Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:46 pm 
 

DanFuckingLucas wrote:
0kill wrote:
Please don't credit my words to droneriot, DanLucas. :lol:


I apologise, I deleted the wrong part of the quote. I was only quoting him anyway to raise that I'd heard he'd been banned - though it might just have been from the IRC.

Yeah, that's it. I freaked out a bit when Morrigan seriously compared rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory to believing in creationism, and probably overreacted... But seriously, can you blame me? Is that fucking far-fetched or what?
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9802
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:14 pm 
 

droneriot wrote:
Yeah, that's it. I freaked out a bit when Morrigan seriously compared rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory to believing in creationism, and probably overreacted... But seriously, can you blame me? Is that fucking far-fetched or what?

Wow, that's like, totally not what happened! :lol: And by the way, so far there hasn't been any rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory - all the "alternative" theories do not remotely hold up under scrutiny. Yet their staunch adherents cling to them with the same religious fervour as creationists/IDers (similarly with the Holocaust deniers/revisionists), so yeah, it's not far-fetched at all.

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:17 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
droneriot wrote:
Yeah, that's it. I freaked out a bit when Morrigan seriously compared rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory to believing in creationism, and probably overreacted... But seriously, can you blame me? Is that fucking far-fetched or what?

Wow, that's like, totally not what happened! :lol: And by the way, so far there hasn't been any rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory - all the "alternative" theories do not remotely hold up under scrutiny. Yet their staunch adherents cling to them with the same religious fervour as creationists/IDers (similarly with the Holocaust deniers/revisionists), so yeah, it's not far-fetched at all.

I never mentioned any alternative theory. No idea where you pulled that one from.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9802
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:33 pm 
 

droneriot wrote:
I never mentioned any alternative theory. No idea where you pulled that one from.

You didn't have to, the 9/11 "truthers" all have their pet theories. Those that don't and simply "doubt", well, don't matter anyway because they were not what I was talking about. Besides, it's pretty meaningless to simply doubt something and just stop there.

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:39 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
droneriot wrote:
I never mentioned any alternative theory. No idea where you pulled that one from.

You didn't have to, the 9/11 "truthers" all have their pet theories. Those that don't and simply "doubt", well, don't matter anyway because they were not what I was talking about. Besides, it's pretty meaningless to simply doubt something and just stop there.

How is it meaningless? I think that is exactly the problem of said "alternative theories", because people desperately think they need to come up with an alternate theory just because the official one doesn't make sense to them. Personally, as someone once said, I believe in the axiom "If the emperor has no clothes on, then the emperor has no clothes on." Or, as someone else once said, "The lack of a better explanation does not make your assumption true." I don't believe doubt requires a "better explanation", I think it can be more than perfectly valid on its own.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9802
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:37 am 
 

I would say it depends. You are right that if you don't have a better explanation, you shouldn't hack your way into finding one. Fair enough.

However, my comparison to IDers and creationists was specifically against people who believe in alternative theories - which, so far, are all wacky. Perhaps there are people out there who simply have found credible holes in the official story without attempting to provide alternative answers, but I have yet to encounter a single one of them who asked halfway decent questions that haven't already been answered.

In regards to this case, though, what I mean by "it's meaningless" is that if you simply doubt the paradigm without a solid reason, you are doubting for the sake of doubting, which is useless and even counter-productive. And if you do have a good reason, i.e. you (impersonal you here) have found severe holes in the official story that cannot be explained by any rational mean, then if you do take it to its logical conclusion you will inevitably come up with an alternative theory. For example: if you somehow found strong evidence that there were explosives in the tower, then it follows that others with higher access to the evidence than you have found this specific evidence, too, but have chosen to tell another version of the story instead. What's the logical conclusion to that? That the officials are all thoroughly incompetent (and you, the random guy on the internet, is better than them), or that they all lied. Maybe they had a good reason to, and you won't jump to "it's an inside job!!" theory, but you still adhere to the "they lied/covered it up/etc" theory.

I'm a bit tired from kendo so I hope that makes sense. Anyway, to summarize, I agree that doubt itself is valid on its own... so long as there is evidence to back it up, and I have yet to see a single such case, much like I have yet to ever see an intellectually honest creationist. In this, my comparison stands. :)

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:52 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
I would say it depends. You are right that if you don't have a better explanation, you shouldn't hack your way into finding one. Fair enough.

That was my point. Just because there are holes in the official story it doesn't mean that the 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Illuminati aided by the cigarette smoking man from X-Files and his extraterrestrial allies. People who jump to conclusions from doubts in the official story are indeed nuts, I fully agree with you there.

