Raw Video: Fire Rages at Beijing Hotel

[heywatchme101]

21st century technology

[heywatchme101]

didnt colaspe coz its chinese

[NewWorldOrderNow1]

Do not question us, even though the official story of 9/11 makes no sense. We are your leaders. Do not think for yourselves. Stay inside the right/left paradigm.

[alexalexlive]

Oh wait .. why does it don't collapse to dust ? shoudn't it ? Oh wait let me gues a plane flies in it? ..no ?!?

AND WHY DOES WTC 7 COLLAPSED ?

[asssface2000]

xtjlowex is a fag

[fightphreak]

Interesting how this building was mostly consumed in fire yet it never fell. When you look at the WTC towers, they only had fire on a few floors and fell within two hours of burning. Now to all the naysayers, explain to me how this makes sense. I mean after all, that was the official explanation of why the WTCs collapsed right? from fire?

[LadySaraA]

They did say that the jet fuel made the heat of the fire more intense and that affected the structural integrity.... but at the same time i do agree with what you are saying. It was all a bit suss.

[fightphreak]

Yeah, but jet fuel is 4/5 kerosene. It doesn't burn very hot (1700 degrees). The melting point of steel is 2700 degrees. Not to mention, the smoke coming out of the buildings before they fell were getting darker. This indicates that the fire is cooling, not getting hotter. Add the fact that the architect of the WTCs said that the buildings should have been able to withstand multiple impacts and you have yourself a conspiracy.

[MacraStraba]

GTFO of mah fire videos, you WTC nutjobs.

[Johnalexgray]

Ive heard that the steel used in the building could not be melted by jet fuel because the steels melting point was higher than the fire could burn

[thehipsterofnewyork]

that is correct. Plus, the jet fuel was burned up in ten minutes. Plus, molten steel was found at the WTC bases. Super-thermite or nano-thermite is an explosive AND can melt steel. And its been found in the dust as well.

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray They didn't melt. They lost their integrity which caused them to sag. This buildings floor trusses did not sag most likely because the floor trusses weren't unassisted like the ones in the world trade center buildings.

[Johnalexgray]

@usindependent50 loss of integrity cannot explain why the building fell in a uniform free fall acceleration.

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray

The one thing that is dificult for theorists to conclude is the fact that minutes before you see the east penthouse collapsing the building has already begun its collapse. Minutes before the actual collapse connections are being lost and the interior is failing, initially in the east, then through the core which causes the complete collapse. Why'll the interior is being compromised the more rigid outer shell stays in place until the core is compromised by the progressive collapse.

[Johnalexgray]

@usindependent50 are you talking about building 7 now?

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray

Building Seven is the only real mystery left.

[Johnalexgray]

@usindependent50 the twin towers and building 7 fell at free fall acceleration. Thats impossible unless all resistance is removed.

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray

It took building seven 18 seconds to fully collapse. The collapse began in the east pent house and then progressively east to west.

[Johnalexgray]

@usindependent50 and?

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray Thats not free fall. And the building could fall at such speeds after the interior of the building was compromised. What you dont see is how the interior is basically non-existent.

[Johnalexgray]

@usindependent50 do you see the fire in this video? the small fires in wt7 were nothing compared to this. and yet fire like this could not cause this building to collapse. so how could a fire such as this cause a building like wt7 to fall down. WT7 was a hardened building i should add.

[usindependent50]

@Johnalexgray

There were very large and intense fires in building seven. Of course you dont see the worst fires because there is very little footage of the south side of the building. The structure was compromised. First responders have been saying that.

Do I need to explain it again. Those girders and columns are very close together which makes them stronger than the long trusses in WTC7.

Watch:

watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=ch­annel_video_title

watch?v=Klac_3f2NAI&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[xtjlowex]

I find it amazing that the comment section for a hotel fire in China caused by fire works would be the posting location for a bunch of uneducated children who want to be 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

However, just to feed the stupidity,

cytuber: Please show me where Bin Laden said he was NOT responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I'd love to see this, because I've only seen the clips where he was boasting about doing it.

[cytuber]

@xtjlowex

The tape you saw was a fake. Research it.

watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

You have been fooled by the same people who told you Saddam had WMD and that he was in cahoots with his Bin Laden and dozens of other lies.

YOU BELIEVED EVERY ONE OF THEM.

I DIDN'T. So who is the 'stupid' one?

