Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Curiosity about 9/11
Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 17:32 Go to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
I want someone to explain to me how the twin towers falling defied the third law of motion naturally.
Third law of motion

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.

By this logic the top should have slowed down, if not stopping completely and falling off to the side. In what way is it possible they fell from weakened steel and then plowed through layer after layer of concrete and unweakened steal as if there was nothing even there?
And i want an actual answer not some vague counter argument that doesn't answer anything, insults, or news articles. I want an exact answer as to how it could have broken the third law of motion naturally.


Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481749 is a reply to message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nikki6ixx is currently offline  nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
General (2 Stars)
Why are you asking people here and not an engineering forum or place full of qualified individuals that will refute your already made-up beliefs that it was all HURR DURR BUSH CHENEY BARACK HUSSEIN OBOMBER?

Renegade:
Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56

The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481750 is a reply to message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 19:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
This guy is trolling

He can't really be this stupid
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481751 is a reply to message #481750] Fri, 07 June 2013 19:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
Can you answer the question?

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481752 is a reply to message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 19:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481754 is a reply to message #481751] Fri, 07 June 2013 20:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nikki6ixx is currently offline  nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
General (2 Stars)
Zeratul wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 19:33

Can you answer the question?


No we can't because it won't align with your preconceived notions that it was an inside job by the fluoride lobby.

Good luck blowing the conspiracy open! It'd be like Watergate!! You can call it COLGATE.


Renegade:
Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56

The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.

[Updated on: Fri, 07 June 2013 20:08]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481756 is a reply to message #481754] Fri, 07 June 2013 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 23:06

Zeratul wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 19:33

You can call it COLGATE.



http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1349/00/1349000683391.jpg

[Updated on: Fri, 07 June 2013 20:14]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481758 is a reply to message #481756] Fri, 07 June 2013 20:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
Explain to me how it defies the third law of motion im not asking anything about the government, this is about physics.

[Updated on: Fri, 07 June 2013 20:26]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481759 is a reply to message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
Guys explain to me how babby is formed also how is lightbulb working

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/283/817/e3d.jpg
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481760 is a reply to message #481758] Fri, 07 June 2013 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Zeratul wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 20:26

Explain to me how it defies the third law of motion im not asking anything about the government, this is about physics.


The same question goes for you; explain how you believe it defied the third law of motion.
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481761 is a reply to message #481740] Fri, 07 June 2013 21:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
saberhawk wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 22:44

explain how you believe it defied the third law of motion.

The buildings top should have been completely demolished before it made it all the way down. The rest of the building may have still fell but not to the devastating effect that was. The top acted as if it didn't hit anything at all, only effected by gravity and not the building below. That isnt possible according to the third law of motion. Its force of hitting the building should have been equal to the force hitting it back. It obviously wasn't. Which because it is a natural law it cannot be broken without an external force applied to the bottom before the top hit it IE explosives, and thermite.


Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481765 is a reply to message #481761] Fri, 07 June 2013 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerad2142 is currently offline  Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
General (3 Stars)
Probably because the force hitting the building GRAVITY was stronger than the force of the melting metal UNDERNEATH the top.

As the top came down the lower falling portion of it has already cleared the way, any weak points have broken allowing the top to keep its form, because its easier to break at the weakest points rather then insta-crumble mid air...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-w9q864a7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=58s


Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481767 is a reply to message #481765] Fri, 07 June 2013 22:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
Weight does not effect the natural law the top should have been demolished before it got to the bottom. There is no other way it can happen without something else weakening the bottom of the building before the top even hit it.
How does fire at the top weaken the entire lower half building and not the top as well? impossible if anything the top was weaker than the bottom because of the fact that heat rises.


Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481773 is a reply to message #481740] Sat, 08 June 2013 00:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
FlaminGunz is currently offline  FlaminGunz
Messages: 171
Registered: November 2007
Karma: 0
Recruit
renegade physics
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481775 is a reply to message #481761] Sat, 08 June 2013 01:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Zeratul wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 21:58

saberhawk wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 22:44

explain how you believe it defied the third law of motion.

The buildings top should have been completely demolished before it made it all the way down. The rest of the building may have still fell but not to the devastating effect that was. The top acted as if it didn't hit anything at all, only effected by gravity and not the building below. That isnt possible according to the third law of motion. Its force of hitting the building should have been equal to the force hitting it back. It obviously wasn't. Which because it is a natural law it cannot be broken without an external force applied to the bottom before the top hit it IE explosives, and thermite.


You underestimate how effective gravity is as a multiplier. Once the supports failed, the upper half of the building started accelerating downwards at 9.81m/s². The second law of motion tells us that force is equal to mass times acceleration. Using that, you can estimate that the upper half suddenly started applying roughly 10x the force that it used to. There are very few buildings that are built to withstand such a difference in force; skyscrapers usually aren't.
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481788 is a reply to message #481775] Sat, 08 June 2013 09:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
You dont seem to understand that exact same amount of force is the same amount of force sent back to the top, therefore it should have been completely destroyed before it reached the bottom. Gravity does not effect the transfer of energy.

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481793 is a reply to message #481788] Sat, 08 June 2013 10:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 12:17

Hurrdurr I'm an idiot

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481796 is a reply to message #481793] Sat, 08 June 2013 10:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
Instead of insulting me could you actually show your counter argument. None of you have explained what way this is wrong. In fact you cant, you said it yourself, but it is you that live in the fantasy world of "the government actually cares about the people."

