• 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

MyFinalRest said:
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.
Click to expand...

A human being weighs around 150 lbs. An average bullet weighs only a few grams. Ergo, humans are immune to bullets.
 
and when a person is shot, does blood come from the entrance or exit wound first?
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
A human being weighs around 150 lbs. An average bullet weighs only a few grams. Ergo, humans are immune to bullets.
Click to expand...

Well, it also has to do with the type of material too, not just it's weight. Were the twin towers made out of flesh and blood? Only in your wildest fantasy. Penetration doesn't always have to do with how much something weighs or how fast it's going. Kevlar is a lightweight synthetic fabric that can stop bullets. The properties of the material don't allow penetration.

Now for the WTC's. Does steel reinforced concrete penetrate easily? Go bang your head into some and find out. Go shoot some bullets at it or throw some baseballs at it.

How about steel? It's even denser and much harder to penetrate, let alone slice straight through as some plane supposedly did.

The WTC's were the clear winners both in mass and material anti-penetrative and and breakage resistance properties. A hollow, lightly framed aluminum clad, plastic tipped airplane lacked both the mass and density to plow through steel and concrete. The high speed would only result in a worse destruction for the airplane as it glanced off the dense and mammoth building materials.

and when a person is shot, does blood come from the entrance or exit wound first?
Click to expand...
L2R, what if there was no exit wound? There is no way that the plane caused an "exit wound" on the WTC. There's no way it could have gotten into the building. But supposing it had, the gaseous pressure created by the ignition of the kerosene would blow out an already existing hole rather than force through an unbroken part of a building. Ignited petrofuels don't seem to generate a lot of pressure when ignited in large open spaces with a supposed gaping "767 shaped hole" to the atmosphere anyway. A flame thrower is not an ideal weapon for "blasting" holes in anything too. Your theory is shit. But for a more exact answer to your question, you can go to hell and ask your illuminati buddy Adam Lanza.

It's clear that the typical 911 debonker's head is denser than steel.
 
Sure, the windows were made of a magical material, able to be broken by human force but not a full speed airplane.

Mfr, you have an illness.
 
L2R, You may have a touch of the Australian Islamophobia just like your pal Middleway, who you like to chat with on here. It's a common affliction among white English speaking males. It still takes pressure to burst out windows, and with an alleged 767 sized hole to the atmosphere, very little pressure could be generated by loose kerosene. In order for petro fuels to push pistons in a car, the cylinders must be completely sealed. If a cylinder had a gaping hole in it, the ignited gas would release pressure out of it and fail to move the cylinders.
wtc_col_spandrel.jpg

No plane could make it through this "magical" material.

Have you ever been anywhere near an airplane? Have you touched the wings? They don't cut through steel like this, or really anything else for that matter.
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAA1DLfre0

Like i said.. it smashed.. while being smashed.. It didn't fit through anything.

Was the damage, clearly visible from the outside, to the exterior of the building where the plane hit, a digital overlay too?

Once the support beams were damaged those truss floors you seem to think are so indestructible would have, at least partially, collapsed straight away.. so those nice little red arrows in your pretty little diagram don't really mean much.
 
Last edited:
dickola, that Perdue film is a joke, and it shows the plane tearing the fuck out of the steel columns and even ripping out some of the core without being damaged in the least bit on the primary impact with all of that steel. No plane could do what they animated in that shitty video. Those wings would have never made it through those columns and spandrel plates like that. Impossible.

Clearly some real life explosives were planted and set off inside the building. That's how the windows got blown out and the steel columns were cleaved.
 
That Perdue video also shows the plane just plowing through steel reinforced concrete floors too as if they were cheesecake! I love that video, it looks so...unrealistic!

Cleaving through the steel and plowing through the floors was impossible. Clearly the plane did not knock over the steel columns and the floors either with it's mass and velocity. The video and pictures of the gaping hole shows cleaved columns, cut right through at their solid parts. Only high powered explosives could have ripped through those steel columns.

For structural information please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=VB_XRXCt6nU&NR=1
 
Last edited:
You talking about the 4inches of reinforced concrete floors? Must have been super hard for a jet flying 100s of miles an hour to damage them.
 
MyFinalRest said:
dickola, that Perdue film is a joke, and it shows the plane tearing the fuck out of the steel columns and even ripping out some of the core without being damaged in the least bit on the primary impact with all of that steel. No plane could do what they animated in that shitty video. Those wings would have never made it through those columns and spandrel plates like that. Impossible.

Clearly some real life explosives were planted and set off inside the building. That's how the windows got blown out and the steel columns were cleaved.
Click to expand...