Who is the one who is still posting govt lies even though they made a fool of him over and over again? LOL

Do your own research. Questing the govt AND the conspiracy theorists. Think for yourself.

[lisboa6]

.

did you saw the youtube video where the plane hits the pentagon??

you should see because it looks more like a tomhawk then an airplane

[frankiebones01]

You people are killing me. Can we do a simple word association game? Say the presidents name.

O

BAMA

again

OH

BOMBER.

Now I know you can't blame the black man for 9-11. Bush is an OH BOMBER just like his Dad. Chaney is a DICK. A big dick. I'm losing it people...I did knock Two TWINS up once. I'll use my dick thank you. Save you the cost of all that Thermite.

[promachacker]

Dude america was behind the 911 bombings! how can yo[u not realize they wanted the muslims to get in trouble those stupid people!

[cytuber]

horraHillbilly

The people who said 911 was a Bin Laden operation (once on the CIA payroll) were the same people who said Saddam had WMD and the economy was in great shape

Two wars later and at the beginning of a major economic crash, you still believe them. That is beyond my comprehension.

Im not saying you have to believe what I suspect. Not at all, only that you doubt, THINK, and question rather than parrot their propaganda.

[xjohn2006]

So are you saying that Bin Laden was not behind the 911 bombings? Is this why he fled into the caves of Afghanistan?

[cytuber]

xjohn2006:

Bin Laden gloated about backing attacks against U.S. in Africa and elsewhere but said he was NOT responsible for 9/11. Why would he refuse to take credit for the worlds most effective attack if he's already being hunted for previous attacks?

Why is Bin Laden on the FBI's most wanted list for attacks around the world but not for 9/11? The FBI said there was no evidence that he was responsible for 9/11.

Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 is just a conspiracy theory -- not a fact.

[wimpie25]

China uses American sirens, never expected that.

[wesia4lia]

wtf .. its just sirens

[wimpie25]

if you say so.

[wesia4lia]

i didnt say ur comment was dumb

i said that to some 1 else

[86005537]

its so pretty... have to say.... while the hotel was on fire, CCTV news were calmly showing the bush fire at Australia on the news. no breaking news! till the next morning lol

[jellytastesgood]

when you guys think of burning buildings, you think of 9/11. get over it guys. its in the past. nothing we can to to change what happened.

[luddite333]

Well I guess now some company gets some work. How convenient.

[NurembergPrinciples]

L8nitedave-- i have the video on my site ,WTC 7 never got hit by anything the fires were on 3 floors ,no open flames,this building is burning for 8 times the length n 5 times the heat ,n nothing on it fell let alone the building ,9/11 was a false flag ,if u can,t see that then u r evil or stupid ,maybe both,,,so ur wasting your time ,how come u are not smart enough to face the facts ,try watching the video i find that helps a lot,,,n don,t put the tinfoil hat on so tight next time,,,lmfao

[wesia4lia]

retarded comment

[salbal777]

Buildings could collapse from fire only when you have idiots like American people.

[Gnr500]

And remember the American Idiots when they rescue your ass with billions of American dollars in your third world toilet.

[TinFoilHatLapdog]

did it collapse lol

[eekdog2005]

Buildings only collapse from fire in america where the people are stupid enough to believe anything the media/govt says.

[Chick6517]

I loooved that video! one of the best one's I've seen in a long time on yotube! I can't wait to show it to all my friends, there gonna love it as much as I did.

[NurembergPrinciples]

the building is burning 10 times worst than 9/11

any bets it will never fall ,,,,,,this is going to be a prime example of why WTC 7 which was on fire for a couple of hours could of never fell like it did

[L8nitedave]

Really? I missed the part where one of the biggest skyscrapers in the world fell on this building.

[cytuber]

l8nitedave, 'one of the biggest skyscrapers in the world' also fell on WTC 5 & 6 which were much closer to WTC 1 & 2 and sustained far more damage yet they did not collapse into their own footprint. Why?

The only three buildings to collapse by fire melting/expanding the steel IN HISTORY happened to be 3 buildings ALL OWNED BY THE SAME GUY WHO HAD JUST HAD THEM INSURED.

All those who gained from this disaster just happened to be linked to the neocons / israelis and mossad

[L8nitedave]

Five and six were only a few stories tall and did not have the near the load on foundational beams that 7 did.

So when were the buildings uninsured? Isn't it normal and prudent to insure buildings?

