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 15:23 On Sep 22, 1:14 pm, Hankie the Junior Janitor <9-11tr...(a)morons.org> wrote: > Iarnrod proved she is better than Hankie with: > > > On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, Hankie the Junior Janitor <9-11tr...(a)morons.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. No it didn't. The jet fuel fire set ablaze the combustibles inside the offices. The fires raged, the steel floor struts weakened, that pulled the perimeter girders inward and the massive weight above collapsed and crushed everything below it. Easy. Any questions, Hankie? It looks like during your mental health "sabbatical" you failed to go down the hallway to the physics department and get your head straight, > Do try to kepee up. Do try to sound out words before trying to spell them with your strait jacket still donned.
From: AllYou! on 22 Sep 2009 15:24 In news:h9b2cn$qjt$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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. > Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across > West Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking > across the street and all you heard was like bombs going off > above your head. You couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we > found out later it was the military jets. That was an eerie > sound. You couldn't see it and all you heard was like a "boom" > and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet above our head > because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs going off > or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there. > > > > We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just > remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on > television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was > going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. > > It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane > hit, because we originally had thought there was like an > internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, > boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that > everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the > tower coming down. > > And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 > World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an > explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all > four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there > seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the > beginning of the collapse. > > Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there > was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just > one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around > the building and that building had started to explode. The > popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an > orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it > would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I > could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting > bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. > > > > I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a > noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the > lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like > someone had planted explosives around it because the whole > bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other > side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and > you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I > thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew > out. > > I should say that people in the street and myself included > thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs > were going off inside the building. > > The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and > seeing that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound > it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives > somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling > explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions? > Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times > > My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks > when they show you those implosions on TV. > > > Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the > air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- > but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like > the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had > blown completely outside of it. Imagine that. Two of the tallest buildings in the world are collapsing at an alarming rate, and civilians hear loud pops that the claim 'sound like' bombs or explosions. Tell me, when someone claims that the devastation from a tornado looks like a bomb had exploded over the area, or that the 9th ward in New Orleans looks like a nuke had exploded over it, would you claim that it's evidence that either of those has happened? When the wackos of the world can provide any credible scenario under which the necessary amount of explosives could've been planted in both WTC towers so as to cause them to fall as they did, and that this bomb installation process could've been done without anyone ever knowing about it, and without any of the people responsible for the installation ever coming forward to claim that they were, then I'll retract my claim that they're wackos.
From: knews4u2chew on 22 Sep 2009 16:10 On Sep 22, 10:40 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. > > http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf > > -- > > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org Note: FEMA points it's finger at everything but the possibility of accelerants, ie thermite. This is in direct contradiction to crime scene investigation.
From: AllYou! on 22 Sep 2009 16:36 In news:h9b31q$s68$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: > >> The fact that they came to a different conclusion that the whack >> jobs doesn't mean that they ignored it. > > > There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if > someone is a deluded whack job, or a rational, logical, > and intelligent person. Correct. > If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs, > the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence, > credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so > in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner. Then please cite hard evidence of why virtually all major building codes require structural steel to be fireproofed. Then please cite hard evidence where anyone has ever admitted to being a part of the installtion activity of demolition explosives. And while you're at it, please explain how no one has ever, ever seen any such explosives on the WTC structure. > OTOH, ask a whack job to defend or explain its beliefs, and > the whack job becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational, > and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The whack job, > rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or > logic, will do one of several things - change the subject, > shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack" > the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical > "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor", > "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming, > evasive, poor loser", etc.. You've just proven that knews is a whack job. > What the whack job is pitifully and comically incapable of > doing, is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of > the > relevant facts, research, and evidence. > Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually > quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be > a deluded and confused whack job.... <vbg> Yet more proof. > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of > fire induced failure, That's just a blind assertion, and isn't evidence at all. In fact, the videos provide evidence that the supporting extreior walls were collapsing inwardly, and only did so at the point of the plane crash. Now how could a plan for a controlled demolition buckle the columns inward at all, much less only at the point of where the planes crached, and no where else? And no more hand waving. Prove that you're not a whack job with hard evidence of your assertions. > yet followers of the government's 9-11 > conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the > partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage > of support columns due to gradual heating, By your own standards, you're proving that you're a whack job. There is no credible theory that the columns failed due to gradual, random heating. The credible theory is that the bar joists which provided the latteral support of the columns failed due to gradual heating specifically exactly where the fires were raging. From that theory, we have to go to actual physics which shows that as beams get hotter, they weaken, and as they weaken, they increasingly sag, and as the sag, they pull inward at their ends. > Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. > That's the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be > caused by > *extreme* heat. Proof that it requires *extreme* heat? http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
From: AllYou! on 22 Sep 2009 16:43
In news:h9b385$t6h$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AZ Nomad wrote: > >> Chewie is asking you to prove a negative. He expects you to >> prove that seventy thousand workers didn't arrive at 12am >> totally undetected, remove every single piece of window and wall >> hardware to expose >> the beams, > > You reveal a comical level of ignorance. Perimeter columns > could be accessed simply be removing ceiling tiles on the > inside of the exterior walls. Core columns could been accessed > via elevator shafts. No need to "remove every single piece of > window and wall hardware to expose the beams", whatever you > imagine that to mean.... And how long do you think those charges, and all the associated wiring, could be kept hidden from all of the maintenance and construction people who regularly service the mechanicals in those areas? And how many such explosive charges would be required to do the job? And how much wiring would be required? And how would you connect all of those wires from all of the different floors just though the ceilings? And how would those explosives cause the columns to buckle inward, especially if the lateral bar joists as not also demolished? And why would the only buckling happen right at where the planes creased? And how many people would be required to design, plan, and execute such an installation, and what are the chances that all of them, ALL of them, keep the mouths shut? |