Quote:
However, my comparison to IDers and creationists was specifically against people who believe in alternative theories - which, so far, are all wacky. Perhaps there are people out there who simply have found credible holes in the official story without attempting to provide alternative answers, but I have yet to encounter a single one of them who asked halfway decent questions that haven't already been answered.

In regards to this case, though, what I mean by "it's meaningless" is that if you simply doubt the paradigm without a solid reason, you are doubting for the sake of doubting, which is useless and even counter-productive. And if you do have a good reason, i.e. you (impersonal you here) have found severe holes in the official story that cannot be explained by any rational mean, then if you do take it to its logical conclusion you will inevitably come up with an alternative theory. For example: if you somehow found strong evidence that there were explosives in the tower, then it follows that others with higher access to the evidence than you have found this specific evidence, too, but have chosen to tell another version of the story instead. What's the logical conclusion to that? That the officials are all thoroughly incompetent (and you, the random guy on the internet, is better than them), or that they all lied. Maybe they had a good reason to, and you won't jump to "it's an inside job!!" theory, but you still adhere to the "they lied/covered it up/etc" theory.

I'm a bit tired from kendo so I hope that makes sense. Anyway, to summarize, I agree that doubt itself is valid on its own... so long as there is evidence to back it up, and I have yet to see a single such case, much like I have yet to ever see an intellectually honest creationist. In this, my comparison stands. :)

The thing is just that there are absolutely physical impossibilities in the official stories, most prominently that a building with a steel structure cannot collapse in freefall without said steel structure being previously exploded, pretty much the only part of that retarded Loose Change documentary I could agree with, too, because it is based on a well-known scientific fact. Still that doesn't mean that George W. Bush personally planted explosives in the building or any tinfoil-hattery of the sort.

Here's a theory that is obviously not true, but would, on a theoretical level work with the basics of the original official story work out: How about that in the WTC buildings, there were really outdated fire extinguishers that caused really strong explosions when subjected to heat, collapsing the steel structures? Yep, I know it's something I just made up, but it doesn't suggest any conspiracy, and it actually would give a reasonable explanation to something that would otherwise be physically impossible to happen.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6119
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:09 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
Here's a theory that is obviously not true, but would, on a theoretical level work with the basics of the original official story work out: How about that in the WTC buildings, there were really outdated fire extinguishers that caused really strong explosions when subjected to heat, collapsing the steel structures? Yep, I know it's something I just made up, but it doesn't suggest any conspiracy, and it actually would give a reasonable explanation to something that would otherwise be physically impossible to happen.


They would have to be some really, really big fire extinguishers. Or explosions.

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:15 am 
 

caspian wrote:
droneriot wrote:
Here's a theory that is obviously not true, but would, on a theoretical level work with the basics of the original official story work out: How about that in the WTC buildings, there were really outdated fire extinguishers that caused really strong explosions when subjected to heat, collapsing the steel structures? Yep, I know it's something I just made up, but it doesn't suggest any conspiracy, and it actually would give a reasonable explanation to something that would otherwise be physically impossible to happen.


They would have to be some really, really big fire extinguishers. Or explosions.

Ah, but you know Americans are a bit more light-hearted in what chemicals they put into products they sell. ;) For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally. But as I said, not sure if that isn't just an urban myth. Still, the United States have a reputation for having a little less concern for safety for the sake of economic efficiency, so who knows what their old fire extinguishers were filled with, hehe.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6119
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:19 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
caspian wrote:
droneriot wrote:
Here's a theory that is obviously not true, but would, on a theoretical level work with the basics of the original official story work out: How about that in the WTC buildings, there were really outdated fire extinguishers that caused really strong explosions when subjected to heat, collapsing the steel structures? Yep, I know it's something I just made up, but it doesn't suggest any conspiracy, and it actually would give a reasonable explanation to something that would otherwise be physically impossible to happen.


They would have to be some really, really big fire extinguishers. Or explosions.

Ah, but you know Americans are a bit more light-hearted in what chemicals they put into products they sell. ;) For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally. But as I said, not sure if that isn't just an urban myth. Still, the United States have a reputation for having a little less concern for safety for the sake of economic efficiency, so who knows what their old fire extinguishers were filled with, hehe.


Heh, I still find that unlikely but perhaps it's not entirely impossible. Here, we get dudes from the companies who come round every 3-6 months and replace the extinguishers with new ones (government regulation and whatnot), which is why I find the idea a bit strange.

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
RETIRED

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 5245
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:24 am 
 

caspian wrote:
droneriot wrote:
caspian wrote:
droneriot wrote:
Here's a theory that is obviously not true, but would, on a theoretical level work with the basics of the original official story work out: How about that in the WTC buildings, there were really outdated fire extinguishers that caused really strong explosions when subjected to heat, collapsing the steel structures? Yep, I know it's something I just made up, but it doesn't suggest any conspiracy, and it actually would give a reasonable explanation to something that would otherwise be physically impossible to happen.


