Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,109 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 663,043
Pageviews Today: 946,132Threads Today: 335Posts Today: 5,236
08:54 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16340594
Canada
11/16/2012 12:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
Absolute proof that the official story of 9/11 is a fraud comes down to very basic physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Let's imagine for a second that we could cut the world trade centers directly in half, so theres 55 floors in each half. Now we take the top 55 floors and we DROP THEM intact onto the bottom 55 floors.


The result, if both were completely identical, would be the destruction of both halfs. Unfortunately, the bottom half of the real world trade centers contains much more mass and strength due to the beams being MUCH larger the lower down the building you go.


Ok, so on 9/11, somehow, 30 floors obliterated the other 80 even though it was the lightest, weakest part of the tower relative to the floors below that it was "crushing".


PHYSICS PROVES THE 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD IN MULTIPLE WAYS!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27845395
Australia
11/16/2012 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
hmmm.

maybe the heavy airliners loaded with fuel hitting the towers in '01 had a part in their

collapse
osirusflipper

User ID: 787228
United States
11/16/2012 12:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
Absolute proof that the official story of 9/11 is a fraud comes down to very basic physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Let's imagine for a second that we could cut the world trade centers directly in half, so theres 55 floors in each half. Now we take the top 55 floors and we DROP THEM intact onto the bottom 55 floors.


The result, if both were completely identical, would be the destruction of both halfs. Unfortunately, the bottom half of the real world trade centers contains much more mass and strength due to the beams being MUCH larger the lower down the building you go.


Ok, so on 9/11, somehow, 30 floors obliterated the other 80 even though it was the lightest, weakest part of the tower relative to the floors below that it was "crushing".


PHYSICS PROVES THE 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD IN MULTIPLE WAYS!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16340594


The buildings PULVERIZED! DUST IN THE WIND MY FRIEND,,
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16340594
Canada
11/16/2012 12:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
hmmm.

maybe the heavy airliners loaded with fuel hitting the towers in '01 had a part in their

collapse
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27845395



Even though you choose to believe in simultaneous failures of the laws of physics, I'll reiterate one more time, in a very short and concise manner for you.


Imagine that the plane cleanly wiped out 10 entire floors (even though it was much less than this), so just imagine that in 1 second, all 10 floors vanished into thin air. The top portion of the building collapsing onto the bottom could not have pulverized it into dust.

It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Not implausible, IMPOSSIBLE.


You cannot have a small amount of force destroy a larger amount of force. It would be like driving a motorbike into a school bus head on at 60mph, and expecting the bus to be obliterated.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27029071
United States
11/16/2012 12:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
The 1975
World Trade Center Fires..

6 floors around 11th floor burned intensely for 3-4 hours

heavy intence fires according to firemen,

question is why didn it fall/pancake back then with all the heavy building on top of these lower floors ;)

[link to bellaciao.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Swampgasser


bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27227251
United States
11/16/2012 01:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?

 Quoting: Swampgasser


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of JET FUEL in the fire.

:clues:
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of jet fuel on on 9/11 either...

[link to www.boeing.com]

Boeing 767-200ER

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal

Maximum Range 6,385 nmi

They don't fuel up the plane to maximum capacity for a u.s coast to coast flight so it was filled to about half maximum fuel capacity or 12,000 gallons. In the tower 2 case, a significant amount of the fuel continued out through the side of the building in a huge fireball so there was even less fuel in the building... way less than 45,000 gallons and way less than even 12,000 gallons.

You fail...

People who insist on upholding the official 911 story invariably are lousy at research and even less knowledgeable about the engineering world and science in general.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16340594
Canada
11/16/2012 01:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?

 Quoting: Swampgasser


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of JET FUEL in the fire.

:clues:
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of jet fuel on on 9/11 either...

[link to www.boeing.com]

Boeing 767-200ER

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal

Maximum Range 6,385 nmi

They don't fuel up the plane to maximum capacity for a u.s coast to coast flight so it was filled to about half maximum fuel capacity or 12,000 gallons. In the tower 2 case, a significant amount of the fuel continued out through the side of the building in a huge fireball so there was even less fuel in the building... way less than 45,000 gallons and way less than even 12,000 gallons.

You fail...

People who insist on upholding the official 911 story invariably are lousy at research and even less knowledgeable about the engineering world and science in general.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27227251



Why debate on irrelevant issues? The official stories requires multiple failures of the laws of physics, nearly simultaneously.

The official story is for the painfully ignorant, and those who are paid to hold the opinion. Any structural engineer or physicist who looks at the evidence who hasn't been tainted by propaganda, or paid to give their opinion, can debunk the official story in minutes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27227251
United States
11/16/2012 01:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?

 Quoting: Swampgasser


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of JET FUEL in the fire.

:clues:
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


You didn't have 45,000 gallons of jet fuel on on 9/11 either...

[link to www.boeing.com]

Boeing 767-200ER

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal

Maximum Range 6,385 nmi

They don't fuel up the plane to maximum capacity for a u.s coast to coast flight so it was filled to about half maximum fuel capacity or 12,000 gallons. In the tower 2 case, a significant amount of the fuel continued out through the side of the building in a huge fireball so there was even less fuel in the building... way less than 45,000 gallons and way less than even 12,000 gallons.

You fail...

People who insist on upholding the official 911 story invariably are lousy at research and even less knowledgeable about the engineering world and science in general.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27227251



Why debate on irrelevant issues? The official stories requires multiple failures of the laws of physics, nearly simultaneously.

The official story is for the painfully ignorant, and those who are paid to hold the opinion. Any structural engineer or physicist who looks at the evidence who hasn't been tainted by propaganda, or paid to give their opinion, can debunk the official story in minutes.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16340594


I merely illustrated the general ignorance of facts that allows a bogus story like the official version of 911 to persist.

This is indeed the issue... the issue that far too many people can be ignorant of facts to the point that facts become meaningless.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25423559
Canada
03/14/2013 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WTC fires in 1975, why didnt it pancake back then ?
SHILL SPOTTED 2 YEARS AGO .. 2nd Entry ...LOL

Look at his signature ..