Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Misc. » Can a STEM brah explain how the twin towers completely collapsed? [srs] [kufon]
  1. Results 91 to 108 of 108
  2. Page 4 of 4
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4

Thread: Can a STEM brah explain how the twin towers completely collapsed? [srs] [kufon]

post 1450139563 06-28-2016, 01:08 PM
-
#91
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By 5htp⏩
lmaostrongmental gymnastics right here... either that or:

Asking for comparisons that are of at least somewhat similar characterstics was one of the first illuminati mind tricks I was taught
post 1450139803 06-28-2016, 01:09 PM
-
#92
  1. billclintonnn
  2. Registered User
  1. billclintonnn
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Posts: 4,628
  5. Rep Power: 30017
Adding on, an object that weights 450 tons hurling into a stationary object at 600 miles an hour is going to do some damage...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.
post 1450139913 06-28-2016, 01:10 PM
-
#93
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By y0lked⏩
a jet cannot go 600 MPH at sea level! If you cant debate with factual information then GTFO
500mph is possible though
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfil...ft%20speed.pdf
post 1450140373 06-28-2016, 01:13 PM
-
#94
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  3. Join Date: Dec 2003
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,333
  6. Rep Power: 43444
Originally Posted By billclintonnn⏩
Adding on, an object that weights 450 tons hurling into a stationary object at 600 miles an hour is going to do some damage...
450 tons against an object that's 200,000 tons. Some damage but not much at all in the grand scheme of things. And it doesn't matter which object is stationery versus which is moving, do you even Newton's third law bro?
I break into old ladies' homes, steal biscuits from their tins and replace them with sewing materials for maximum grandkid confusion.
post 1450140583 06-28-2016, 01:14 PM
-
#95
  1. xxAchillesxx
  1. xxAchillesxx
  3. Join Date: Sep 2008
  4. Posts: 19,525
  5. Subscribers: 2
  6. Rep Power: 389901
Originally Posted By y0lked⏩
a jet cannot go 600 MPH at sea level! If you cant debate with factual information then GTFO
Well, yes. A jet CAN go 600 mph at sea level. Darryl Greenamyer did so in a modified F-104 on October 24th, 1977 reaching 988.26 mph.
http://web.archive.org/web/201106082...rg/data?p=4540
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N104RB_Red_Baron

You are correct on the 767. But my point still stands even with a 767 traveling at 350-400mph given the immense kinetic energy associated with it.
"The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed."

See OptimusTrajan' sig
post 1450140913 06-28-2016, 01:16 PM
-
#96
  1. ~Hades~
  2. True Patriot Crew
  1. ~Hades~
  2. True Patriot Crew
  3. Join Date: Dec 2007
  4. Posts: 26,187
  5. Rep Power: 695527
im no stem brah but im pretty sure buildings are heavy and im also pretty sure that if parts of the structure that hold up the heavy parts are damaged(by say a plane), the building could collapse.
Royal Crew
Chiefs Crew
Festivus Cew
post 1450140953 06-28-2016, 01:16 PM
-
#97
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By 5htp⏩
450 tons against an object that's 200,000 tons. Some damage but not much at all in the grand scheme of things. And it doesn't matter which object is stationery versus which is moving, do you even Newton's third law bro?
Are you a no-planer?
post 1450141013 06-28-2016, 01:17 PM
-
#98
  1. residesinAZ
  2. Registered User
  1. residesinAZ
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2014
  4. Posts: 10,579
  5. Rep Power: 35906
Originally Posted By y0lked⏩
a jet cannot go 600 MPH at sea level! If you cant debate with factual information then GTFO
If the Titanic can go 1000s of miles an hour, a plane can easily do 600...
post 1450141423 06-28-2016, 01:19 PM
-
#99
  1. Wysiwig
  2. Registered User
  1. Wysiwig
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2012
  4. Posts: 2,131
  5. Rep Power: 63580
Originally Posted By MassiveLoads420⏩
idk.

