Originally posted by jaden101
this part of the argument is a misinterpreted fallacy....while the building was designed to take the impact of a 707...it was designed on the premise that the plane hitting it would have been an accident and thus the pilot would be slowing down to minimum possible speeds...this wasn't the case on 9/11...the plane was acceleratingand all those who know basic physics know the velocity/mass/force equations...
double the mass...double the force...down the velocity...quadruple the force....
And what's your point, if the impact of the plane had been too much for the tower, then it would have tilted over. Something which did not happen, instead the tower pancaked perfectly. Even WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane pancaked.
Originally posted by jaden101
as for your molten steel argument...i fail to understand what you're getting at...because explosives dont cause molten steel either...and neither do missiles or "torpedos"
Yeah, they can, it just depends on the type of explosives used.
You guys need to learn something very very important right now.
Things can defy the laws of science because (guess what?) THE LAWS WERE WRITTEN BY HUMANS! While their research is very extensive, there is no way it can be complete...ever. Humans are falliable, and thats why nature and technology has defied the laws of science before.
Namely the Bumblebee. It's size comapred to its wings makes it impossible to fly, according to the laws of avaition (one of the branches of scientific laws, for all of you "so literal, if there's a one word difference, I'm gonig to say I'm right forever, even if I look like an idiot in the process" kind of people.) However, it flies. How it flies? I don't know, but it does.
Just like the Helicopter. It's not to be able to fly (or even hover, as some people describe its "flight" as.) But is does anyways.
So, all this "It exceeded free fall" thing is total bullshit because not only has science never tested the falling speed of Debris falling from the 80th story of a steel building before, but just because it exceed free fall doesn't necessairly have anything to do with bombings. Perhaps it was simply the pancaking of the building that gave the debris extra force causing it's fall to hasten. No one really knows.
And World Trade Center 7 was hit by a very large peice of metal. Not a plane, but large metal. Hit it in the right place, and something could happen. Remember, the other WTC buildings weren't as "Terrioist proofed" as the towers were.
Think people THINK!
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
You guys need to learn something very very important right now.
Things can defy the laws of science because (guess what?) THE LAWS WERE WRITTEN BY HUMANS! While their research is very extensive, there is no way it can be complete...ever. Humans are falliable, and thats why nature and technology has defied the laws of science before.Namely the Bumblebee. It's size comapred to its wings makes it impossible to fly, according to the laws of avaition (one of the branches of scientific laws, for all of you "so literal, if there's a one word difference, I'm gonig to say I'm right forever, even if I look like an idiot in the process" kind of people.) However, it flies. How it flies? I don't know, but it does.
Just like the Helicopter. It's not to be able to fly (or even hover, as some people describe its "flight" as.) But is does anyways.
So, all this "It exceeded free fall" thing is total bullshit because not only has science never tested the falling speed of Debris falling from the 80th story of a steel building before, but just because it exceed free fall doesn't necessairly have anything to do with bombings. Perhaps it was simply the pancaking of the building that gave the debris extra force causing it's fall to hasten. No one really knows.
And World Trade Center 7 was hit by a very large peice of metal. Not a plane, but large metal. Hit it in the right place, and something could happen. Remember, the other WTC buildings weren't as "Terrioist proofed" as the towers were.
Think people THINK!
So, basically your saying science is best used when it's convenient for you.
That post pretty much translate to "I don't want to hear facts".
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarAre you too freaking dimwitted to realize that humans are not perfect, and the laws of science were created by humans? People can make mistakes, and the laws of science can be defied. And that's because the laws of science aren't perfect. While they are VERY accruate, that's not to say they are perfect. How can you not understand that? I'm not speaking in a foregin language (Unless you're from Europe or something, in which case, I am) I'm simply stating facts.
So, basically your saying science is best used when it's convenient for you.That post pretty much translate to "I don't want to hear facts".
The facts are as follows:
The laws of science are widly recognized as impossible to defy
Humans are known as mistake ridden creatures
The Laws of science were written by humans.
Therefore, the laws of science could (and, for that matter DO)contain mistakes.
This is a very simple concept, and I'm not saying "Oh, I can defy science at will, because it's conveiniant." I'm saying that, due to lack of research in given feilds (namly fall of debris from really high after a plane crash) can result in what we would call "defying science."
Even though it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to defy science, it's just the fact that even the most studied of humans are so oblivious to certain facts of science, that something we didn't know could happen (due to lack of knowledge) can be thought to "defy science." Note the helicopter and Bumblebee.
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
Are you too freaking dimwitted to realize that humans are not perfect, and the laws of science were created by humans? People can make mistakes, and the laws of science can be defied. And that's because the laws of science aren't perfect. While they are VERY accruate, that's not to say they are perfect. How can you not understand that? I'm not speaking in a foregin language (Unless you're from Europe or something, in which case, I am) I'm simply stating facts.
