Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Get Real!** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:11 pm

When a plane hits the SIDE of a building only a very small number of beams are affected and are thus too week to withstand the impact but had the plane hit the TOP of the building (imagine a Japanese kamikaze doing a perfect vertical dive) then the building would’ve held up because all the beams would’ve joined forces to counter the impact.

by **Get Real!** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:19 pm

Maximus wrote:
Get Real! wrote:That's very thick concrete! There's no comparison.

It is thick concrete but those steel beams are also tough and dont need to be as thick to have the same effect..

Bullshit!

I can tell that you haven’t graduated from an engineering course or you would’ve understood the basic fundamentals of stress and strain.

You (and the author of that article) don't seem to understand the concept of building structures. They are designed to take weight coming from the TOP but not from the sides!

by **Maximus** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:23 pm

I would expect the building and the plane to both be devestated if a plane crashed in to it, never mind that it has steel beams or what it is made of.

I also understand the concept of stress and strain, then there is still no explaination as to why one of the planes went through the whole building and its hollow nose came out the other end still intact. Wouldn't that be completely obliterated too from the sress of the impact

by **Get Real!** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:24 pm

It’s like you car’s shock absorber… if something bumps into the SIDE of the shock absorber will it be able to function and absorb the impact?

Of course not, because it is only designed to take stress from the TOP and BOTTOM.

by **Sotos** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:25 pm

This conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense. First of all the planes were recorded crashing in the towers by many different cameras and tons of other people saw the planes crashing... that incident happened in Manhattan, one of the most densely populated places on earth. Even if for arguments sake I accept that faking such thing is even possible, to fake it successfully would require A LOT of super smart and super skilled people working together for many months. The idea that a great number of scientists and highly skilled people would be working for months to perfect the murder of 1000s of their compatriots knowing that if caught they would face the death penalty is plain stupid! WHY would they do such thing? If they wanted same false flag operations they could simply make up some "suicide" bombings of certain places of great importance... WAY easier, cheaper and it would have the same result.

by **Maximus** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:33 pm

Sotos wrote:This conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense. First of all the planes were recorded crashing in the towers by many different cameras and tons of other people saw the planes crashing... that incident happened in Manhattan, one of the most densely populated places on earth. Even if for arguments sake I accept that faking such thing is even possible, to fake it successfully would require A LOT of super smart and super skilled people working together for many months. The idea that a great number of scientists and highly skilled people would be working for months to perfect the murder of 1000s of their compatriots knowing that if caught they would face the death penalty is plain stupid! WHY would they do such thing? If they wanted same false flag operations they could simply make up some "suicide" bombings of certain places of great importance... WAY easier, cheaper and it would have the same result.

The guy in the video says that there was no second plane seen in the air when the footage was being taken of the second impact while the camera was zoomed out. However, after the camera man zooms in, a few seconds later a plane appears and crashes in to the second tower.

by **Maximus** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:34 pm

Get Real! wrote:It’s like you car’s shock absorber… if something bumps into the SIDE of the shock absorber will it be able to function and absorb the impact?

Of course not, because it is only designed to take stress from the TOP and BOTTOM.

so the hollow nose of a boeing can go through one of those towers and come out the other end still intact?

by **Get Real!** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:41 pm

Maximus wrote:
Get Real! wrote:It’s like you car’s shock absorber… if something bumps into the SIDE of the shock absorber will it be able to function and absorb the impact?

Of course not, because it is only designed to take stress from the TOP and BOTTOM.

so the hollow nose of a boeing can go through one of those towers and come out the other end still intact?

This is a secondary issue but anyway, under the right circumstances it can:

ie: (1) Enters through glass, (2) slides along a vacant floor, and then (3) exists through glass again.

It's all circumstantial but makes a lot more sense than that author's theory.

by **Pyrpolizer** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:43 pm

the 9/11 incident was the evidence for me that the 250 million Americans are totally controlled and they would beleive any bullshit lie they would serve them on a plate as long as it's dressed up with ketchup. It wasn't only the twin towers that fell, building 7 another huge building was demolished in the afternoon. How many Americans even know that?

by **Maximus** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:45 pm

its not a satisfactory explaination GR. Just to go back to the crash test of the fighter jet in to the concrete wall.

The towers were not just made of steel beams as a structure. There was also a lot of concrete filling the spaces between those beems. There were lots of walls inside the building to partition rooms. Lets take a single floor from the tower for example, that represents a lot of dense concrete. if the plane hits any floor perpendicular to its flight path I believe it would simulate a thicker concrete wall than what was used in the crash test for the fighter jet. And we saw what happened to that plane.

To say that the plane can go all the way through with its nose still intact is not physically possible.