They would have to be some really, really big fire extinguishers. Or explosions.

Ah, but you know Americans are a bit more light-hearted in what chemicals they put into products they sell. ;) For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally. But as I said, not sure if that isn't just an urban myth. Still, the United States have a reputation for having a little less concern for safety for the sake of economic efficiency, so who knows what their old fire extinguishers were filled with, hehe.


Heh, I still find that unlikely but perhaps it's not entirely impossible. Here, we get dudes from the companies who come round every 3-6 months and replace the extinguishers with new ones (government regulation and whatnot), which is why I find the idea a bit strange.

As far as I've heard, Americans aren't the biggest on security regulations. So they might still have their semi-explosive fire extinguishers after fifteen years or so.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/droneriot
Join my death/doom group on Last.fm!!
My blog: http://droneriot.blogspot.de/
Alpha Drone at Bandcamp: http://alphadrone.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6119
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:30 am 
 

I NOW DECLARE THIS THREAD TO BE ABOUT FIRE EXTINGUISHER SAFETY

Top
 Profile  
Earth
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:27 am
Posts: 25
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:30 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
Ah, but you know Americans are a bit more light-hearted in what chemicals they put into products they sell. ;) For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally. But as I said, not sure if that isn't just an urban myth. Still, the United States have a reputation for having a little less concern for safety for the sake of economic efficiency, so who knows what their old fire extinguishers were filled with, hehe.


I think you mean China.

Top
 Profile  
paskogen
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:35 am
Posts: 59
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:42 am 
 

According to what I may or may not have heard about your country, it's possible there are urban legends regarding alleged happenings that are conceivably substantiated by other possibilities. Maybe. How can you disagree?
_________________
mpawluk wrote:
OzzyApu wrote:
So if you'll be fucking chicks with Manowar condoms, does that really mean that Manowar is fucking your chick?

Manowar is fucking your chick regardless of the condoms.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9725
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:47 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
droneriot wrote:
Yeah, that's it. I freaked out a bit when Morrigan seriously compared rational doubt in the official 9/11 theory to believing in creationism, and probably overreacted... But seriously, can you blame me? Is that fucking far-fetched or what?

Wow, that's like, totally not what happened! :lol:


I actually have a log of the conversation that got him banned, which I can post/PM if relevant parties are interested. I won't publicize it without Morrigan's say-so, however. Also, the computer it's on is currently defunct until I get new memory, but it should arrive tomorrow.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9802
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:56 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
The thing is just that there are absolutely physical impossibilities in the official stories, most prominently that a building with a steel structure cannot collapse in freefall without said steel structure being previously exploded, pretty much the only part of that retarded Loose Change documentary I could agree with, too, because it is based on a well-known scientific fact.

:durr:

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76763

By the way, your silly theory about fire extinguishers IS an alternative theory. So much for stopping at the doubt...

Top
 Profile  
Deaths_Design
Anti-Christian Miscreant

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 296
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:06 am 
 

I hate this thread.

I hate it so bad.
_________________
DevotchkaNicki wrote:
I'm calling out Deaths_Design for being a creepy weirdo.

Top
 Profile  
Abominatrix
Harbinger of Metal

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:15 pm
Posts: 10261
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:18 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
droneriot wrote:
I never mentioned any alternative theory. No idea where you pulled that one from.

You didn't have to, the 9/11 "truthers" all have their pet theories. Those that don't and simply "doubt", well, don't matter anyway because they were not what I was talking about. Besides, it's pretty meaningless to simply doubt something and just stop there.

How is it meaningless? I think that is exactly the problem of said "alternative theories", because people desperately think they need to come up with an alternate theory just because the official one doesn't make sense to them. Personally, as someone once said, I believe in the axiom "If the emperor has no clothes on, then the emperor has no clothes on." Or, as someone else once said, "The lack of a better explanation does not make your assumption true." I don't believe doubt requires a "better explanation", I think it can be more than perfectly valid on its own.


Hah, well, I didn't see the discussion in question, but this topic has been up for debate a lot recently among some people I know. I've just read Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" twice and I'm not in the mood to accept any theory at face value, and humans are masters of the argument that appears logical but in fact takes you nowhere, so I definitely agree with this sentiment.

Doubt is beautiful.

Top
 Profile  
Thorgrim_Honkronte
Imperius Rexxz

Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 2903
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:28 am 
 

Umberto Eco rules, and that's a good book. I LOVE The Name of the Rose.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/atrophyhouston

Strange Death Metal

Top
 Profile  
Abominatrix
Harbinger of Metal

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:15 pm
Posts: 10261
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:34 am 
 

Thorgrim_Honkronte wrote:
Umberto Eco rules, and that's a good book. I LOVE The Name of the Rose.


I've got that one, but haven't read it yet. I definitely plan to crack it this year. He is a hellishly great writer.

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 am 
 

droneriot wrote:
For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally


One rumour I hear is that the current legal version has extracts from bulls' testicles or semen. Would take a whole lotta bulls if you ask me.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
LSD_25
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:59 pm
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:02 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
droneriot wrote:
The thing is just that there are absolutely physical impossibilities in the official stories, most prominently that a building with a steel structure cannot collapse in freefall without said steel structure being previously exploded, pretty much the only part of that retarded Loose Change documentary I could agree with, too, because it is based on a well-known scientific fact.

:durr:

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76763

By the way, your silly theory about fire extinguishers IS an alternative theory. So much for stopping at the doubt...


My favorite theory was the Occam's Razor violating mass system of supremely complicated high-heat explosives demolishing collumns while sufficiently heating an equally complex system of Thermite to cut into underlying support structures. But that still doesn't compare to the theory that whats-her-name gave which said that the government planted molten metal on the site to hide the use of an outer-space lazer to take the towers down. Or the theory that the plane's didn't exist and David Copperfield helped the government with mirrors to make the public believe there were planes.

Top
 Profile  
Hydrogen_Cloud
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:28 pm
Posts: 20
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:13 am 
 

Do you guys love Puissance? Because I love Puissance.

http://puissance.info/nine.html

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8558
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:49 am 
 

I didn't read the links posted by Morrigan, but I can assure you that a steel structure can collapse after an impact that tears away the fire insulations and a few tons of kerosene and a few tens of tons of other stuff burning around it. Once a steel beam reaches something like 600...650 degrees Celsius, it's structurally on the level of spaghetti.

Also, the lower floors will collapse once the top falls, simply because the potential energy of a 20-story block of WTC 300 meters above ground is enormous. I can't see anything wrong with the official explanation.

Protecting the beams and pillars from fire is a major item on the list of costly things in steel-frame buildings.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9725
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:31 am 
 

Yea, the girders don't actually have to liquefy to collapse. I'm not even an engineer, and I know that! Haven't any of these nubs stuck a metal spoon in the fire and seen how easy it is to bend when it's red-hot? It's so silly when these college kids with (supposedly) brains in their heads say that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" as if that were something significant. I guess they just lack common sense.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
red_blood_inside
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:20 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Argentina
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:37 am 
 

failsafeman wrote:
Yea, the girders don't actually have to liquefy to collapse. I'm not even an engineer, and I know that! Haven't any of these nubs stuck a metal spoon in the fire and seen how easy it is to bend when it's red-hot? It's so silly when these college kids with (supposedly) brains in their heads say that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" as if that were something significant. I guess they just lack common sense.


I guess a building structure is not made of the same steel a spoon is, there are different alloys that are heat resistent (or a least more risistent than a spoon)
_________________
Slavishly steered by redemption
Stricken by Biblical wrath
When solutions lie in compassionate logic
Not hearsay but the will of man

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9725
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:40 am 
 

Well obviously, but the same principle still applies. When heated up, metal gets more pliable before it actually melts.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
spaced
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:51 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Ireland
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:14 am 
 

Put on your tinfoil hats everyone! The government are sending the secret space aliens to plant mind control drugs in our food to turn us into sniper zombies so we can kill Vladimir Putin!

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9802
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:34 am 
 

Hydrogen_Cloud wrote:
Do you guys love Puissance? Because I love Puissance.

http://puissance.info/nine.html

Wow, I kind of want to sell all my Puissance CDs now. I knew they were bleeding heart leftist idiots (and huh they support Ron Paul now? WTF? :lol:, but that takes the cake. Oh well, they still make decent music.

Top
 Profile  
ThrashingMad
Skanky

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:20 pm 
 

NeglectedField wrote:
droneriot wrote:
For example, not sure if it was true or just a rumour though, I think one time I've heard that the original American version of Red Bull is illegal in almost every other country in the world because it is considered too hazardous in everywhere else, but in the United States the original version is still sold legally


One rumour I hear is that the current legal version has extracts from bulls' testicles or semen. Would take a whole lotta bulls if you ask me.


Every version of Red Bull has been made up entirely of Chuck Norris's urine.

Top
 Profile  
DBettino
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:23 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
...it's pretty meaningless to simply doubt something and just stop there.


Completely agreed. If 9-11 was a conspiracy...so what? What's the ultimate significance? The fact that our government has been hijacked by criminals? When was this not the case?

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HellBlazer, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group