• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    View Poll Results: What happened

    Voters
    44. You may not vote on this poll
    • False flag

      24 54.55%
    • Terrorists

      20 45.45%
    Results 1 to 25 of 152
    Like Tree31Likes

    Thread: Do you think 9/11 was staged?

    Hybrid View

    1. #1
      Ad absurdum Achievements:
      1 year registered 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Spartiate's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Block 4500-7000
      Posts
      4,825
      Likes
      1113
      Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.

    2. #2
      D.V. Editor-in-Chief Original Poster's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2006
      LD Count
      Lucid Now
      Gender
      Location
      3D
      Posts
      8,263
      Likes
      4139
      DJ Entries
      11
      Quote Originally Posted by Spartiate View Post
      Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.
      To me it honestly looks like something on top suddenly collapsed or a bomb exploded on top, then a split second after a controlled demolition occurs. I feel like I can remember it very vividly without watching a video but maybe I should check again.

      Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.


    3. #3
      Antagonist Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze 10000 Hall Points
      Invader's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      Discordia
      Posts
      3,239
      Likes
      535
      Quote Originally Posted by Spartiate View Post
      Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.
      Quote Originally Posted by Invader
      building fell in 10 seconds (9-ish seconds would have been free fall)
      Glad I had that base covered yo.

    4. #4
      Ad absurdum Achievements:
      1 year registered 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Spartiate's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Block 4500-7000
      Posts
      4,825
      Likes
      1113
      Quote Originally Posted by Invader View Post
      Glad I had that base covered yo.
      I'll give you a chance to show how you came up with those numbers before I prove you wrong.

    5. #5
      Antagonist Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze 10000 Hall Points
      Invader's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      Discordia
      Posts
      3,239
      Likes
      535
      Quote Originally Posted by Spartiate View Post
      I'll give you a chance to show how you came up with those numbers before I prove you wrong.
      I used the kinematic equation: X = X0 + v0t + (1/2)at2
      If we call the height of the tower the origin, X0=0 and since initial velocity of course is 0 that leaves us with
      X = (1/2)at2.
      Rearranged this is: t = sqrt((1/2)X/a), where displacement X is 415 meters (distance between the roof of the shorter tower and the ground) and a is the gravitational constant 9.8 m/s2.
      Plugging these values in gives us a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.

      For the observed fall-time of the tower, I used a stop-watch.

      I'd like to see the physics proven wrong, so go ahead.

    6. #6
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2011
      Posts
      228
      Likes
      42
      On the collapse of the towers

      Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?
      9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Twin Towers

    7. #7
      Ad absurdum Achievements:
      1 year registered 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Spartiate's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Block 4500-7000
      Posts
      4,825
      Likes
      1113
      Quote Originally Posted by Invader View Post
      I used the kinematic equation: X = X0 + v0t + (1/2)at2
      If we call the height of the tower the origin, X0=0 and since initial velocity of course is 0 that leaves us with
      X = (1/2)at2.
      Rearranged this is: t = sqrt((1/2)X/a), where displacement X is 415 meters (distance between the roof of the shorter tower and the ground) and a is the gravitational constant 9.8 m/s2.
      Plugging these values in gives us a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.

      For the observed fall-time of the tower, I used a stop-watch.

      I'd like to see the physics proven wrong, so go ahead.
      I don't disagree with your physics, I disagree with your stopwatch.

      World Trade Center Collapse NBC - YouTube

      You can see the antenna start dropping at 0:53. At 1:03 you can clearly see the majority of the building still above the surrounding skyscrapers with large chunks of surviving concrete not falling out of view until 1:12. A large section of the building's metal core stays up for another 10 seconds after that before completely collapsing. By comparison the falling debris around the tower is falling much faster.


      But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two?
      Lol seriously?
      Last edited by Spartiate; 09-14-2011 at 07:52 AM.

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •