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: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 11:47 In news:e077cbec-a5d7-4e04-9364-e2c4435de074(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > On Sep 22, 1:43 pm, 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. > > THIS is your "proof"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yup, and by that standard, the 9th ward was destroyed by a nuclear bomb or carpet bombing, and not by Katrina. After all, we have hundreds upon hundreds of eye witnesses that say that's exactly what the devastation looks like.
From: Daniel on 23 Sep 2009 11:52 On Sep 23, 11:44 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:c2e521a0-ce71-446a-ba2a-a9820b1900e1(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 9:11 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > >>> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >>>> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups..com, > >>>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > >>>>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >>>>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > >>>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low > >>>>>>>> approach speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and > >>>>>>>> fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG > >>>>>>>> difference. > > >>>>>>> Doesn't matter. > >>>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >>>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. > >>>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is > >>>>>> supposed to be insulated. > > >>>>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > >>>>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their > >>>>> collapse? > > >>>> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? > > >>> In your previous post. > > >> As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any > >> such rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to > >> understand plain English, or you're a liar. Your choice. > > >>>> It's no wonder > >>>> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple > >>>> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were > >>>> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to > >>>> whatever else might result from a plane crash. > > >>> How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts > >>> from planes that hadn't even been designed? > > >> Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact from > >> planes, and this one did that, and did it well because the > >> towers didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of the > >> planes. They collapsed from being weakened due to the fires > >> which resulted from the plane crashes. All these designers ever > >> said is that the buildings were designed to withstand the force > >> due to the impact of planes. > > >> Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than > >> in an honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it > >> be? > > > You're the one discounting the impact of the aircraft in the > > building failure, not me or any other intelligent person on this > > planet. > > "the force" of the impact was easily withstood. If that were true, there would likely have been no collapses. Why do you ignore two jetliners crashing into the buildings at 500+ MPH?
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 12:03 In news:8b7cdcff-34da-4a5f-badd-38f139e7b31e(a)s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > On Sep 23, 11:44 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:c2e521a0-ce71-446a-ba2a-a9820b1900e1(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 22, 9:11 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >>>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >>>>> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >>>>>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >>>>>>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the >>>>>>>>>> modern 757 and 767, and the design took into account a >>>>>>>>>> low-fuel instrument approach to LGA going off course at >>>>>>>>>> low approach speed hitting the building, not >>>>>>>>>> fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at >>>>>>>>>> 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >>>>>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. >>>>>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>>>>>>> supposed to be insulated. >> >>>>>>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>>>>>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their >>>>>>> collapse? >> >>>>>> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? >> >>>>> In your previous post. >> >>>> As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any >>>> such rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to >>>> understand plain English, or you're a liar. Your choice. >> >>>>>> It's no wonder >>>>>> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple >>>>>> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were >>>>>> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to >>>>>> whatever else might result from a plane crash. >> >>>>> How could the designer design the building to withstand >>>>> impacts from planes that hadn't even been designed? >> >>>> Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact >>>> from planes, and this one did that, and did it well because >>>> the towers didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of >>>> the planes. They collapsed from being weakened due to the >>>> fires which resulted from the plane crashes. All these >>>> designers ever said is that the buildings were designed to >>>> withstand the force due to the impact of planes. >> >>>> Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than >>>> in an honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it >>>> be? >> >>> You're the one discounting the impact of the aircraft in the >>> building failure, not me or any other intelligent person on >>> this planet. >> >> "the force" of the impact was easily withstood. > > > If that were true, there would likely have been no collapses. > Why do > you ignore two jetliners crashing into the buildings at 500+ MPH? I'm not ignoring the fact that two jetliners crashed into the WTC. I'm citing the fact that the WTC towers continued to stand well after they absorbed the IMPACTS of those crashes as evidence that the towers withstood the FORCE of those impacts. The craches eventually lead to the collapse of the towers, but it had nothing to do with the FORCE of the impacts.
From: Henry on 23 Sep 2009 12:47 AllYou! wrote: > 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 Wrong. > are collapsing They are exploding and disintegrating. > at an alarming rate, and civilians hear loud pops that > the claim 'sound like' bombs or explosions. You delusions forced you to fail to comprehend what you read. Have someone help you read and comprehend this quote: "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 bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." If you're unable to find any help, watch a video of the demolition. The building isn't gradually bending or sagging due to gradual weakening steel caused by heat. It's is quite literally exploding and disintegrating. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 23 Sep 2009 13:08
AllYou! wrote: > In news:h9b3gh$t6h$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>> supposed to be insulated. >> The fire didn't affect 80,00 tons of cold hard steel below the >> fires. How do you imagine it suddenly lost all its strength and >> produced no more resistance to falling debris than air? > Lots and lots of heavy stuff above it fell onto it. So, on your planet, if you drop a bag of coins onto a reinforced steel shelf that's designed to support dozens of bags of coins, the coins will travel right through the steel shelf without slowing at all. You delusions and fantasies are certainly amusing, if nothing else... <chuckle> Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall, and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it. http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf "If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense. At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second per second. When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order. The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat." -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |