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: Curly Surmudgeon on 21 Oct 2009 12:08 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:36:29 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted > when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, > or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure > facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. > It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' " This is the under reported story of 9-11. Such an event is so wildly improbable to be impossible. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exactly What are the Republicans Conserving? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 12:45 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbn4sc$ev0$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> 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 >>> sure I can. >> We're not interested in what you can do in your deluded >> and insane "mind" nut job. Hard truth is, you can't produce >> the quote or the post where I made that claim here in reality. >> Thanks for proving my point, nut job... <chuckle> > Obviously Obviously and predictably. <g> http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf The secrecy surrounding the events after 9/11 prevents public investigation through normal channels. It is still possible however to examine the surviving available evidence to see what can be deduced. If it can be readily deduced that explosives brought down the buildings then the official explanation for the collapse, which avoids consideration of explosives, must be reevaluated in an attempt to discover its purpose. What surviving evidence is there and what can be deduced from it? In my view the deductions based on videos may be regarded as virtually irrefutable. Deductions based on photographs and statements by observers may be weighed by considering the possibility of forgery and the variability of witness reports. Observations and deductions from videos 1. WTC 7 collapsed straight down. This requires that, at the moment of collapse, if caused by fires weakening the supports, not only did the north and south pair of walls have to be of equal strength, but also the east and west pair. Without such symmetry this tall building would inevitably have toppled over. Even if the fires had been intense and widespread this dual symmetry would have only a very low probability of existence. Given the uneven distribution of the small fires at the time of collapse the probability of the required symmetry vanishes, hence fires did not cause the collapse. 2. The acceleration downwards of WTC 7 was 30 feet per second per second. This is so close to the free fall acceleration of 32.2 feet per second per second in a vacuum that virtually no resistance throughout the fall can have existed. Also the acceleration of WTC was constant right from the start. Steel softens slowly as it is heated and, when just failing, still provides substantial resistance. There was however no sign of the steel giving way gradually as its temperature rose. These two observations, taken together, imply that the support structures were instantly and completely severed. 3. A stream of molten metal, yellow-hot and flashing white-hot, was observed running from WTC 2 near the plane impact region. Shortly after this the building collapsed. When metal is white hot it is at a temperature of at least 1200o C, and when yellow it is at about 1000o C, far hotter than possible from the burning of aircraft fuel or office materials. The use of an oxidizing chemical reaction, such as occurs with thermite, or something similar, is implied. The thermite reaction achieves a temperature well in excess of 2000o C, and produces molten iron as a by-product, melting point 1540o C. It is used to cut steel, melting point about 1500o C. 4. During the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 vast clouds of dense dust and portions of the steel columns were violently thrown out.5 The dust came mainly from the pulverization of the concrete that was in the floors. The dust cloud and steel were evident early in the collapse, before the parts had picked up much speed, so cannot have come from component impacts. For the pulverization of the concrete, and also to rapidly expand the dust cloud against the pressure of the atmosphere, a very substantial additional source of energy is required. The theory that this energy could have come from the potential energy in the building is clearly untenable as virtually all of the potential energy had to be consumed in providing the kinetic energy for the high downward acceleration, so close to free fall.9 5. Computer simulations by Lu and Jiang show that, for WTC 1 and WTC 2, collapse in the fire damaged region would have been impossible at the known temperature of the steel supports. 6. Calculations by Gordon Ross show that, if a floor near the plane impact site instantly and totally disintegrated, the energy available from the falling of the top portion would not be sufficient to provide the energy needed to sustain the collapse through the undamaged lower portion. Thus, in the absence of explosives, the top would have decelerated and come to rest. Deductions from observer statements and photographs 1. Weeks after 9/11 workers were still unearthing extremely hot material. A photograph shows solid yellow-hot metal clamped in the jaws of an excavator. The color shows this to be at least 1000o C. This cannot be aluminium, which melts at 660o C, and therefore must be iron or steel. It is impossible for a fire without a dense supply of fuel and forced draft to achieve such high temperatures, hence another energy source must have been involved. 2. Molten metal was observed in the basement of all three buildings and the high temperatures were confirmed by aerial infra-red imaging. This observation can be readily explained by the use of thermite which contains a chemical oxidant, so does not depend on an air supply. The by-product of its reaction is molten iron. This would explain not only the high temperatures achieved in a confined space but also the presence of liquid metal, as described more fully in point 3 of the list above. 3. Numerous eye witnesses reported hearing and feeling explosions. Some were injured and some reported being blown off their feet. 4. A photograph of WTC 2 shortly after the collapse commenced shows the falling top block distorting, though it was straight just before the fall commenced. As there can be no force acting on the block during free fall, this could not have occurred unless the block had already lost its support structure. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 12:50 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbn510$ev0$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry > <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> In news:hbmvst$8dj$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry >>> <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>> Are you saying that it wasn't damaged, or wasn't on fire for >>> hours? >> I'm saying that when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 >> suffered severe structural damage, they're revealing more of their >> extreme ignorance, obviously. What part of that do you find >> confusing, nut job? <vbg> > I know you're saying that because it's about as much as you can say > in support of your position. I'm also saying it's reality and not only do 9-11 truth experts agree, but even government hired "researchers" agree with it. Only usenet nut jobs like yourself reveal their extrme ignorance and insanity by denying it, nut job.. Thanks for proving my point agian... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 13:43 In news:hbndn3$19e$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> 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> > >> Nobody saw molten steel on the pile at WTC. > > Dozens of people did, And yet, not one person can be found who has ever siad "I saw what I know for a fact was molten steel on the pile". No one. Lots of people can talk about molten steel, but the real question is whether or not anyone can be found to have said that they, for themselves, saw what they know for a fact was molten steel.
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 13:44
In news:hbndrq$19e$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: [snip everything except anything that makes sense] |