TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 [121] 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You really don't understand? How can the body of a plane, made out of exactly the same material as the wingspan puncture through multiple rings of the Pentagon, yet there is no damage from the wingspan? Sorry, that doesn't add up.

You didn't even follow up the links

Page not found, page not found, page not found.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

Now, considering this is a debate, not a mathematics journal: explain. That would serve your case wonderfully.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You didn't even follow up the links Page not found, page not found, page not found.

Nothings stopping you from googling the title's of the references.

McCormick Place Fire
Case Studies: Mumbai High North Platform Fire
Tanker Fire Destroys Part of MacArthur Maze

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nothings stopping you from googling the title's of the references.

I've often said the same to a lot of people .

quote:

McCormick Place Fire

That's a roof collapse, innit? Burned for 30 minutes, partial roof collapse. No big deal, unrelated to the WTC. Where else has a 1350 ft. skyscraper taken the plunge to Earth at free-fall speed after burning for such an insignificant amount of time?

quote:

Mumbai High North Platform Fire

Do you think that an oil-platform has any relevance to the construction of a skyscraper?

quote:

Tanker Fire Destroys Part of MacArthur Maze

... I have no words for the waste of time I am addressing here.

I want pulverized concrete

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} That's a roof collapse, innit? Burned for 30 minutes, partial roof collapse. No big deal, unrelated to the WTC. Where else has a 1350 ft. skyscraper taken the plunge to Earth at free-fall speed after burning for such an insignificant amount of time?

That is a steel structure whose roof was support by steel girders, much like the WTC floors were supported by steel girders, which by the way were held in place only by two bolts.

quote:

Do you think that an oil-platform has any relevance to the construction of a skyscraper?

Absolutely. I am demonstrating cased in which steel buildings have collapsed during a fire. Your side clearly asserts no steel building has failed from fire.

quote:

... I have no words for the waste of time I am addressing here.

Yea, a steel structure compromised by fire. I know this doesn't fit into your grand conspiracy theory, but steel structures can, and have, been compromised during a fire. Why the WTC would be ANY different, especially after having a 767 fly into it, you have never explained that. You guys say, "Oh the towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. Umm...Ok? The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sunk, did it not?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Now, considering this is a debate, not a mathematics journal: explain. That would serve your case wonderfully.

The amount of force an object delivers is dependent on its mass and its velocity. The body of a plane traveling at 400 mph delivers significantly more force than the wings that would shear off at first contact.

Material is a complete non-sequiter. Two tons of paper traveling at 400 mph would deliver the same force as two tons of titanium at the same speed.

Re: Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

Also, b.s.e. - I know you're the keeper of all Newton's secrets, so I'm a bit surprised you didn't recognize Newton's Second Law here.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That is a steel structure whose roof was support by steel girders, much like the WTC floors were supported by steel girders, which by the way were held in place only by two bolts.

You can clearly see the bridge is made in sections, it's not like that section fell through the earth. Utterly irrelevant to a skycraper and your Pancake Theory as well.

quote:

Absolutely. I am demonstrating cased in which steel buildings have collapsed during a fire. Your side clearly asserts no steel building has failed from fire.

No. 'My' side asserts that no 'building' has ever had a full-out gravity driven collapse, and have provided many more serious cases, and relevant architecture.

quote:

Yea, a steel structure compromised by fire. I know this doesn't fit into your grand conspiracy theory, but steel structures can, and have, been compromised during a fire. Why the WTC would be ANY different, especially after having a 767 fly into it, you have never explained that. You guys say, "Oh the towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. Umm...Ok? The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sunk, did it not?

Ok, let's just say that two planes effectively brought down two incredibly massive buildings, yet when entering the fantasy realm of the Pentagon's airspace only managed to do this:



You see how none of what you are saying corresponds to reality? Each lie is its own Universe. You have to believe one lie at a time, otherwise the machine breaks down.

quote:

The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sank, did it not?

It sank, you're sunk.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You see how none of what you are saying corresponds to reality? Each lie is its own Universe. You have to believe one lie at a time, otherwise the machine breaks down.

The official theory says the plane hit the ground and skidded into the Pentagon. Have you seen this?

The Incredible PENTALAWN!

lols

Re: Re: Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The amount of force an object delivers is dependent on its mass and its velocity. The body of a plane traveling at 400 mph delivers significantly more force than the wings that would shear off at first contact.

So we should be able to readily see the wings, and the six tonne engines, right? I don't see a crane anywhere in any picture, so they should be in plane sight. No wings, no plane.

quote:

Material is a complete non-sequiter. Two tons of paper traveling at 400 mph would deliver the same force as two tons of titanium at the same speed.

Not at all, unless we're talking about crushing it into some impossibly dense cluster, and then yes, at that density it would do the same damage. The weight of the plane is quite evenly distributed, and made of relatively light weight material. I don't math to school you, boy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also, b.s.e. - I know you're the keeper of all Newton's secrets, so I'm a bit surprised you didn't recognize Newton's Second Law here.

Refer to my final statement.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You can clearly see the bridge is made in sections, it's not like that section fell through the earth. Utterly irrelevant to a skycraper and your Pancake Theory as well.

You can blow this all over all you want. The fact of the matter is, steel structures can and have failed just from fire alone. Why the WTC couldn't do the same, WITH 767's crashing into them, I don't think you could ever explain without saying something completely off the wall.

quote:

No. 'My' side asserts that no 'building' has ever had a full-out gravity driven collapse, and have provided many more serious cases, and relevant architecture.

You're side asserts steel structures don't collapse from fires. You can reword that however you want.

quote:

Ok, let's just say that two planes effectively brought down two incredibly massive buildings, yet when entering the fantasy realm of the Pentagon's airspace only managed to do this: You see how none of what you are saying corresponds to reality? Each lie is its own Universe. You have to believe one lie at a time, otherwise the machine breaks down.

You do know the pentagon's walls are very very strong, much stronger than the WTC. No wing is going to penetrate such thick and reinforced walls like the Pentagon.

And please, spare me this, "you believe lies/fantasies" bullshit...fuck off if that's all you've got to say...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The official theory says the plane hit the ground and skidded into the Pentagon. Have you seen this? The Incredible PENTALAWN! lols

lol Yeah, this thread needs more comedy, less Orwellian mindwarp drama.



It could use some cowbell too.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} It sank, you're sunk.

Funny, wanna answer the point? Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, yet it sinks. The WTC was designed to withstand an accidental airplane accident, yet, it fell...Strange huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The official theory says the plane hit the ground and skidded into the Pentagon. Have you seen this? The Incredible PENTALAWN! lols

God, not you too!?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You can blow this all over all you want. The fact of the matter is, steel structures can and have failed just from fire alone. Why the WTC couldn't do the same, WITH 767's crashing into them, I don't think you could ever explain without saying something completely off the wall.

Of course I'm going to ignore this. It's apples to oranges! The properties of the collapse are so entirely different that it does not warrant further attention and is by no means an intelligent way to support the Progressive Collapse theory.

quote:

You're side asserts steel structures don't collapse from fires. You can reword that however you want.

That's the most generalised argument I've heard today. If I may clear the air and reword the declaration, because you seem to have hit a roadblock.

"In the history of modern architecture, no building has ever collapsed through the path of greatest resistance in free fall speed due to fire."

quote:

You do know the pentagon's walls are very very strong, much stronger than the WTC. No wing is going to penetrate such thick and reinforced walls like the Pentagon.

Yeah, fancy they just renovated that very wall. I shudder to think of what would have happened if they hadn't; that missl..er.. plane might have gone all the way through to the other side and killed Rumsfeld! I wonder why they never bothered to continue reinforcing the rest of the building? lol.

quote:

And please, spare me this, "you believe lies/fantasies" bullshit...fuck off if that's all you've got to say...

Well, you do. Do you want me to lie?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Funny, wanna answer the point? Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, yet it sinks. The WTC was designed to withstand an accidental airplane accident, yet, it fell...Strange huh?

Again, you're comparing a boat in the early 20th century that ran full steam into an iceberg trying to make it New York on time. ...

It was a fatal blow in many parts of the ship; if only one hull had been breached, or two, it would have survived the ordeal.

_note_

I used the term 'full steam ahead' loosely, she was ripped wide open in an attempt to dodge fate.

Totally human error.

Re: Re: Re: Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} The weight of the plane is quite evenly distributed, and made of relatively light weight material.

Looks like a pretty even distribution to me!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Looks like a pretty even distribution to me!

That's a 747, but if you want to use that wing span of 211 ft and compare it to the 65 ft wide gap in the Pentagon...I don't expect you to understand. Naturally you avoided all confrontation of me disproving your use of Newton's Second.

This effectively illustrates the stupidity of what you are asking me to buy into.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} This effectively illustrates the stupidity of what you are asking me to buy into.

That picture has been so thoroughly debunked.

Come back when you have real pictures of the real Pentagon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _A_ true _Gent_leman

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} That's a 747, but if you want to use that wing span of 211 ft and compare it to the 65 ft wide gap in the Pentagon...I don't expect you to understand. Naturally you avoided all confrontation of me disproving your use of Newton's Second.

Honestly, you don't know what Newton's Second Law states here. The mass of the body of the plane is far, far greater than the mass of the wings. That should be your first hint at why a 37 foot wide object only created a 65 foot wide hole. The velocity and mass of the wings were not sufficient enough force to punch a similar hole in the side of the building as the body of the plane was.

Why is it that you think the plane's mass was borne equally by the wing and the body? The amount of force the clipped-off wing was able to exert was minimal in comparison to the amount of resistance brought to bear by the reinforced walls.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That picture has been so thoroughly debunked. Come back when you have real pictures of the real Pentagon.

lol, touche. I actually questioned the material after I posted it, but would rather leave it there, as it was said.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.