World War 3

Aah I see. But I was talking about america. Which wasn't bombed during the war.

 

So Im guessing you were talking about the 9/11 event, and if the building's internal supports could melt like that, then im sure the airframe wouldnt of stood a chance in high hell, being still packed with jet fuel it would of been pretty quick and hot. Melting the aircraft.

 

Maybe he meant the crash that was caused by the passenger's uprising.

 

Planes move faster and I assume are much heavier than cars and yet even a crash at 40mph in a car is absolutely devastating, despite modern crash safety tests. A plane crashing into the side of a building is definitely enough for it to be destroyed beyond recognition.

 

...Probably storing money in their banks that comes from the darkest and filthiest of the sources?

 

0_0 planes are made out of materials 5x times stronger than cars. And are much stronger. But Any way I wasn't even the guy who said that. Go yell at rolf for saying it.

 

Depends on the plane and the car, if you look at a airbus, those things are as brittle as hell. look at a boeing, still not all that strong. the only reason why we have wrecks when planes impact on ground is the fact that ground is soft, and the planes are normally not accelerating

 

Wolve has a point there. If you ever look at pictures of plane wrecks were the plane had straight nose dived into the ground while accelerating the wreckage usually resembles a stack of scattered paper. Then heat that up to a thousand degrees and have a skyscraper collapse on it. Ok now try to find all the pieces.

 

Hes not just refering to the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York,. he's also refering to United Airlines Flight 93, a plane that crashed after passengers figure out what was going on.

 

I'm not reffering to anything
Why you guys blaming rolf's thing on me>

 

I'd like to go one record stating that: I (Aaronpoitras) have never posted any comments in the forum thread designated "world war 3" that have been associated or expressed towards and/or with any posts posted by forum user "TheStalker".

:wacko:

 

Oh. Sorry about that. I guess I just sort of lumped everything together. Okay. ROFL, what were you referring to?

 

I was sort of hinting towards simply dealing with all parties in the war, making gobs of money without having their population killed.
And do you, by the way, honestly think that the banks in Switzerland want to have that secrecy? Anyway, that's a whole other topic, but I'll try to explain on steam if you don't believe it.

It's "rolf"

 

No idea. This topic has become like a group of people simultaneously yelling nonsense at each other in a locked room.I probably wrote some bullshit,too.

Yup, i think they benefit greatly from the "Bank secret".

And thanks for correcting my name, i hate it when it is mispelled, although i don't even correct people anymore....

 

I recently read an article that stated that Swiss banks would rather have the Bank secrecy removed, because it lead to intense suspicion. For example, a tiny Swiss bank was suspected for keeping money for criminals, and the US (C.I.A.) led an intense lockout of the company, cutting them off from any trade with the US and also some other nations. The bank eventually had to close.

If they removed the secrecy, the suspicion level would obviously fall, and the banks wouldn't be beaten to death by state lawyers and court hearing many times a day.

 

..... This thread is how World War 3 will start. ಠ_ಠ

 

I fail to feel sympathetic towards those guys.

 

that's a bit extreme don't ya think?

 

Excellent. The plan unfoils as expected.

 

Riiiiight... I'm going to go hide in my bunker now (aka under my blanket). You guys have fun 'mkay?