‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's physics. Buildings are not blocks of steel. They are buildings. If the upper portion of the building is suddenly allowed to go into freefall because an airplane hit it and cut the structure supports so that the upper portion came crashing down on the lower portion (NIST's claim) then the lower portion would push back, according to Newton's laws of motion, and the lower portion of the building would destroy the upper portion of the building as the upper portion was destroying the lower portion and it would not crash to the ground or pick up speed or accelerate. It is physics. It is 7th grade physics.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Crazy,ain't it?
     
  3. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [video=youtube;EKTL12wpBYY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTL12wpBYY[/video]

    Static vs Dynamic.

    Solid vs Rubble.

    Truther physics is wrong again.
     
  5. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :roflol: Wow. A couple of days ago you did not even know that Newton's law of motion were even relevant in the 9/11 collapse and now you are experts. LOL.
     
  6. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not by competent modelers, no.

    Yes.
     
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yep, and you still fail at that. Your understanding of Newtons 3rd law is the problem here. Yet again, you are telling me why a truck cannot tow a trailer, or why Verinage demolition doesn't work.

    - - - Updated - - -

    uh, what? Nice dodge, btw.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,787
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83

    100000 ton of dust floats away LOL
     
  9. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Right, I'm going to work. Have fun trying to explain to us why a shotgun doesn't work.

    I know you wont watch the video I linked above, but take my word for it, it proves you wrong.
     
  10. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. It would not. It would push back only with the maximum amount of force it was structurally able to bear. If that load bearing capacity was exceeded by that of the mass crashing down on it, then the lower part of the building would structurally fail and become itself a part of the falling mass, contributing to the failure of all structural components further down.

    By any and all actual calculations, the kinetic force of the falling portion of the building massively exceeded the structural capacity of the remaining structure. This is both because that kinetic force exceeded the load bearing capacity of the WTC's structure as designed, and because the integrity of the entire building was compromised by the impact and the initial fire induced failure and could no longer even bear its designed load.

    This is all basic physics.


    As we see from the videos, the lower portion did destroy the upper portion. But that didn't make the mass of either magically disappear or suddenly defy gravity to stop and suspend itself in mid air. 100,000 tons of structural steel still weighs 100,000 tons regardless of whether it's in one intact piece, a thousands 100 ton piece, or 100,000 one ton pieces.

    This again is basic physics.
     
  11. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I watched your video and it proves nothing. All it demonstrates is that a dynamic force will initially push harder than a static force. So what? All that means is that the dynamic force will do more initial destruction than the static force yet the static force will still resist. In other words, there is no way that the lower portions of the Towers were destroyed by the upper stories crashing down on them. It's impossible. The official NIST claims are impossible here on Earth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It is not basic physics. It is controlled demolition. That is the only physical explanation. The support below had to be removed so it could not resist.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *sigh* the initial destruction will increase the dynamic force on the bottom floors...their resistance would be futile.
     
  13. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, no. What you describe here might be 7th Grade auto-eroticism. But its certainly not physics.

    The lower section cannot push back with any more force than it can withstand before disintegrating. Bullets actually do penetrate flesh. Baseball bats actually hit home runs. Hammers actually do drive nails. This is because paper, baseballs and nails can't push back with equal and opposite force at all. And the lower section of the WTC could not even come close to pushing back against forces that exceeded its design capacity by at least an order of magnitude.

    You haven't the slightest clue what Netwon's third law actually means. You certainly could never come within light years of doing the math. We'll ignore for now your complete cluelessness regarding gravity. That would just be piling on.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What precisely was controlled about the demolition of the WTC towers?
     
  15. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lmao. Firstly, fire isn't white. You're thinking of heated metal. Secondly, you've posted a video of a random fire someone has uploaded to photo bucket. Are you claiming that's the WTC? Because if you are then you're flat out lying.
     
  16. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On what planet does structural steel turn to dust?
     
  17. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you're admitting it was a demolition?

    What was controlled was the symmetry and the speed. That alone evidenced controlled demolition. Professor Harrit finding proof of thermitic residue was just the icing on the cake, really.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,787
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83
    nope that was a response to the pics of wtc1 where the oshugger claimed there was MASSIVE fire when there was not as much fire as there was in the 70's that caused NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE to the building what so ever..

    - - - Updated - - -

    yep symetrical global failure of the structure.
     
  19. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It should not take you more than an IQ of 90 to understand that if the yield weight of a floor is 10000 pounds and you drop three floors weighing that much on one, the bottom floor is coming down and smacking the next floor with that much static force, plus the dynamic force and an extra floor's worth of crap the over-load the floor connections.

    Where is you arresting mechanism?
     
  20. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You watched the video and understood nothing from it. How much resistance does the static force of a person's flesh offer a bullet?

    Again... how much support needs to be removed from flesh before it can be penetrated by bullet?
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,787
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83
    on a planet that has the technology to fracture its bonds.
     
  22. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you not notice you were arguing against one of your own there?

    - - - Updated - - -

    And what planet is that?
     
  23. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, sorry. Apologies. Thought you were replying to me for some reason.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,787
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83
    [​IMG]
     
  25. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is to say only between the ears of delusional punks who claim to know science but rely instead on the nattering of obvious schizos.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page