What facts have you stated, Not one of the numerous anomlies that have been mentioned by the so called "nut cases" have been acknowledge by the government or the mainstream media. If a scientific law has been broken, then logic would tell you there is a reason as to why.
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
The facts are as follows:The laws of science are widly recognized as impossible to defy
)contain mistakes. [/B]
Humans are known as mistake ridden creatures
The Laws of science were written by humans.
Therefore, the laws of science could (and, for that matter [b]DO
😆 Oh my god, so your saying Science was wrong on 911, Dear god what denial.
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
This is a very simple concept, and I'm not saying "Oh, I can defy science at will, because it's conveiniant." I'm saying that, due to lack of research in given feilds (namly fall of debris from really high after a plane crash) can result in what we would call "defying science."
Lack of reasearch my ass, more like ignorance. there were more anomlies then just freefalling objects.
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
Even though it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to defy science, it's just the fact that even the most studied of humans are so oblivious to certain facts of science, that something we didn't know could happen (due to lack of knowledge) can be thought to "defy science." Note the helicopter and Bumblebee.
And there is always a reason as to why something defy's the conventional laws of science, and reasearch is poured into. But, on 911 that magically does not happen.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarYour lack of credible arguements hurts my face. And when I say credible I don't mean "Believeable" I mean "Intelligent." You twist my words around. I never said it WAS wrong. I said it COULD'VE been wrong. However, you make yoursel look like an idiot, twist words, and spawn random crap from nothingness. You are a shame to the human race.
What facts have you stated, Not one of the numerous anomlies that have been mentioned by the so called "nut cases" have been acknowledge by the government or the mainstream media. If a scientific law has been broken then there is a reason as to why.😆 Oh my god, so your saying [B] Science was wrong on 911
, Dear god what denial.Lack of reasearch my ass, more like ignorance. there were more anomlies then just freefalling objects.
And there is always a reason as to why something defy's the conventional laws of science, and reasearch is poured into. But, on 911 that magically does not happen. [/B]
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
Your lack of credible arguements hurts my face. And when I say credible I don't mean "Believeable" I mean "Intelligent." You twist my words around. I never said it WAS wrong. I said it COULD'VE been wrong. However, you make yoursel look like an idiot, twist words, and spawn random crap from nothingness. You are a shame to the human race.
😆
And you post random, ignorant, factless, garbage all for the sake of ignoring hardcore evidence that proves 911 was an inside job. Your basically saying all the anomlies that were recorded are ok because science is imperfect, which is a sad attempt to downplay their significance.
Pathetic, yes science is not perfect, that's why new research is always poping up. Even established laws are always being tested, over and over again, just to see if they hold up to new findings.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarIf you describe "hardcore evidence" as "Garbled quotes, and random, useless information, redundantly thrusted into peoples faces over and over again." Then yes, I do ignore "Hardcore evidence."
😆And you post random, ignorant, factless, garbage all for the sake of ignoring hardcore evidence that proves 911 was an inside job. Your basically saying all the anomlies that were recorded are ok because science is imperfect, which is a sad attempt to downplay their significance.
Pathetic, yes science is not perfect, that's why new research is always poping up. Even established laws are always being tested, over and over again, just to see if they hold up to new findings.
Parker, ever notice how you never respond unless Deano or Ashtar, or someone else is there to do work for you?
I proved the explosives theory wrong, I'll go over it again
-Explosives placed at the bottom of the building would cause the building to collapse from the bottom, which was seen did not happen
-Explosives placed where the Planes hit would either go off Prematurely(meaning the building would fall within seconds of being hit by the Plane) or if they did not, would have made an explosion which ironically, did not appear ANYWHERE, until AFTER the building came down upon itself, which would make the bombs useless, as it was falling down
In that short little thing, I have proven that if you use the Explosives Theory another time(to add to the 20+ extra) you will be making lines just for the point of spouting out a debate
I forget who, but someone also proved the structure weak enough to collapse, and NIST even said it could, but their not OFFICIAL, are they? NIST is full of GOVERNMENT LIES despite half of your points come from them
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I proved the explosives theory wrong, I'll go over it again-Explosives placed at the bottom of the building would cause the building to collapse from the bottom, which was seen did not happen
-Explosives placed where the Planes hit would either go off Prematurely(meaning the building would fall within seconds of being hit by the Plane) or if they did not, would have made an explosion which ironically, did not appear ANYWHERE, until AFTER the building came down upon itself, which would make the bombs useless, as it was falling down
And let me refute that for you, basic explosives do not explode on impact and are resistant high tempertures. C4 is a good example of that. As far as I know nothing in a 500 MPH airplane crash will set off plastic explosives. 20,000 fps IS required. All high explosives commonly available are quite stable these days and specific proximal effect of pressures generated by explosions of 20,000 FPS are required. The jet is traveling at perhaps 750 FPS
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I forget who, but someone also proved the structure weak enough to collapse, and NIST even said it could, but their not OFFICIAL, are they? NIST is full of GOVERNMENT LIES despite half of your points come from them
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And what's your point, if the impact of the plane had been too much for the tower, then it would have tilted over. Something which did not happen, instead the tower pancaked perfectly. Even WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane pancaked.
