I'm Alen on Steam. RIP Skype Friday nights.
I'm Navi's lover 💖
Dave84311: God I've always wanted to eat crayons, with their vibrant colors. Only if they had taste.
Mr. Lonely: @Alen I like making you wet, it makes me hard.
"We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot
seriously,.are you mad? >.<
when in human history have u seen a steel building collapse from fire? none
yet 3 steel buildings collapse on the same day in the same way which were fire proof.
secondly, even if the steel columns were to fail, the solid core of the building should be still standing.
thirdly,
"The reason the twin towers didn't topple over is because these building are designed from day one to fall down because in-case you haven't noticed buildings don't stay up forever and eventually they need to be torn down." no sir, what u just said there is total bs lawlz. This methad is called 'demolition' as we sat and watched 911 fall.
You sir just made some stupid points lolz, cnt stop laughing.
made my day.
just another vid to help it through your thick skull:
Last edited by Dark[A]ce; 12-04-2010 at 06:32 PM.
/Flame On
[IMG]https://i175.photobucke*****m/albums/w148/Guitarman1157/dontforget.gif[/IMG]
marcusalier (12-04-2010)
Now just add a collapsing top to the weakened structure.
Actually they are made that way, who in their right fucking minds would risk building a building that didn't collapse that way?
I would have preferred something that took into account everything, thank you very much.
I'm Alen on Steam. RIP Skype Friday nights.
I'm Navi's lover 💖
Dave84311: God I've always wanted to eat crayons, with their vibrant colors. Only if they had taste.
Mr. Lonely: @Alen I like making you wet, it makes me hard.
as i stated before, i do not think the USA did this to themselves, its to stupid, and if they needed a cause to go to war they had the Intel from the Clinton adminstration/high thension after the USS Cole.
but, just pointing out a fact, the united states has attacked itself to go to war (vietnam, the gulf of token incident)
[IMG]https://i15.photobucke*****m/albums/a359/FISHFROMLC2/ZenSig2.png[/IMG]
you bloody idiot,coeus is right.
The buildings are made that way so they can demolish them.
If they made them sooo powerful that they couldn't be destroyed without falling on other buildings,how would they clear that section eg in 100years to make something better without destroying more buildings?
Darkace,do us all a favour and gtfo this section.please.
I'm Alen on Steam. RIP Skype Friday nights.
I'm Navi's lover 💖
Dave84311: God I've always wanted to eat crayons, with their vibrant colors. Only if they had taste.
Mr. Lonely: @Alen I like making you wet, it makes me hard.
"Now just add a collapsing top to the weakened structure."
1. the 'weakened structure' it strong enough to hold 15 floors.
if uve never done physics before, stfu.
2. the base and core is not weakened. heat/fire rises. therefore leaving top half weak and the base solid.
the building was built to withstand what happened on 911
if u havent researched the structure of the twin towers deeply, gtfo.
"Actually they are made that way, who in their right fucking minds would risk building a building that didn't collapse that way?"
1. they were made that way? show me some proof they were built that way.
2. i gotta a better question for you, why would american government even take down TT in the first place?
3. the way in which u take down and building/tower is called demolition.
definition of demolition - destruction: an event (or the result of an event) that completely destroys something.
do me a favour and explain why bombs were planted in building.
p.s. before u talk about the word 'structure' do some deep research on it.
/Flame On
[IMG]https://i175.photobucke*****m/albums/w148/Guitarman1157/dontforget.gif[/IMG]
15 floors that aren't collapsing, that is. And I think I might know more about physics than you (do correct me if you're actually studying physics
The Collapse of Buildings
Read and be amazed. I think you might need to do some research of your own
As for the bombs, why wouldn't terrorists want to make sure the building collapsed?
I'm Alen on Steam. RIP Skype Friday nights.
I'm Navi's lover 💖
Dave84311: God I've always wanted to eat crayons, with their vibrant colors. Only if they had taste.
Mr. Lonely: @Alen I like making you wet, it makes me hard.
"Pancake Theory" is impossible lolz, use common sense. >.>
For the people who still say, "I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?"
In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:
Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.
These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives.
hmmmmm who do u think did it? -.-
edit : ya, i did studied AS/A2 physics for 2 years
Last edited by Dark[A]ce; 12-05-2010 at 08:00 AM.
/Flame On
[IMG]https://i175.photobucke*****m/albums/w148/Guitarman1157/dontforget.gif[/IMG]
cool story :O
/Flame On
[IMG]https://i175.photobucke*****m/albums/w148/Guitarman1157/dontforget.gif[/IMG]
You do realise that the video you posted, supposedly using "common sense" (even though it tries to pass immense heat as negligible and doesn't even take into account the initial damage caused by the planes impact, which would have weakened the surrounding external support by roughly 40-50%), doesn't use scientific fact but just tries to discredit NOVA claims. None of the videos trying to discredit NOVA claims take into account the actual planes impact and the amount of debris that would remain inside both towers would act as fuel for the fire, infact the videos try to explain the whole as if it were caused by an office fire. There is no mention of the impact on the external supports that a crash would have. There is no mention of the amount of jet fuel that would be burning within. Both Flight 175 and Flight 11 had over 50% of their fuel remaining, both originating from Logan, with destinations to LA Int'l. Type A-1 Jet Fuel has an autoignition threshold of 210 °C (410 °F), and has an open air burning threshold of 287.5 °C (549.5 °F). Are you saying to me that the temperatures within those towers were less than that?
Sorry if it's a bit messy but I've just woken up.