All disasters will have links to others who will benefit from it in some way.

[horrabilly]

the buildings were fully insured. They had to have a new insurance policy when silverstein took over the complex. and guess what, they were mandated to have terrorism clause.

[cytuber]

So why would a shrewd property owner buy two old skyscrapers that were constantly losing tenants, needed hundreds of millions of dollars in new internet wiring and had a time limit on it to have the asbestos removed from every floor at a cost of $1Billion?

How could he have ever got his money back? Surely there were better deals to spend several billion on? But luckily for him (cough), he made a 'killing' on the few million he put down and got the right to rebuild as well.

[horrabilly]

Wow in the span of a paragraph you have 4 truther LIES.

1. the sky scrapers were at 95% occupancy in the 7 years previous to 9/11. that isn't losing tenants.

2. Hundreds of millions on new wiring was part of upkeep.

3. removal of asbestos was finished in 1998, and there was NONE left to remove. It was only used on ONE TOWER up to the 34th floor, and not at all in the others. so no $1 billion in charges there.

so already you start with a flawed analysis and then go from there. oops

[cytuber]

I want sources that are better than the Port Authority sources I'm using.

1. What was the occupancy level at the time of the attack (not 7 years prior). SOURCES?

2. Wiring is always part of the upkeep. I'm talking about the need to make a 70's building (pre communications revolution) into a 21st century building).

3. Pls provide sources that says asbestos removal had already been complete.

Why is there asbestos health concerns for those in the area if it had already been removed?

[horrabilly]

sorry it went to the 38th floor (nto 34th) in ONE tower, and wasn't in the other one at all.

"On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating."

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A

wtc*nist*gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTA­R%201-6A*pdf

pg 37 & 38

[horrabilly]

now for your lie about occupancy.

in Sept of 2001 it was at 98% occupancy.

in 1998 it was at 95% nytimes*com/1998/05/31/realest­ate/ commercial-property-downtown- at-the-world-trade-center-thin­gs-are- looking-up*html?pagewanted= print

In feb of 2001 it was at 98% occupancy.

panynj*gov/ AboutthePortAuthority/ PressCenter/PressReleases/ PressRelease/index.php?id(equa­ls)61

and it had the highest GROSSING resturant in the US, Windows on the World.

not losing tenants, not going bankrupt.

[cytuber]

Secondly, how much of Mr Silversteins mulit billion dollar windfall did he donate to those who lost their lives in his building?

How much did he donate to the police and fire services for their courages help and sacrifice?

(The same for the zionist jew who owned the plaza beneath. He was an Israeli special forces officer (read mossad agent) who also made a 'killing"

If you don't think jews would kill americans for political gain, look up U.S. Liberty and Mossad bombings (false flags)

[horrabilly]

insurance on wtc complex only paid out $7 billion.

$7 billion sounds alike a lot doesn't it. If Silverstein would have taken the money and run, ok, it would look fishy. BUt he didn't. Did he?

He has reinvested EVERY penny back intot he wtc complex and the Freedom towers. Total rebuilding cost is over $10 Billion.

How does he make a penny off of that little truther?

oh he doesn't.

simple research little truther blows your assumptions to shit.

your anti semitism is great to know though.

[horrabilly]

yet again, another truther lie.

wtc7 didn't fall into own footprint.

it hit the verizion building next to it doing $1.4 Billion in Damage.

How is that falling into own footprint? it isn't.

wtc5 and 6 had a different design. yet again, different designs respond differently in fire.

where weren't "just insured." not even close.

But here is the jewspiracy from the truth movement.

next you will have the 5 dancing israeli's and the "admission" on TV followed by the holocaust is fake

[cytuber]

"wtc7 didn't fall into own footprint" LOL

"Falling into its own footprint" is a term demolition experts use to describe a vertical collapse. IT DOES NOT MEAN EVERY BRICK FALLS EXACTLY WITHIN THE BUILDINGS OUTLINE.

W1/2 & 7 were two different designs too but miraculously they responded exactly the same

Even though each of the 3 buildings had different damage yet they all responded exactly the same. The first time in history & it happens 3 times on the one day and you think that is normal?

[horrabilly]

Oh silly truther.

When you say it "fell in own footprint" it means that you minimized damage, and the building did not fall outside of the outer corners. (I worked in CD for 2 years).

doing $1.4 Billion in damages to the Verizion building isn't in own footprint. Not even close.