You are a fucking joke.



People like you cause one of the greatest injustices to go unpunished. You REFUSE to believe what goes against what you believe, yet have endless bull shit to make up to back it up. You have a good imagination, I'll give you that..... Tool.
 
MyFinalRest said:
Well, it also has to do with the type of material too, not just it's weight. Were the twin towers made out of flesh and blood? Only in your wildest fantasy. Penetration doesn't always have to do with how much something weighs or how fast it's going. Kevlar is a lightweight synthetic fabric that can stop bullets. The properties of the material don't allow penetration.

Now for the WTC's. Does steel reinforced concrete penetrate easily? Go bang your head into some and find out.
Click to expand...
Wait, lets stick to flesh first.

*bashes head against someone*

Nope, their skin remained intact.

So, I must conclude, humans are still immune to bullets.

Ain't logic fun?
 
rangrz said:
Indeed, I don't know how a plane could compete with me swinging a 12lb sledge hammer.
Click to expand...

LOL I was thinking the exact same thing. Apparently a sledge hammer has more destructive power than a plane traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. 8)
 
Ok let me get this straight. MFR you're saying that a plane cannot possibly penetrate steel while traveling at high speeds correct?

If that is so, how do you explain Kamikazes? The Mitsubishi Zero was a pretty light plane made out of aluminum. And yet there are cases of the planes crashing through armored decks (that is decks designed to withstand somewhat cannon shells and bombs and whatnot) and igniting ship magazines. These armored decks were made out of steel obviously. So what happened there? Was it a conspiracy by the US navy?
 
Last edited:
Folley said:
You are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. My internet personality and also my real life persona is pretty much a fucking joke. I irritate more assholes than hot sauce and hemorrhoids.


People like you cause one of the greatest injustices to go unpunished. You REFUSE to believe what goes against what you believe, yet have endless bull shit to make up to back it up. You have a good imagination, I'll give you that..... Tool.
Click to expand...
I believe what I believe because it's the twoof. hahahhaha.
 
rickolasnice said:
You talking about the 4inches of reinforced concrete floors? Must have been super hard for a jet flying 100s of miles an hour to damage them.
Click to expand...
Steel-reinforced concrete actually is a very hard, strong, and durable material. Even the minimal steel reinforcement lends a great resistance to it being shattered and easily broken apart.

rangrz said:
Indeed, I don't know how a plane could compete with me swinging a 12lb sledge hammer.
Click to expand...

You can build your own sledgehammer with a 24oz beer can filled with rocks attached to a wooden handle and see how far you get with that.
 
Easily broken apart? We're not talking about kicking it with a nice shiny boot.. a plane flew into it at hundreds of miles per hour ffs :\

And like i said.. Once the support beams were damaged, you know.. the things holding those floors up.. they would have lost a lot of structural integrity.
 
freddy47 said:
Ok let me get this straight. MFR you're saying that a plane cannot possibly penetrate steel while traveling at high speeds correct?

If that is so, how do you explain Kamikazes? The Mitsubishi Zero was a pretty light plane made out of aluminum. And yet there are cases of the planes crashing through armored decks (that is decks designed to withstand somewhat cannon shells and bombs and whatnot) and igniting ship magazines. These armored decks were made out of steel obviously. So what happened there? Was it a conspiracy by the US navy?
Click to expand...

That's the winner there freddy. I've explained this earlier.

The plane itself was not the means of destruction, but a guiding device. It was the only way to achieve a "guided missile" effect then, when conventionally dropped bombs were highly inaccurate. The plane itself lacked the penetrative and destructive power, but the bombs it carried did. The piloted plane was simply used to direct and deliver the bombs, not to be used as much of a weapon itself. Sometimes they overloaded the kamikazes so much with bombs that pilots had difficulty controlling them. They weren't all that effective anyway.
Numbers quoted vary, but at least 47 Allied vessels, from PT boats to escort carriers, were sunk by kamikaze attacks, and about 300 damaged. During World War II, nearly 4,000 kamikaze pilots were sacrificed. About 14% of kamikaze attacks managed to hit a ship.
Click to expand...

I find it impressive that the poorly trained 911 hijackers got a 75% accuracy rate with such large and less agile aircraft. (really we should call it 100% because the heoric efforts of Mossad gay phone sex operator Mark Bingham prevented the other guys from even getting a chance to show their stuff.)

But the reason why none of it makes any damned sense is becuase there were no planes. After this much discussion and thought, you'd think that the "No Planer" would be a "No Brainer"...drumroll please!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top