911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Al Dykes on 20 Oct 2009 17:27 In article <hbko48$3j5$5(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hb7gjv$5m2$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> Iarnrod wrote: >>>> On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>>> You're still not making any sense, nut job. > >>>> I know that having been fired from your janitor job > >>> Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, and that >>> a controlled demolition displays none of the >>> characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> >>> What you "think" you "know" is easily proved to be at >>> odds with reality, nut job... <vbg> > >> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each landed >> 600 feet from the WTC? > > I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. > >> As to your claim, prove that it's been proven, because no other >> building has been damaged that severly, and had to withstand >> fires for that long. Ever. > > > You're either *completely* ignorant of the facts or deliberately >lying. Either way, thanks, because you're making a complete joke >of yourself and your insane conspiracy theory. > Even NIST has been forced to admit that structural damage from >the tower demolitions played no significant role in WTC7's >"collapse". As always, here's hard proof of your ignorance, lies, >and insanty. > >http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html > >"Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the >collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting >structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse >of WTC 7." Your point? Hours of fire and the absence of firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 08:31 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" >>>> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being >>>> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> >>>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >>>> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >>>> days after the attacks." >>>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker >>>> would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam >>>> would be dripping molten steel". >>> That's right >> Here's your quote, nut job: >> "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? >> Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, >> eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. >> Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> > What we can't find in those quotes is Can you find the words "molten steel". If so, please point them out to all nut job. He says they're not there and I'm lying when I say they are. But of course, he is a nut job... <g> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 08:34 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" >>>> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being >>>> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> >>>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >>>> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >>>> days after the attacks." >>>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a >>>> worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of >>>> the beam would be dripping molten steel". >>> That's right >> Here's your quote, nut job: >> "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > And that was true. All the quotes you had provided to that point > said "molten metal". Let's simplify this even more for you. What's the second word between the quote below, all nut job? DO you see the word metal, or the word steel? "molten steel". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 08:42 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each >>> landed 600 feet from the WTC? >> I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. > Sure you did. But of course you can't produce the quote or the post where I made that claim because the only place it exists in in your "mind". Thanks for proving my point again - which of course, is that you're deluded lying nut job.... <chuckle> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 NIST's Miracle Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so. NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse "was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles - that is, the principles of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing: A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it.... [T]he ... time that it took... for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous. Chandler's Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder?s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder's 40 percent claim contradicts "a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity." The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that "for about two and a half seconds..., the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall." Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: "Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously." NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]." "Gravitational acceleration" is a synonym for free fall acceleration. So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens." Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion." The implication of Chandler's remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them. If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened. That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)." Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was ?consistent with physical principles.? One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found. NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]" -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 08:47
Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> Iarnrod wrote: >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>>> You're still not making any sense, nut job. >>>>> I know that having been fired from your janitor job >>>> Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, and that >>>> a controlled demolition displays none of the >>>> characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> >>>> What you "think" you "know" is easily proved to be at >>>> odds with reality, nut job... <vbg> >>> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each landed >>> 600 feet from the WTC? >> I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. >> >>> As to your claim, prove that it's been proven, because no other >>> building has been damaged that severly, and had to withstand >>> fires for that long. Ever. >> You're either *completely* ignorant of the facts or deliberately >> lying. Either way, thanks, because you're making a complete joke >> of yourself and your insane conspiracy theory. >> Even NIST has been forced to admit that structural damage from >> the tower demolitions played no significant role in WTC7's >> "collapse". As always, here's hard proof of your ignorance, lies, >> and insanty. >> >> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html >> "Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the >> collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting >> structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse >> of WTC 7." > Your point? That when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 suffered severe structural damage, they're revealing more of their extreme ignorance, obviously. You nut jobs sure do have a lot trouble with basic reading and thinking - which of course, is why you believe everything your ruling masters tell you without thought or question... <chuckle> Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially crushed by heavy impacts. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of steel framed buildings. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper. It was not hit by a plane and suffered only minor damage from tower debris impacts due to its location. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings as well as the range of debris impact. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno". http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition. http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html We're still waiting for the kooks to provide us with a logical explanation other than controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. It seems controlled demolition is the only possible cause of WTC7's demolition. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |