Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:11 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,350 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Belief is irrelevant. Physics doesn't lie. Your government lies all the time.
And the physics would show when you put enough heat into structural steel from burning jet fuel, it loses strength and the structure collapses. And yes, you also need to look at the chemistry/metallurgy of the event.

 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:12 PM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,390,839 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Belief is irrelevant. Physics doesn't lie. Your government lies all the time.
Ya physics doesn't lie. Ever stood on a pop can and touched the sides? That is what happened to the airplane that hit the Pentagon.

The point of failure was the pint of impact. You didn't know that in advance. No eye witness reports of demolition activities after impact. And not disruption to the building before impact.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:14 PM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,390,839 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
And the physics would show when you put enough heat into structural steel from burning jet fuel, it loses strength and the structure collapses. And yes, you also need to look at the chemistry/metallurgy of the event.
Point of impact was point of failure. The airplanes brought the buildings down.


Why were the people allowed to board the airplanes with box cutters? That is the question. They had plenty of advance notice to just talk to them about the box cutters.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:14 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,415,634 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
You mean I did not see a plane flying into a building ? Dam I was smoking some good s*** that day
You did. But those planes didn't bring the buildings down. Physically impossible... at least, in a freefall manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
That is the cover up. they could have stopped it from happening and didn't
Well yea, I thought that was a given.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:16 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,415,634 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
And the physics would show when you put enough heat into structural steel from burning jet fuel, it loses strength and the structure collapses. And yes, you also need to look at the chemistry/metallurgy of the event.
It doesn't collapse in a freefall motion. That would require leaning (tipping over), or pancaking. Neither of which happened on 9/11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Ya physics doesn't lie. Ever stood on a pop can and touched the sides? That is what happened to the airplane that hit the Pentagon.

The point of failure was the pint of impact. You didn't know that in advance. No eye witness reports of demolition activities after impact. And not disruption to the building before impact.
I'm talking about WTC. Impossible for a lateral impact to cause freefall motion.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:18 PM
 
685 posts, read 722,293 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Belief is irrelevant. Physics doesn't lie. Your government lies all the time.
Yes, the government lies all the time. I believe that. Belief is relevant when we have to take the word of others.

Last edited by PeaceOut001; 02-21-2015 at 03:19 PM.. Reason: removed one sentence
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:20 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,350 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Point of impact was point of failure. The airplanes brought the buildings down.
Although caused by the airplanes, there were multiple points of failure as one floor pancaked onto another.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Why were the people allowed to board the airplanes with box cutters? That is the question. They had plenty of advance notice to just talk to them about the box cutters.
This notice came from?

WHEN?

Were box-cutters banned at the time?
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:21 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,415,634 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceOut001 View Post
Yes, the government lies all the time. I believe that. What about physics (and, if you want to use physics, it's "physics don't lie")? Belief is relevant when we have to take the word of others.
The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Every engineer takes this in college. In order to convert gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy, there needs to be external work in the system. The buildings were struck and did not go into freefall. The freefall event happened over an hour after.

The structural steel explanation is ludicrous, as that would require pancaking from the upper floors. The demolition happened from the bottom, dude. Those buildings fell at velocities close to freefall in a vaccuum. You can buy the explanation.. but physics says its pure bull****.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:22 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,350 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
It doesn't collapse in a freefall motion. That would require leaning (tipping over), or pancaking. Neither of which happened on 9/11.
One floor pancaking onto another is exactly what happened on 9/11.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
I'm talking about WTC. Impossible for a lateral impact to cause freefall motion.
But VERY possible for fire weakened structure to pancake as it did.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 03:25 PM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,390,839 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
You did. But those planes didn't bring the buildings down. Physically impossible... at least, in a freefall manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

watch the video. The top overhangs the bottom. It did collapse in free fall mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post



Well yea, I thought that was a given.
Then why is everyone talking about demolition
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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 - Top