 fell at free-fall acceleration (it actually sped up as it fell), symmetrically... those are the facts that nobody disputes: so, if not by controlled demolition, explain how that can happen, as no explanation has been given how that can occur naturally, and it never has.

[Sam.]

What's your typing speed, base?

(I just did an online test to check) - 81 words per min. On a good day I think I've gone above 100, so between 80-100.

Wow! I'm like 20-30 at best. Understandable your 'expressiveness' in every little topic being discussed. Your focus on grammar is also commendable, because many (those who try and be like you) sacrifice it in a haste to topple you in the conversation(and ultimately fail). Good going, base.

[EminemBase]

What's your typing speed, base?

(I just did an online test to check) - 81 words per min. On a good day I think I've gone above 100, so between 80-100.

Wow! I'm like 20-30 at best. Understandable your 'expressiveness' in every little topic being discussed. Your focus on grammar is also commendable, because many (those who try and be like you) sacrifice it in a haste to topple you in the conversation(and ultimately fail). Good going, base.

Thanks Main

#TeamSam. added to footer yo.

[CrashBand]

Yeah, WTC 7 was usually the smoking gun, and what puzzles me the most, still leaving me with the thought of an inside job.

My point earlier about it being a lot harder to disprove these "facts" than it is to spread them could apply though.

It's always "the fires could not have made the building fall symmetrically" often said as a blanket statement without any real evidence backing it up. I suppose if it had been peer reviewed and it was certainly impossible for the building to fall like that, then yes, it would have probably been an inside job.

But I think the burden of proof perhaps should be on showing that it can't occur naturally. Imagine setting fire to a tree and watching it burn and persuasively stating that it's impossible for that to happen naturally. You have to then justify how it's impossible to the nth degree - not just "it's never happened before".