9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Spaces: Logic and illogic in SRT / GRT.
Next: Prof. Lindzen of MIT is a big deal for climate science
From: Henry on 1 Jun 2010 14:27 * US * wrote: > http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml That's some very clear and irrefutable logic and hard evidence. To believe that the upper portion of the towers (the lightest, thinnest, and weakest portion of the steel frame) could crush its way through the massive undamaged, much thicker, stronger, steel frame below it at all, let alone anything even close to free fall, is a form of insanity. Yet that's precisely what followers of the government's impossible cave man conspiracy theory believe. No wonder they *never* address the facts, expert research, and hard evidence..... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Darwin123 on 1 Jun 2010 19:46 On Apr 12, 2:45 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Schiffner wrote: > > On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > so retard, if it took a ton of dynamite for this > >http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36387551/ns/sports-nfl/a shot made by > > subject matter experts...I wonder just how much of your magic powder > > it would have taken to drop the towers... > > According to you, none at all, right, nutjob? According to your > obviously impossible and insane cartoon fairy tale, WTC7 dropped > at the rate of free fall with near perfect symmetry because of > nothing but random, minor, ordinary office fires. Why do you "think" > demolition contractors bother with explosives when you "know" that > all they need to do is start a couple of fires to achieve a picture > perfect demolition? The insulation on the steel beams was stripped by the airplanes after they crashed into the Towers. The "random office fires" couldn't have melted the beams in the twin towers if the insulation hadn't been stripped. Demolition contractors would have to strip the insulation before setting the fires for that collapse. They could do that efficiently with explosives before setting the fires. However, that is two steps. It is faster to use enough explosives to bring it down, without setting the fires. The remaining tower that collapsed had more combustible fuel for electric generators. So it collapsed without anything stripping the insulation. That is the official story, anyway.
From: * US on 1 Jun 2010 21:36 On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:27:18 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >* US * wrote: > >> http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml > > That's some very clear and irrefutable logic and hard >evidence. To believe that the upper portion of the towers >(the lightest, thinnest, and weakest portion of the steel >frame) could crush its way through the massive undamaged, >much thicker, stronger, steel frame below it at all, let >alone anything even close to free fall, is a form of insanity. >Yet that's precisely what followers of the government's >impossible cave man conspiracy theory believe. No wonder they >*never* address the facts, expert research, and hard evidence..... Indeed.
From: Henry on 2 Jun 2010 11:07 S'mee wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:36 pm, * US * wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:27:18 -0400, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> * US * wrote: >>>> http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml >>> That's some very clear and irrefutable logic and hard >>> evidence. To believe that the upper portion of the towers >>> (the lightest, thinnest, and weakest portion of the steel >>> frame) could crush its way through the massive undamaged, >>> much thicker, stronger, steel frame below it at all, let >>> alone anything even close to free fall, is a form of insanity. >>> Yet that's precisely what followers of the government's >>> impossible cave man conspiracy theory believe. No wonder they >>> *never* address the facts, expert research, and hard evidence..... >> Indeed. > The tonnage both structual and non structural was > sufficient to collapse the entire building. One needs to be incredibly ignorant, gullible, and even delusional to believe that sort of comical idiocy. Steel framed high rises are over engineered to support many times their own weight as well as withstand hurricane force wind loads and earthquakes. That's one of the many reason why no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire. Twin Towers: The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper structures. From: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690 "The Twin Towers and Why They Fell It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs. More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html "There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 3" The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross' research paper on momentum transfer here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression, the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics. The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including the 47 interconnected central core columns: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible, is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in the bottom photo. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That, of course, is not physically possible. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly reduced. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html Now watch this video: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point. More good information on 9-11 can be found here: http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 2 Jun 2010 11:33
S'mee wrote: > The simple fact is as the > upper floors collapsed onto the next floor the weight kept > accumulating causing more damage. That's definitely very simple, but it's an impossible lie, not a fact. Fact is, there were no floors in the rubble, as they were pulverized into fine powder by the demolition. Also, your lie is an old one and has even been dumped by your ruling masters as it contradicts the evidence and violates the principles of physics. As always, here's proof. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST�s findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system�that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns�consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab" -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |