|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 252)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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.:thepirate |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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" bull... off if that's all you've got to say...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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.
:wtf:
It could use some cowbell too. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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!? |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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" bull... off if that's all you've got to say...:rolleyes: |
Well, you do. Do you want me to lie? :wtf: |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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. ...:wtf:
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. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
The weight of the plane is quite evenly distributed, and made of relatively light weight material. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
Looks like a pretty even distribution to me! |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| 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. ;)
 |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
This effectively illustrates the stupidity of what you are asking me to buy into.
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