Each of the buildings (wtc 1,2 and 7) were open floorplan designs.

I love the "first time in history" claim. It was also the first time in history that 19 hijackers FLEW JETS into buildings.

[cytuber]

Forget the term "into its own footprint. if youre hung up on where each brick fell.

The point is this: ALL 3 fell vertically -- almost perfectly without one even slightly TOPPLING OVER.

How is that possible? Its not, because it would mean each floor would have to fall at the same time and exert the same force on the floor beneath all the way down floor by floor.

When you consider the damage on each blg was very different, it becomes a joke.

[horrabilly]

w/out toppling over?

oh silly truther. The buildings weren't solid (you know like a tree).  They were made up of millions of individual parts.

that is why richard gage's demonstration with cardboard boxes is so funny.

as for not toppling over directly. wtc7 did $1.4 billion in damages to the verizion building. that isn't falling "straight down" not even close.

they shouldn't have toppled over. if they did, that would be a HUGE SMOKING GUN that something went way wrong.

[cytuber]

Re "the first time in history" claim.

1. Planes have crashed into blds before but haven't brought them down. This was the first.

2. Fires have raged much worse and much longer on many other steel framed skyscrapers (see above) but these were the first.

3. WTC had a severe fire on the 11th floor in 1975. It spread from the 9th-19th floors but didn't fall. This was the first.

3. WTC7 was not hit by a plane but still fell perfectly. This (with the other 2) was the first

[horrabilly]

Oh silly little truther.

twist in the wind, move the goal posts all you like.

1. NEVER before have JETS moving at 500 mph struck a standing building. FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.

comparing corey liddles plane (a 2 engine prop plane under 200 mph vs a 757/767 at 500 mph is apples to oranges)

2. fires have never burned long in STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPERS. It has never happened before. Not across whole floors. All of the buildings you are thinking about are traditional concrete reinforced.

[horrabilly]

WTC had a fire that was in a access hallway. you are right it was a bad fire. but there were WORKING Sprinklers. Firefighters were able to get there the fire resistant coating was still on the steel. not a good comparision. a good comparision would be the top of the Madrid tower. Steel framed, no fireproofing and it collapsed due to fire. oops. or there were partial collapses in wtc5 and6 due to???? FIRE. so the statement 1st time in history... not accurate.

[horrabilly]

so what do we have little truther? lets see. LIE about occupancy LIE about asbestos LIE about first time ever LIE about other planes hitting like the jets did LIE about Larry S.'s insurance payout LIE about mysteriousness of the insurance. LIE about "falling into own footprint" (wtc7 hit verizion building for $1.4 Billion in damages. wtc 1 and 2 fell across 16 city blocks damaging all 8 other wtc buildings. that isn't in "own footprint") will you admit those are all truther lies?

[xtjlowex]

Cytuber.

1. There's a massive difference between a plane weighing 395,000lbs traveling 500+mph compared to a small prop plane weighing 6750lbs traveling roughly 200mph slamming into a building.

2. Irrelevant, burning jet fuel was not a factor in any other sky scraper fires before the WTC, roughly 3,700 gallons of jet fuel will change how the fire burns and what it can and can't do.

3. 10 floor internal fire compared to a 395,000lb plane hitting it. Should I have to explain this?

[cytuber]

@xtjlowex.

1. Which plane slammed into Bld 7 again?

2. Where did the fuel come from that brought down Bldg 7?

Re Bin Laden: Check him out on the FBI website and you'll see he is not listed for 9/11.

Google why and you will find they said they don't have any evidence

Your government has lied to you about WMD, uranium from Nigeria, and the Iraq war being a 'cakewalk' all the way up to saying how good the economy was going months before it collapsed.

You deserve what you get.

[iiguns]

Wake The F&^K UP AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!

[dukemalibu]

Strange this building didn't fall in 6.5 seconds, or free fall speed? Oh that's right, it's never happened to any steel building before or after 9/11/01.

[RavenShield420]

look at the fire of this and look at the fire at wct and building 7 lol... what a joke O_O Jet fuel does not burn steel(FACT)

How long it took for the WTC to go down? LoL and look at the oklahoma bombing the bomb destroyed half of the building yet it was standing like nothing happened.

