• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

Kinda looks like the plane just disappears into the concrete block, huh? Aside from the outward explosions.. which wouldn't happen if it hit something that is mostly air.. with rather small amounts of steel columns and glass. The explosion would then mostly go in the direction of the plane.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

Kinda looks like the plane just disappears into the concrete block, huh? Aside from the outward explosions.. which wouldn't happen if it hit something that is mostly air.. with rather small amounts of steel columns and glass.
Click to expand...

Mostly air? That's that stupid worn out debonker statement that doesn't mean shit. You could say the same about the space inside any building, but that's not what it is made out of.

"Small amounts of steel?" There were many perimeter columns and they are larger than you think and strong. What about the steel reinforced concrete floor? Do you really think that offered little resistance? It was struck horizontally, not vertically. Horizontally, the steel reinforced concrete spanned for many, many feet. How could it plow through at least two floor-layers of that simultaneously?

Clearly in the 9/11 video, there is no outward explosion or signs of impact with the building. The 911 video does not look like that F4 video at all. All your pathetic theorizing can do is rest on an assumption that the wtc towers were somehow strucurally weak, but they were not.
 
Throw a water balloon at something with a gap slightly too small for it to fit through at high speeds.. what happens to the water?
 
MyFinalRest said:
No it wouldn't and I am a fucking rocket scientist. I don't have issues with understanding scientific concepts - whether it's physics, microbiology, or pharmacology. I'm sorry that you do, but yet you feel qualified to offer your opinion.

The REASON why it would not, is...
The fucking plane hit STRONG EXTERIOR STEEL COLUMNS AND STEEL REINFORCED FLOORS and yet somehow managed to get through these barriers before exploding? Bull fucking shit. L2R your retarded argument thoroughly offended my intelligence today.

The fusiliage of a 767 is 17 feet and 9 inches. The space between floors in the WTC was about 12 ft.

I've never known guys, white or black, who had an obsession with NIKE AIR JORDANS to be able to present intelligent arguments. But hey, comment your de-bonking bullshit here, mate. I'll give you a run and then some.
Click to expand...


OK. You've officially lost all my respect.



Tell me then, even though you are no rocket scientist, how the fuck an airplane mangaged to squeeze effortlessly through this too narrow of a gap provided by concrete floors? There is no fucking way. It would've blown at the point of contact.
Click to expand...


OH SHIT man :( you stumped us all!!!! Because there is NO way the top and bottom weaker parts of the plane shredded off on the INSIDE, you know.. when they ACTUALLY HIT those structures. Obviously because you (a rocket scientist) is telling us that he can't see anything happening from THE OUTSIDE, that means the WTCs were brought down by holograms and mini-nukes.


Thanks for clearing all this up for us, your service to America in putting out fake, completely unreasonable theories are what is keeping us from actually knowing what actually happened on 9/11.

The Illuminati thanks you for doing their jobs for them
 
MFR
fuel in an airplane is kept in its wings and undercarriage. it is also not very volatile, it takes a lot to ignite. although the building is meant to withstand such brute force and stay upright, this doesn't mean that a plane would just crumple on the outside and/or bounce off it. the building absorbed the impact by absorbing the plane. both floor and fluselage smashed in the vacant space both in the building and in the plane.

the force of the speed of the plane forced the blast out the opposite side first.

the impact is as it should be, professor. don't let the slow motion video make you forget that the plane was not going that seemingly gentle gliding speed.
 
Still, it's on video, and there is no plane hitting anything that causes resistance, nothing comparable to a water balloon. Nobody can lie and get away with it. The video shows the entire plane sink into the building. The debonker speculation is endless, but it always fails. Please, try to have some quality speculation because I waste a lot of time here.

L2R, there is no way parts of an airplane would "slip" through several columns and other exterior claddings as it impacted, regardless of how fast it was going, and burst out the other side. The video shows at least 5-8 floors or more being pentrated - the pane hit at an angle. That is a severe amount of resistance to encounter, and there were very wide horizontal pieces of steel cladding strengthening the exterior columns. It did not hit a bunch of fucking toothpicks widely spaced apart from each other.
160u0cm.jpg

^as you can see, the space between columns, horizontal "spandrels," and floors is not that great. Nothing is going to wrap around this many barriers on impact and rush through to explode on the other side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg
L2R and rickola, stop making up wild speculations and lies. The video does not show a "water baloon" effect. It looks like a ghost going through a wall. It looks like that because it's two seperate images merged together. No plane and building ever really met each other in that video.

