The 9/11 Attacks: Pardon Me But This Is Just Absolute Comedy!

Aren't you skipping a few laws?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQw...tch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg&feature=channel_video_title

 

If the supports on the 93rd floor gave way, then the only place the damaged section could have moved is off the building. The resistance in the bottom 93 floor section didn't change, and therefore neither did its ability to support the weight above it. Thus, it is impossible for the damaged section to have moved through it.

 

How? Gravity functions in one direction. Down


Correction, I should stipulate earths gravity. Wouldn't want you guys running off on some crazy tangent about lunar tides.

 

This is a good thread. Absolute comedy coming from the debunkers of truth because they have no idea what they are talking about.

They want us to believe that Newton's law of physics are outdated. The laws of physics were suspended on 9/11. Office fires grow to incandescent temperatures. Buildings can freefall from office fires. And on and on with garbage talk.

It would really be funny if it wasn't so tragic and cost so many lives.

 

So you got nothing. Thought so.
Gotta admit you guys are a hoot. This thread has already been debunked pages ago and you still keep ticking.

 

More comedy. Pure garbage talk from the debunkers of truth.

 

This is exactly why I suggested you use Google to learn about Newton's third law, because gravity has an equal and opposite reaction. That equal and opposite reaction is what kept the buildings upright for 40 years, and your infantile repetition of the word "gravity" implies that you do not know that equal and opposite reaction exists.

If it did not then you would not be able to even get up off the floor.

 

You debunker you.

 

Still got nothing? Wow, I'm starting to feel sorry for you guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Still at 0

 

Brother, you don't know why things stand up, and you think steel is spelled with an "a". With respect, I don't think your opinion is particularly valid.

But I am willing to wager that your ignorance is bliss.

 

Uz gotz me dere quattros.

I couldn't help but notice you never commented on the pancaking explanation that was the beginning and quick end of your laughter. I'm still chucklin tho.

 

Run it by me again.

 

I would suggest you read the thread. You started it, you should read it. Odd that someone would open a thread for debate but choose not to read the replies. Well maybe not in this case.

 

Definitely not in this case, because this thread has 164 posts in it. Your pancaking explanation is not even supported by NIST, so what do you want me to say? Even the people twisting reality to create your false explanation do not agree with you. At least sometimes. Other times they still say the floors pancaked.

 

Doesn't it go something like it didn't pancake but it did. The buildings didn't start off pancaking and then they pan caked in freefall. That is hard to debunk because it makes no sense.

 

Lol. Exactly, bro. It's the old "didn't but it did".

The truth is nobody in NIST is qualified to say what happened because they didn't test the most likely hypothesis, which was very obviously demolition.

 

Pancaking did not initiate the collapse. That is what the OP's test claimed. Obviously pancaking did occur after the initial structural failure.
If the floors never pancaked they would still be standing wouldn't they?

 

How the hell could "pancaking", a word which describes the progressive failure of floors, initiate the collapse? Pancaking was never claimed to be the cause. It was claimed to be the effect. The fires caused the buildings to "pancake". That was the official explanation. Now, NIST instead says:-

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

And, by way of further absurdity, within the very same FAQ, NIST claims there was a progressive failure of the floor systems. It is just absolutely f!cking ludicrous. Why has there not been a full scale revolt in America?

 

Obviously eh? You seriously want me to believe that the buildings pancaked at near freefall acceleration?
Absolute comedy coming from the debunkers of truth who have no understanding of the laws of physics.

Don't you mean pattycake? "Patty cake patty cake bakers man"? Your claims are childish and absurd.

 

Pancaking is a progressive failure of the floor systems, as has just been pointed out. Progressive collapse is not the only way a building can collapse, so it is not obvious. Especially when NIST can't make up its mind about whether or not it occurred.

Basically, NIST can't support the pancake theory in anything resembling a scientific debate, and that became obvious after the Popular Mechanics article was quickly addressed by a number of researchers. However, in what cannot be considered to be anything other than an outright deception, NIST attempts to use the pancake theory to explain why there were systematic debris clouds being blasted from the building during collapse.

It is deception. Pure and simple.

 

as always.like all truthers do with him everyday,you handed his ass to him on a platter.

- - - Updated - - -

ut sure is utter comedy by him.its utter comedy by the official conspiracy theory apologists defending their lies of the NIST report because it just proves they ditched junior high school science classes.thats the utter comedy of the NIST report is they proved they know nothing at all about the laws of physics scientisits have gone by for thousands of years.

 

Chandler proved nothing. That one section of an unsupported wall moved at free-fall acceleration after most of the building had ceased to exists means absolutely nothing regarding the cause of that fall.

Chandlerites do not grasp structural engineering.

 

yeh had to love the dubya speech!

"Dont listen to anyones conspiracy theory but ours"!!

LMAO

 

no the building was inexistence, thats why NIST was handed their ass in triplicate.




see there is is big as life

 

Are you going to tell me now that the building did not move from side-to-side as it fell? Are you really that near blind?