[botwomble]

By "burn steel" I'll assume you mean melting steel, since that's the conspiracy argument. But since when does metal have to be molten liquid for it to lose structural integrity? We've all seen blacksmiths hammer hot (not melted) metal into swords and horseshoes.

[andrewh23]

Such a stupid comment. Congrats about getting into the 21st century via a time machine. We have this thing called the internet - it's suggested that you use it to examine facts prior to crapping out of your mouth.

[iggy6]

Oh, you truly are a fool. I suppose your BBQ grill bends and distorts every time you cook a burger? And this was the strongest steel possible with a solid core in the middle. Stronger than any other building EVER built. They admitted for years they over-did it with the foundation and core strength. Go to 8thEstateDOTcom and hear it from a guy who worked for Marsh and Mcllellan on the exact 94th floor that was hit. Or TakingAimRadioDOTcom in the archives. If you aren't convinced, you're a shill.

[superbd11]

you are an idiot. RETARD. the wtc towers were the ONLY 2 STEEL TOWERS EVER to fall from a fire. EVER. EVER. EVER. R-TARD. do some research R-TARD. HAHAHAHA

[sammyboi7831]

wtc 7 fell too

[BOBSTAHL]

STAND BACK,ITS GONNA FALL.

[davidlawrence]

nterview with Rem on dutch newsradio:

* no injured (yet)

* building was about to open in march

* sprinklers were not activated

* (possible) cause: fireworks (final day of the Lunar New Year)

* took chinese firemen a long time to reach the building (holidays)

* rem assumes that the building is ruined

[teddyblair]

I've never heard so much BS in my life. The reason that this tower will not "implode" into it's own footprint is that it's not owned by Larry Silverstein and won't be "pulled" by a government backed crew. Does he pay you people to go to youtube sites to try to deflect the light of scrutiny from tower 7?

[andrewh23]

They don't need to be paid - Bill O'Reilly could convince them to jump off a bridge

[cod3fr3ak]

It might have been designed with terrorist attacks in mind, but it definitely was not designed with fire safety in mind. Holy crap. That thing is going to have to burn itself out. I don't know How you can fight a fire on a 40 floor building - when every floor is on fire.

[MaxXximusGT]

oh fuck It might fall down. it would suck though :|

[acidhead43]

Building 7 was constructed in 1987 and it was said to collapse because of fire heat expanding the steel floor beams to the point that weakened the entire structure.

Builders must be using better steel today because way back in 1987 the steel was a lot weaker.

[andrewh23]

From a scientific standpoint, steel that is covered by a multi-billion dollar insurance policy tends to be significantly weaker.

[mkamensky]

WOW! :|

[hamburglerz77]

Why dont we see it collapse? It took 102 minutes for WTC 1 to collapse due to fire below the melting point of steel. It took 56 minutes for WTC 2 to collapse. This building is on fire from top to bottom. Where is the collapse? CCTV reported that the fire was brought under control by fire crews nearly four hours after it erupted. Four hours?? Four hours and the interlocking steel beams didnt give out due to due to fire below the melting point of steel? Wake up.

[duranali]

I'm wondering too...WTC was at least inside Job,...

[mhansl]

The WTC was designed more than 40 years ago and was engineered to withstand the ACCIDENTAL impact of a 707 - much smaller with a lighter fuel load than that of the 767's that hit it - long before anyone thought to even consider the possibility of terrorist bombings. The CCTV tower, on the other hand, WAS designed with terrorist attacks in mind.

[thenoblegeek]

I don't know the exact construction design of this building but one possibility is that this building does not use the "Truss" design that was used on the WTC. The "Truss" design combined with the severe mechanical damage from the plane impact plus prolonged hot fire is what caused the WTC to fail. This hotel may not be a Truss design, it definitely hasn't been hit by a plane, and several thousand gallons of fuel are not burning in it (Unless this is another conspiracy?).

[freshmatrix]

Building 7 that collapsed did not get hit by an airplane. It had few fires and some damages; nothing like the fire shown here. Twin towers were the only buildings that got hit by the airplane.

[L8nitedave]

Building 7 was the one that got hit by a falling skyscraper.

[iggy6]

Wrong. Building 6 was between 1 and 2 and 7. Take a look at an aerial photo again. Bldg 7 couldn't possibly be touched by either twin tower. And remember, both 1 and 2 fell straight down.

Amazing people are still denying it after all the 100's of pilots, politicians, scientists, rescue workers, NYC fireman, and architectures who've come forward and you still don't believe it. Even the last guy out of the towers and the last guy in Bldg. 7 admitted it.

