- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Candice Owens is a straight up lunatic.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:44 am to BBONDS25
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:44 am to BBONDS25
quote:
that’s a lie.
It's not. These facts were often part of the things they would cite about how strong they were as part of their risk assessment.
Again, it's mentioning the 707 specifically because that was the largest airliner of the time when they were constructed.
Now, if it can withstand that, there is also a matter of speed in part of that equation and there will be a max speed in which that amount of mass could be withheld.
It was designed to absorb high amounts of lateral load.
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 11:44 am
2
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:45 am to 3down10
quote:
It's not.
Of course it is.
link me to the engineers that built it stating it would absorb a jumbo jet at 600mph. Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:46 am to 3down10
quote:
3down10
You are coming off as a moonbat.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:47 am to the808bass
quote:
No, it’s not. You’re just fricking idiot talking about things that you literally know almost nothing about.
It's funny how you are unable to form anything that resembles an actual rebuttal and yet at the same time demand other people solve every mystery if they want to dispute the official story.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:49 am to BBONDS25
quote:
clearly you’re not an engineer. Or a person with basic common sense.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:50 am to TDTOM
quote:
You are coming off as a moonbat.
Ok complacency theorist.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:52 am to m2pro
quote:
ian Carroll explains Google trends out of D.C. and Israel
Ian Carroll is a bigger retard than Owens I can't believe people follow these morons
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:54 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Of course it is. link me to the engineers that built it stating it would absorb a jumbo jet at 600mph.
Look, I don't save links when I do research just so I can post them later, but here from a quick google search you could have done:
Collapse of the World Trade Center
quote:
During its investigation into the collapse, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) obtained a three-page white paper that stated the buildings would survive an aircraft-impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 flying at 600 mph (970 km/h).[29] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, said in an interview conducted after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there."
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 11:55 am
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:56 am to 3down10
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:57 am to 3down10
quote:
Look, I don't save links when I do research just so I can post them later, but here from a quick google search you could have done:
So you don’t have a link stating what you claimed from the engineers if the building. Got it. 
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:57 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Hahahahaha. That’s what I thought.
You're lucky I even entertained your appeal to authority logical fallacy to begin with.
But if you want engineers to tell you the same things, there you go.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:58 am to 3down10
I pointed out above that you were completely talking out of your arse when you asserted the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center towers were aesthetic and did not provide structural support.
It’s unclear why anyone should take anything else you say seriously.
It’s unclear why anyone should take anything else you say seriously.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:58 am to BBONDS25
quote:
So you don’t have a link stating what you claimed from the engineers if the building. Got it.
I just gave you one....in the post you are quoting here.
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:59 am to 3down10
quote:
btained a three-page white paper that stated the buildings
Obtained a paper, not created the paper.
Structural steel is compromised by heat. We used to bend steel beams with a torch.
If you can bend beams with a torch, imagine what a jet fuel raging inferno would do.
Anyone believing the fire didnt compromise the beams to the point of failure is a non thinking person.
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:01 pm to 3down10
quote:
But if you want engineers to tell you the same things, there you go.
It turned out the engineers who did that analysis were wrong. I’ve been to Manhattan. I know they’re wrong.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:04 pm to EphesianArmor
It’s out there. If you haven’t seen or heard it you’re being willfully ignorant. If you want to see it go watch it, I’m not posting it because it’s ignorant and hateful and I’m sure you’ll just make excuses for her ignorance.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
I pointed out above that you were completely talking out of your arse when you asserted the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center towers were aesthetic and did not provide structural support.
It’s unclear why anyone should take anything else you say seriously.
They were not part of the inner tube and the loss of them did not result in the building falling. They are not critical.
Either way, the point still remains that the loss of them did not really weaken the building.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:07 pm to 3down10
quote:
They were not part of the inner tube and the loss of them did not result in the building falling. They are not critical.
Who told you that?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:09 pm to 3down10
You’ll never convince the complacency theorists. They are too fat, happy and incurious in their government narrative lives.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:10 pm to GumboPot
Your devolution has been one of the most interesting on this board.
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News