also thought it was weird how the "plane" was "vaporized" before it even made an exit wound on the building.
are you trying to say that there was no plane?
post 1450142233 06-28-2016, 01:24 PM
-
#100
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By y0lked⏩
your symbolic logic is utterly terrible.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.co...nd-before-911/
It`s so terrible you can`t event respond properly hm?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

Why don`t you tell us how you think everything happened and then defend that version?
post 1450142293 06-28-2016, 01:24 PM
-
#101
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  1. Growbag
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 2,463
  5. Rep Power: 2026
its always hilarious watching these 9/11 threads unfold
post 1450143263 06-28-2016, 01:29 PM
-
#102
  1. Jadedfadedisbae
  2. Registered User
  1. Jadedfadedisbae
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2016
  4. Age: 31
  5. Posts: 4,741
  6. Rep Power: 11357
What about building 7?
300 Tinder matches and jadedfaded still the most beautiful thing iv ever seen
post 1450144413 06-28-2016, 01:36 PM
-
#103
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  3. Join Date: Dec 2003
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,333
  6. Rep Power: 43444
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
Are you a no-planer?
I'm not an anything on this subject. Is that what you have to resort to, implying I'm a CT nut because I mentioned the vast differences in mass between the two objects and cite Newton's third law to correct the guy's assumption?
I break into old ladies' homes, steal biscuits from their tins and replace them with sewing materials for maximum grandkid confusion.
post 1450144773 06-28-2016, 01:37 PM
-
#104
  1. 20Mavs11
  2. Everydang u do is balloon
  1. 20Mavs11
  2. Everydang u do is balloon
  3. Join Date: Oct 2011
  4. Posts: 12,025
  5. Rep Power: 34497
Originally Posted By billclintonnn⏩
Adding on, an object that weights 450 tons hurling into a stationary object at 600 miles an hour is going to do some damage...
Hory chit those planes were traveling 600mph that low to the ground? That's impressive!
[Dallas Cowboys][Dallas Mavericks][Texas Rangers][TCU*NCAA][DFW Crew]
[Law of Attraction Crew]

There are glowies on the misc now. Don't fall for the bait.
post 1450145153 06-28-2016, 01:39 PM
-
#105
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  1. y0lked
  2. CEO 10k/yr
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Location: Sacramento, California, United States
  5. Posts: 11,833
  6. Rep Power: 23214
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
It`s so terrible you can`t event respond properly hm?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

Why don`t you tell us how you think everything happened and then defend that version?
I WOULD tell you but you wouldnt comprehend the info because you've never seen any of it before. The findings that support my beliefs are not mainstream. They are not for shills.
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (NSCA)

**Dallas Cowboys**
**Sacramento Kings**
**San Jose Sharks**
post 1450145993 06-28-2016, 01:43 PM
-
#106
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By 5htp⏩
I'm not an anything on this subject. Is that what you have to resort to, implying I'm a CT nut because I mentioned the vast differences in mass between the two objects and cite Newton's third law to correct the guy's assumption?
I was asking you a question brah

I think you would have more success if you didn`t argue with mass but rather with force and look up Newton`s third law again
post 1450146143 06-28-2016, 01:44 PM
-
#107
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  1. DVANPATTEN
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 1370
Originally Posted By y0lked⏩
I WOULD tell you but you wouldnt comprehend the info because you've never seen any of it before. The findings that support my beliefs are not mainstream. They are not for shills.
Okay, classic
post 1450148083 06-28-2016, 01:56 PM
-
#108
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  1. 5htp
  2. literally shaking rn
  3. Join Date: Dec 2003
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,333
  6. Rep Power: 43444
Originally Posted By DVANPATTEN⏩
I was asking you a question brah

I think you would have more success if you didn`t argue with mass but rather with force and look up Newton`s third law again
lol @ trying to pretend it was a genuine question rather than an attempt to dismiss what I said by labeling me

re: force, fair enough but that's semantic (and rhetorical) nitpicking on your part, f=ma so mass is obviously relevant
I break into old ladies' homes, steal biscuits from their tins and replace them with sewing materials for maximum grandkid confusion.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts