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: Iarnrod on 22 Sep 2009 14:21 On Sep 22, 11:40 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > paulthomascpa wrote: > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >> Why don't you read the article > > I don't read comic books. > > FEMA is a comic book? Your magic fire/cave man cartoon > conspiracy is certainly comical. Huh? What cave man? GEICO? Who was in a cave? The only cartoon magic tricks are your Wile E Coyote gravity-defying silent and invisible "explosives," Hankie.
From: Iarnrod on 22 Sep 2009 14:22 On Sep 22, 11:43 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Daniel wrote: > > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used > > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html > > Quotes from witnesses to the demolition: > > It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see > professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and > then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because > I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I > saw the building coming down. So, like he said, Hankie, not one bit of evidence that EXPLOSIVES were used.
From: Iarnrod on 22 Sep 2009 14:26 On Sep 22, 12:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AZ Nomad wrote: > > They were designed to survive impact of most planes of the time but > > not jumbo jets. > > The difference isn't significant anyway. > > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html > > And according to the "official" conspiracy theory, the > buildings easily survived the impacts, just as designed. > It was the cave man's magic steel melting fires that caused > the towers to suddenly explode and disintegrate. When did the towers do that? Was it as invisible as your explosives? Was it before or after the fully explained and backed-by-all-science structural failure of the floor struts and perimeter columns that brought the structures down in a progressive collapse due to dynamic loading of the massive weight above the impact and fire zone? > Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute > or don't understand any of what is written in Kevin Ryan's > paper below. Please explain where you "think" you see these mythical violent explosions. Have you been sniffing the big people's chemical beakers in the lab again? <giggle>
From: Henry on 22 Sep 2009 15:14 Ironhead amused its many betters with: > On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer] >>> original partners who also worked as the project manager at the >>> [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces >>> come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To >>> defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of >>> 1350 feet is just not possible. >> Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. That's not enough time >> to significantly weaken the steel. > Yet plenty of time to start the raging fires that did. The deluded conspiracy theorist cited by Dykes blamed the explosive disintegration of the towers on jet fuel. Do try to kepee up. And of course, the only place that a smoldering, oxygen starved fire can "rage", is in the "mind" of a deluded conspiracy kook. And even if there had been raging infernos in the towers and WTC7, those steel framed buildings would have remained standing, like all steel framed buildings in history. You "live" in an alternate reality of comical child-like ignorance and delusions. 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 -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 22 Sep 2009 15:19
On Sep 22, 1:06 pm, Hankie the Junior Janitor <9-11tr...(a)morons.org> wrote: > Iarnrod spanked the truth into Hankie: > > On Sep 22, 12:15 pm, Hankie the Junior Janitor <9-11tr...(a)morons.org> wrote: > >> AZ Nomad wrote: > >>> They were designed to survive impact of most planes of the time but > >>> not jumbo jets. > >> The difference isn't significant anyway. > > >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html > >> And according to the "official" conspiracy theory, the > >> buildings easily survived the impacts, just as designed. > >> It was the cave man's magic steel melting fires that caused > >> the towers to suddenly explode and disintegrate. > > When did the towers do that? > > How about on 9-11-01. Lemme see...... no, not then. No melting steel, no cave man, no exploding buildings... Try again, KKKook! When was this "event?" |