I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

I-A-B Midnight Feature: 9/11 Mysteries-Demolitions

The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the submitter and/or the persons appearing on the video and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of I-A-B

Interesting and informative video

submitted by: 747Pilot
< Back Next >
I-A-B Midnight Feature: 9/11 Mysteries-Demolitions. Interesting and informative video
+ Add to Favs
Hits: 2624 | Favorites: 4 | Emailed: 0 | Rating: 2.1 | Category: News & Politics | Date: 02/27/2014
 popular today
Chris Rock On The Comeback [Pic] Even for a comedian, he makes a pretty strong point.
22 Of History`s Greatest Burns [Pix] *Shots Fired*... History just keepin` it classy.
Batman Hates To Lose [Pic] No super powers? No problem.
Car Wash Gets Too Sexy To Handle [Gif] Oh baby, I think you missed a spot....
`Barbarella` Behind The Scenes, 1968 [Pix] It was the ``Austin Powers`` of Sci-fi movies.
More Comments >

Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:19:54 PM
I didn't ignore those six words of yours, they just didn`t change anything, idiot. Your claim that "*all* skyscrapers are designed to have a high probability of collapsing downwards as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure" is catastrophically wrong. Go make that statement to any architect or engineer and you will get laughed out of the building.

"Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed"
The point is to plan to minimize the possibility of failure, not the damage.

One last thing to consider: look up "path of least resistance." There is no reason for those buildings to fall INTO the path of MOST resistance.

Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:19:31 PM
The rest of your posts aren't even worth addressing, they just illustrate how confused you are. You confuse weight and velocity and momentum as if they are all the same thing. You talk about things dropping "at high speed". You use false analogies, ie. dropping a weight ON you. (You were already supporting that weight and you could handle twice as much with no strain. If it slipped 1-2% of your height, you would catch it.)

"So you`re a liar and a hypocrite"
F.uck you. I haven`t lied anywhere (in this thread, at least, hehe) and I`m guessing you don`t know what hypocrite even means: (n. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold).

Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:18:39 PM
"You even agreed with the refutation"
You really do have comprehension problems. No, I was simply tired of you all harping on that one point (THAT I NEVER MADE) so I proposed an alternate, more accurate phrasing.

"You accepted a collapse time almost double that which free fall would have been."
When and where did I do that? It is becoming obvious that you never watched the video I linked.

"No it isn't, as has been explained to you."
Again, when and where? Do you not ackowledge that every floor had thousands of welded and bolted joints? Do you really think that 70+ floors, each with those thousands of welded and bolted joints, would give virtually ZERO resistance in a collapse? You claim that "has been explained" to me, but I can`t seem to find it...

Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:17:47 PM
@Angilion, the ignorant twat, says: "Obviously, the weight rapidly became even greater as more floors collapsed *onto the floors below*."

Really? Please explain how the weight of the floors increased. What new mass was added to the "Dozens of floors of the building" which were, pretty obviously, ALREADY THERE AND BEING SUPPORTED JUST FINE, THANK YOU.

I think the fact that you find it reasonable that dozens of floors of a very large building MYSTERIOUSLY INCREASED IN WEIGHT says EVERYTHING about your idiotic position.

"It has been refuted repeatedly, including in this thread."
I never claimed "free-fall" speed, I claimed "near free-fall" speed. As in very friggin' close to the speed we`ve all seen in controlled implosions!

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12381 Posts
Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:04:58 PM
Last one. I've given you far too much of my time already.

I`m sorry, but that is just "bloody stupid." Buildings are designed and built to AVOID collapse in every imaginable way.

So you`re a liar and a hypocrite ("I`m sorry"), but that`s hardly surprising and a minor point in comparison.

You ignored a key part of what I wrote: "in the event of catastrophic failure." I did not write "buildings are designed to collapse". As usual, you are making stupid things up and pretending other people said them. You do that because your argument is rubbish and you can`t use it to answer what people actually write.

[quote]There is no "safe collapse scenario" planned in.[/quote]

Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed, let alone a building 400m high with a mass of 500,000 tonnes in the middle of a city.

More Comments >

Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |