World Trade Center probably could not have been destroyed by planes

TheCrusader

Member
Dec 30, 2015
682
43
18
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

you are thinking CREATIVELY -----in accordance with the creativity of the koran----
it is OBVIOUS what happened ------DA JOOOOOS DID IT-------using Talmudic
magic. The planes were not really there. It was an animated recreation----
footage shopped
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Explain building 7 or the fact that 83 cameras surrounding the Pentagon were confiscated and all that has been released in 4 frames that make it impossible to tell what it was that caused that small hole on the south side of the Pentagon that was being used to search for the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld said on 9/10/01 was missing? People need to wake up because things are not what they seem at all.
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Explain building 7 or the fact that 83 cameras surrounding the Pentagon were confiscated and all that has been released in 4 frames that make it impossible to tell what it was that caused that small hole on the south side of the Pentagon that was being used to search for the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld said on 9/10/01 was missing? People need to wake up because things are not what they seem at all.
The tree outside my window probably has about 83 branches! :eek:
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The stupid is strong in this one.
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

Well looky there! He's also a Truther! Why am I not surprised?
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

The stupid is strong in this one.
Turzovska's thread gave me some hope for him. But, alas...
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.:popcorn:
 
image.jpg
It was an inside job I tell ya!
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

Well looky there! He's also a Truther! Why am I not surprised?
I would be labeled a "truther" and I am wearing it like a badge of honor.
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.:popcorn:

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.

Well looky there! He's also a Truther! Why am I not surprised?
I would be labeled a "truther" and I am wearing it like a badge of honor.

I wish you guys really wore badges proclaiming your Trutherness. That would make it easier to avoid getting too close to you.
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.:popcorn:

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

If you zoom in really close, you can see that the planes were actually trees.
 
The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.

When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?

I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.

Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.

Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.


The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.

And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.

Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.

Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.

Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.

Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.

You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.


Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.:popcorn:

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?

I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.

Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.

You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.
 
Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.

I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.

Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.

Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.:popcorn:

Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?

Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?
Of course I am able to think for myself....which is why I do not believe a thing your "gubermint" tells us. I bet you believe that Oswald acted alone.....right?
 

Forum List

Back
Top