no it wouldnt have tilted over given where it was hit
if the damage had been caused at the bottom of the towers then it may well have tipped because the bottom at one side would have given way...as it did at the top
seen here
the problem with the design is that the 4 corners which bore the most vertical forces of the building relied on the floors holding them together to prevent the buckling
when several floors were removed due to the impact and several more trusses collapsed due to metal weaking...then the weight of the building above forces the corners out and then everything above crashes between the columns
Yeah, they can, it just depends on the type of explosives used.
no they dont...thermite cutter charges do...but they dont produce explosions...not to mention that thermite can burn side ways...and thus cant cut vertical columns
not to mention that the people who claim they saw molten steel didn't actually bother to document it...and they also claim it was evident upto 5 weeks after the collapse...so what kind of explosive does that?....thats right...none...
there could well have been explosions in the tower though...it did contain several electrical transformers...have you eve seen one of them explode
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
all the arguments have been made to look foolish
theorists spoke of seismic spikes of explosions...yet the people who actually recorded these spikes denounced them as idiots
Originally posted by jaden101
no it wouldnt have tilted over given where it was hitif the damage had been caused at the bottom of the towers then it may well have tipped because the bottom at one side would have given way...as it did at the top
seen here
Originally posted by jaden101
the problem with the design is that the 4 corners which bore the most vertical forces of the building relied on the floors holding them together to prevent the bucklingwhen several floors were removed due to the impact and several more trusses collapsed due to metal weaking...then the weight of the building above forces the corners out and then everything above crashes between the columns
Ah, the "Truss failure Theory" Which the NIST proposed.
That's all well and good, problem is:
Buckling existed well before collapse initiations, and came about slowly and steadily.
The alleged failings of trusses just before collapse initiations were lightning-fast across whole floors, too quick for buckling to be filmed or photographed, enabling totally symmetrical collapses.
Before we go any further, note how the second point above is impossible to prove. It is like your classic conspiracy theory: its strength lies in the fact that it cannot be proven true or false. If the buckling was too rapid to be seen or filmed, how do we know it ever occurred? But it gets worse.
The buckling that existed pre-collapse was of a small number of perimeter columns, spread across different floors. This small number of buckled columns was obviously not enough to initiate a global collapse. Considering the great redundancy of the Towers, and all modern skyscrapers, the buckled columns observed pre-collapsed would have posed no real threat to global stability.
(Note that in the above image, all the dangling pieces of metal are aluminum coverings, not the actual perimeter columns, which were steel.)
Yet how do we get from a few buckled columns, to global collapse?
The answer is apparently that the remaining failures necessary to initiate collapse were so fast, we weren't able to see them! 😂
Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention that the people who claim they saw molten steel didn't actually bother to document it...and they also claim it was evident upto 5 weeks after the collapse...so what kind of explosive does that?....thats right...none...
Um, it was reported, But, here's a pic as proof
Originally posted by jaden101
there could well have been explosions in the tower though...it did contain several electrical transformers...have you eve seen one of them explode
That doesn't explain the extreme heat months after 911 on ground zero or molten steel.
Originally posted by jaden101
all the arguments have been made to look foolishtheorists spoke of seismic spikes of explosions...yet the people who actually recorded these spikes denounced them as idiots
Quote please, because I'm pretty sure that's not what was said
Originally posted by jaden101no they dont...thermite cutter charges do...but they dont produce explosions...not to mention that thermite can burn side ways...and thus cant cut vertical columns
The suspected thermite is the fist 30 seconds or so and the cameraman zooms right in on it.
Compare it with this thermite video..
Here's some more evidence
Evidence of Demolition Charges In World Trade Center
'Before proceeding with this page let me explain a little something about explosives and how people perceive them. I work in special effects. In films, great use is made of low velocity explosives such as untamped black powder and ANFO because they are low velocity explosives.
With a great whoosh and roar they belch forth with fire and smoke in a manner that has caused folks to drop their popcorn in matinees ever since sound came in. Movies have conditioned people to expect a certain look and sound to explosions, all based on very low velocity explosives. In a stunning ironic twist, moviegoers seem to perceive the slower explosions as more powerful.'
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html
Explosions Before WTC 7 Collapse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