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481799 is a reply to message #481796] Sat, 08 June 2013 10:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aircraftkiller is currently offline  Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
General (5 Stars)
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 13:22

lolspiracies

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481805 is a reply to message #481788] Sat, 08 June 2013 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerad2142 is currently offline  Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
General (3 Stars)
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 10:17

You dont seem to understand that exact same amount of force is the same amount of force sent back to the top, therefore it should have been completely destroyed before it reached the bottom. Gravity does not effect the transfer of energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-w9q864a7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=58s

Take it you didn't watch this otherwise you'd see that even in this planned demolition the top of the collapsing structure fell apart before reaching the ground TWO OUT OF THREE times. Notice that even under a demolition that was planned that the 3 structures that are shaped the same still manage not to collapse the same. The second tower's top stays together on the way to the ground even though the other two fell apart before reaching the ground.

There are many factors at play, maybe you just don't completely understand how the universe works? I know I don't, but I do know I don't hear the sound of detonating explosives once the tower begins to fall, and if what you're saying was the case it'd take a lot of explosives to keep blowing the lower section away as the top of the tower came down to keep it all intact. Thumbs Up


Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481814 is a reply to message #481796] Sat, 08 June 2013 14:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nikki6ixx is currently offline  nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
General (2 Stars)
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 10:22

Instead of insulting me could you actually show your counter argument. None of you have explained what way this is wrong. In fact you cant, you said it yourself, but it is you that live in the fantasy world of "the government actually cares about the people."


We're not counter-arguing because you've already made up your mind that it was the evil vaccine makers co-conspiring with the fluoride lobby to release mountains of fluoride emissions from the melted steel within the twin towers. Then, Pfizer can ride a Crest of paranoia and convince people to inject their children with Mercury-laced Aspergers.

We're also not arguing because your talking points are formulated by other people, likely on infowars or a similar website. People create these talking points, so you and other individuals can roll into forums that are totally unqualified to discuss the subject.

If you went to a proper forum for engineering or even dialled up your friendly neighbourhood civil engineers, you'd have your ass handed to you because your pre-made talking points would be obliterated, and you would have nothing at all to come back with, because you won't be spoon-fed information from your cozy, conspiracy-theorist aluminium-bubble-forum.

So you come here. Because you are armed with the talking points, you make yourself out to be the expert. Infowars has likely also told you what answers to expect from the 'brainwashed sheep masses' and you can respond accordingly with more pre-packaged BS.

Also, you've made the debate one-sided because you've said:

Zeratul wrote on Fri, 07 June 2013 17:32


And i want an actual answer not some vague counter argument that doesn't answer anything, insults, or news articles.


You don't want those things because they are conduits of rationality. There are plenty of news articles, magazines and investigative, long-form journalism features that show the proper facts.

BUT OH NOEZ TEH MEDIA IS ALL CONTROL BY TEH JOOZ


Renegade:
Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56

The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481816 is a reply to message #481814] Sat, 08 June 2013 16:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BAGUETTE is currently offline  BAGUETTE
Messages: 620
Registered: June 2010
Karma: 0
Colonel
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 14:34


BUT OH NOEZ TEH MEDIA IS ALL CONTROL BY TEH JOOZ


LOL!

Im not an expert in this at all, but when someone comes to a forum and only has one point to argue for their entire conspiracy :/

TEH TURD LOOR OF PHYSEEKS

Damn typing that like is contagious.


Quote:

Ramb8(to RamBonerUpAss) fuk u big ashole u a big jakass i stick my ramboner up u as

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l234/Vultima/hue.png

Crush gives away med tanks like he gives away handjobs, everyday and as much as possible

[Updated on: Sat, 08 June 2013 16:10]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481829 is a reply to message #481773] Sat, 08 June 2013 19:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
liquidv2 is currently offline  liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
FlaminGunz wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 02:05

renegade physics

lmao
with Renegade physics, the buildings would still be alive somewhere in blue hell


liquidv2

[Updated on: Sat, 08 June 2013 19:55]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481843 is a reply to message #481814] Sun, 09 June 2013 04:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zeratul is currently offline  zeratul
Messages: 1715
Registered: January 2009
Location: Texas
Karma: -1
General (1 Star)
Quote:


BUT OH NOEZ TEH MEDIA IS ALL CONTROL BY TEH JOOZ

You brought the media into this, not me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_General_Electric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_CBS

Before 1996, the national cap was set at 40 stations for a single owner by the FCC. This was changed for reasons i can't seem to find.
Theres no control of our media (that jews part was completely unnecessary) but someone like clear channel can own 1200 radio stations when the legal limit, set by the FCC mind you, was 40? But if you were to even attempt to gain half that many you would be sent to prison and shut down for attempting to create a monopoly.
Edit:When it comes to media control i cannot speak for outside the U.S.


[Updated on: Sun, 09 June 2013 04:14]

Report message to a moderator

icon10.gif  Re: Curiosity about 9/11 [message #481846 is a reply to message #481740] Sun, 09 June 2013 05:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
shaitan is currently offline  shaitan
Messages: 727
Registered: April 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Karma: 0
Colonel
liquidv2 wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 22:55

FlaminGunz wrote on Sat, 08 June 2013 02:05

renegade physics

lmao
with Renegade physics, the buildings would still be alive somewhere in blue hell


!fds revivebar Big Grin

Speaking of Blue Hell, how many times have you guys seen that since 4.0 came out? Once for me, a few weeks ago. At the time it was too funny/memorable to even be mad over losing my arty. Satisfied


Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:38

I get along with people fine, so long as they aren't rejects who promised things that they couldn't
deliver on, or forum trolls who contribute nothing except to bloat the fragile egos of the same
rejects I despise.

Previous Topic: Animoski and Cronus
Next Topic: What actually happened...
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Apr 18 03:14:27 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01107 seconds