Sure, had there been a plane, some fuel would have entered the building, but the majority of it shoot through and burst out another side? I don't think so. You are violating elementary reality again, as all debonkers must do and disregard that "for every action, there is an equal AND OPPOSITE reaction." I would love to see somebody recreate that effect you speculate and boldly lie about.

jet+fuel+13429638861791347929184.jpg

^In this pic, there is plenty of wide open space around the object of resisantce - a tree. Why didn't the rest of the plane and it's fuel rush past the tree and singe the woods past the tree of impact? Even if that plane was going slower there's still a great deal of force, but that's what happens when an airplane hits some resistance. As you can see, the ignited fuel was focused at the point of impact, not so much past it.
 
Last edited:
^I like that guy...well it depends on the movie. Don't shit on your fellow aussie like that. During that photo he showed a lot of support for the sufferings of the Lesbianese people against the horrors of Israeli aggression back in 2006 by defaming Jews in a drunken rage. For all your debating against rachamim, you should consider him a hero.

P.S. 500 points deducted from everyone who didn't vote "yes" on the poll.
 
all the more reason to marry up the out of context facial expression with your certifiability.
 
MyFinalRest said:
jet+fuel+13429638861791347929184.jpg

^In this pic, there is plenty of wide open space around the object of resisantce - a tree. Why didn't the rest of the plane and it's fuel rush past the tree and singe the woods past the tree of impact? Even if that plane was going slower there's still a great deal of force, but that's what happens when an airplane hits some resistance. As you can see, the ignited fuel was focused at the point of impact, not so much past it.
Click to expand...

Um, the tree's and soft dirt didn't provide enough resistance to rupture the fuel tank nor was there any friction of metal against metal to cause any sparks which would ignite the fuel. The plane also landed on it's belly and typically when a jet is going crash the pilot dumps the fuel due to how volatile it is.
 
-Guido- said:
Um, the tree's and soft dirt didn't provide enough resistance to rupture the fuel tank nor was there any friction of metal against metal to cause any sparks which would ignite the fuel. The plane also landed on it's belly and typically when a jet is going crash the pilot dumps the fuel due to how volatile it is.
Click to expand...

Didn't ignite fuel? Why is there a scorched and completely blackened tree?

Landed on it's belly? Looks like it crashed to me.

Maybe the pilot had passed out and that's why he crashed? Passed out people can't conveniently dump fuel before they crash.

I don''t really know much about this pic, but I was trying to show you guys Newton's 3rd law, and you guys struggle with such an elementary concept here. Regardless of what happened, you know that there was a super tough grid of exterior steel columns and wide spandrels and steel rebar reinforced concrete floors that were each 4 inches thick that were poured on steel pans to smash up against. For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Both airplane solids and liquids in the tanks would have incurred this opposite force as it impacted with the more massive tower.

Try this, you can take a soda pop bottle with some pop still in it and slam the bottle top with the lid on into the palm of your hand. You will see the liquid inside get hurled in the opposite direction, away from your palm, after it impacts.

Say what you want, but Newton's 3rd Law of Motion will always trump "Silverstein's Relativity" in the real world.
 
Maximum take off weight for a 767 is 395,000lbs.
pcgeek.jpg

Wow MFR, that's really heavy! And it was going like 500 mph! That could probably destroy anything since F=MA!

Well, not anything!

Just the concrete in only one floor of the WTC 1&2 weighed about 1,914,000lbs or 957 tons. It looks like the plane collided with more than one floor too:

The impact zone for flight 11 was between the 93rd and 99th floors. Let's call that 5 floors if we don't count 93 and 99, or 9,570,000lbs of concrete!

The impact zone for 175 was between the 77th and 85th floors. Let's call that 7 floors if we don't count 77 and 85, or 13,398,000 lbs of concrete!

Now that's not counting the mass of the steel the planes connected with either!

steel is 490lbs per cubic foot.

Now, I don't have time to search out and add up all of the steel and it's wieght that the airplanes came in contact with, but when you think about the perimeter columns, spandrels; plus floor trusses, steel floor pans, and rebar, that'a alot of steel, and steel is pretty heavy shit.

That 395,000lb airplane starts to seem pretty fucking miniscule and weak now doesn't it? Due to Newton's third law of "an equal and opposite reaction" it's not likely that this airplane could have continued to plow through the ultra massive building until fully submerged. The plane would have been stopped quickly and destroyed by colliding with such a large mass of very strong materials had it actually occured.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top