TheTool Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 If you dropped a bowling ball from the top of each tower it would take almost the same amount of time to hit the ground as it did for the towers to collapse. Help me out here, my maths is quite rusty The WTC towers are about 381m high? A bowling ball, in free fall, would travel about 4800m in 10 seconds (your figure from previous posting). That's about 12.5 times further, but knock a bit off for air resistance How is that almost the same? Or is this another "false authority fact"? Well let me help you out here The buildings fell in what they call a freefall effect meaning there was no resistance from one floor hitting another a pancake sort of effect, if the buildings fell due to the weakening of the steel this would mean the floors would land on each other and as they land the disapate the force, meaning it would slow down everytime a floor landed on another. If you look at the way a few physics experts explained how it should have fell the top should have came off in one lump and the building would still be standing. What really makes me think is if the fires were so intense and so hot how is it this victim was able to stand where she is some 40 to 50 mins after the crash. This is what really made me wonder about the whole thing, not the conspiracy or any of that its the picture that made me think How is that possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 if the buildings fell due to the weakening of the steel this would mean the floors would land on each other and as they land the disapate the force, meaning it would slow down everytime a floor landed on another. The first floor to fall would double the weight on the floor below it. When this fell it would triple the weight on the floor below that and so on. Once a few floors had fallen the process would be unstopabale If you look at the way a few physics experts explained how it should have fell the top should have came off in one lump and the building would still be standing. Gee - I guess they were wrong. Doesn't mean that the laws of physics were defied though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The difference is that the people I get my information from have a geniune concern about what happened that day Jesus, just shut up. You get your information from people out to make a killing by selling their books and DVD to gullable fools like you. You get information from people who delight in creating conspiracy sheep who fawn at their every word written on their Internet blog. You get information from derranged idiots with skewed views of the world. But most importantly of all, you get information from people who just simply like to hoax other people and see how much bullshit they can make them swallow. If everything you read on the Internet was true, the world would be a scarier place. Fortunately, it's not, and the sooner you understand why it's so easy for you to dismiss our point of view, the sooner you'll understand and accept why it's so easy for us to dismiss yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 What really makes me think is if the fires were so intense and so hot how is it this victim was able to stand where she is some 40 to 50 mins after the crash. This is what really made me wonder about the whole thing, not the conspiracy or any of that its the picture that made me think How is that possible. Perhaps she was (un)lucky enough to escape the intense fire (am I right in thinking that fire mainly wants to spread upwards?) only to be crushed by the collapsing building. There were people hurling themselves out of the buildings to escape the fire right up until they collapsed. Just because one person managed to find a place that, as far as we can see, is unaffected by fire, doesn't mean there was no fire at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollocks Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The difference is that the people I get my information from have a geniune concern about what happened that day Jesus, just shut up. You get your information from people out to make a killing by selling their books and DVD to gullable fools like you. You get information from people who delight in creating conspiracy sheep who fawn at their every word written on their Internet blog. You get information from derranged idiots with skewed views of the world. But most importantly of all, you get information from people who just simply like to hoax other people and see how much bullshit they can make them swallow. If everything you read on the Internet was true, the world would be a scarier place. Fortunately, it's not, and the sooner you understand why it's so easy for you to dismiss our point of view, the sooner you'll understand and accept why it's so easy for us to dismiss yours. You're whole post is a masterpiece of irony. YOU are the gullible fool. Why is it so hard to accept that what crozza has explaind is very much a reality? Oh wait, maybe I have an idea. You're so far up your own shit shaft of an arse to even look into what we have to say. Can't you at least shed some of your glorious light on the some of the points addressed by crozza? On a side note, what's your real name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 You're whole post is a masterpiece of irony. YOU are the gullible fool. Why is it so hard to accept that what crozza has explaind is very much a reality? Are you thick? I've already explained that when you can understand why you so easily dismiss our points of view,, you'll understand we why dismiss yours. Oh wait, maybe I have an idea. You're so far up your own shit shaft of an arse to even look into what we have to say. Can't you at least shed some of your glorious light on the some of the points addressed by crozza? No, because his posts are so mealy mouthed, incoherent and rambling that I can't be bothered to read them. I have absolutely no doubt that for each and every point I could find a website that would disprove it. Proves nothing though, right? Because all the websites I'd find are full of rubbish whereas all yours are absolute fact. Are you starting to get my point yet? I can use smaller words if you like..... On a side note, what's your real name? Is this a precursor to an Internet Toughguy routine? Oddly enough, I tend not to post up my real details on a public forum, much the same as you, 'bollocks'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 On a side note, what's your real name? Is this a precursor to an Internet Toughguy routine? Oddly enough, I tend not to post up my real details on a public forum, much the same as you, 'bollocks'. I think that may be his real name. Or at least his official description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollocks Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 You're whole post is a masterpiece of irony. YOU are the gullible fool. Why is it so hard to accept that what crozza has explaind is very much a reality? Are you thick? I've already explained that when you can understand why you so easily dismiss our points of view,, you'll understand we why dismiss yours. Oh wait, maybe I have an idea. You're so far up your own shit shaft of an arse to even look into what we have to say. Can't you at least shed some of your glorious light on the some of the points addressed by crozza? No, because his posts are so mealy mouthed, incoherent and rambling that I can't be bothered to read them. I have absolutely no doubt that for each and every point I could find a website that would disprove it. Proves nothing though, right? Because all the websites I'd find are full of rubbish whereas all yours are absolute fact. Are you starting to get my point yet? I can use smaller words if you like..... On a side note, what's your real name? Is this a precursor to an Internet Toughguy routine? Oddly enough, I tend not to post up my real details on a public forum, much the same as you, 'bollocks'. Crozza pretty much summed it up. You blatently won't answer any of the questions he puts forward. Please show us all these websites that disprove our 'theories'. Oh, and I wanted to know your name just out of curiosity. No need to shit your pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Bollocks: I posted some links many pages ago that claim to disprove some of your theories. Would you like to comment on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Crozza pretty much summed it up. You blatently won't answer any of the questions he puts forward. Please show us all these websites that disprove our 'theories'. Oddly enough, the same applies to you crackheads. Oh, and I wanted to know your name just out of curiosity. No need to shit your pants. Oh believe you me, there's no pantshitting going on here. I was actually looking forward to your miserable routine. Sorely disappointed now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Very odd, dont you think? The very symbol of fascism on the home of freedom? Land of the brave and home of the free? More like land of the slave and home of the fee! (Trying to tip-toe around Godwin's law) So, using that logic the Manx must be Nazis because our flags derive from the same root? Or, perhaps the Nazis were Manx? I used to have a school teacher called Hitler, but I thought that was just a joke. Do you have any theroies on how to prove if a woman is a witch, or how far a swallow can fly carrying a coconut in its beak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.