[L8nitedave]

Went there and saw it myself. SEVERAL buildings quite some distances away suffered substancial damage. All the videos show the portion of the tower above the planes impact striking building 7 as a whole unit. The exact words of the last guy in building 7 before it fell were "It looked like King Kong stepped on it"

[superbd11]

hahahah. troll. TROLL. RETARD. it was a controlled demo. the firefighter even said that if it didn't come down by itself, they were going to "take it down." That's a direct quote, before it fell. HAHAHA. Both WTC towers fell from a tiny fire, and this was ENGULFED in flames. HAHAHAHAHA. Sucks to be BUSH right about now. Do some research fool. TROLL. this was a steel structured building. 10,000 steel beams to be exact. HAHAHAHA

[NurembergPrinciples]

L8nitedave-- i have the video on my site ,WTC 7 never got hit by anything the fires were on 3 floors ,no open flames,this building is burning for 8 times the length n 5 times the heat ,n nothing on it fell let alone the building ,9/11 was a false flag ,if u can,t see that then u r evil or stupid ,maybe both,,,so ur wasting your time ,how come u are not smart enough to face the facts ,try watching the video i find that helps a lot,,,n don,t put the tinfoil hat on so tight next time,,,lmfao

[L8nitedave]

Try looking at all the real evidence instead of just the hacked out of context "truffer" stuff.

[heywatchme101]

@hamburglerz77 you do note that WTC towers 1 and 2 had huge holes knocked out by the planes while the Chinese hotel just burned

[matteo311]

@heywatchme101 What about tower 7? No plane impact there. If you say it's because debris hit it, then you don't believe the official story. NIST said the debris did not contribute to the collapse. Also every other WTC building took much more damage due to debris

[crazyjorge2111]

@hamburglerz77 yeah but this fire wasn't fueled by thousands of gallons or airplane fuel.

[1NPAPANTHER]

@crazyjorge2111 i was just guna put that in a reply but you beat me to it, good job i checked

[GoldenZealot21]

@crazyjorge2111

Yeah but that fuel burnt up and quickly dissipated almost instantaneously, and WTC 7 didn't have any jet fuel. Wake up fucktard.

[crazyjorge2111]

@GoldenZealot21 Why the hate? calm down.

[GoldenZealot21]

@crazyjorge2111

Not too fond of retardation, is all :p

[crazyjorge2111]

@GoldenZealot21 Ok, whatever, be an asshole. May I also note the fact that WTC 7 was on fire for more than 6 hours?

[GoldenZealot21]

@crazyjorge2111

Okay, what difference does that make dumbshit? So was this building, and the ENTIRE building was consumed, not a few minuscule fires. You seriously trying to defend a completely ridiculous point?

May I note that Bob broke his finger. Jim came over and shot and killed him. The cause of death is the broken finger. Seriously, that is how retarded you sound.

[crazyjorge2111]

@GoldenZealot21 Sorry I'm not obsessed with 9/11 or conspiracy theories. What's your problem, asshole? All your friends left you? I made a small remark. I'm not going to argue with you either.

[GoldenZealot21]

@crazyjorge2111

Neither am I. I don't even follow them. However, there are very obvious things that anyone with a functional brain can see.

And my problem? I find such idiocy and/or blind nationalism (a generator of stupidity far more effective than established religion hierarchies have ever been theorized to do so) to be quite funny. Then you use the 8 year-old insults of 'you have no friends'. Not only was that hilarious as well, but I don't see how that is related to having common sense.

[crazyjorge2111]

@GoldenZealot21 Yeah don't disprove my points, just insult me some more. Doom videos, 4 page report as channel description, pic of robot as profile, you're so clever hooray for our little internet warrior.

[GoldenZealot21]

@crazyjorge2111

Except I did. Then you could only turn to insults and asking why I'm so "mean" to you.

Spongebob squarepants? Sexual fetish for cows? smosh fanboy?

Hooray for this hero attempting to compensate for his failure by attacking people for their profile.

FYI, on YouTube, when a person is desperate and realizes they fail so hard, they go to the person's profile and starts flaming them off of that. Basically, you're just demonstrating how badly you failed. Nice job XD

[crazyjorge2111]

@GoldenZealot21 touché

[hurataimad]

like the movie, "tower inferno"