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 13:48 In news:h9djfn$e7v$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Imagine that. Two of the tallest buildings in the world > > Wrong. Key words... "of the" >> are collapsing > > They are exploding and disintegrating. By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. Whether by explosions, structural failure, the buildings collapsed. Yet, by your way of discussion, which you already labeled as the tactic of a whacko, you're substituting the cause for what happened with what happened. And as to "disintegration", that's laughable on its face. >> at an alarming rate, and civilians hear loud pops that >> the claim 'sound like' bombs or explosions. > > You delusions Again, proving that by your standard, you're a whacko. [snip balance of ad hominems as a substitute for debate]
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 14:07 In news:h9dkme$h70$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9b3gh$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, Ad hominem noted which, by your definition, would make you a whacko. > 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> Are you under the impression that the WTC columns were designed to withstand the impact (again, IMPACT), of a whole structure of more than 15 floors falling onto it? Really? I know that those columns were designed to withstand the weight of those floors, but you do understand, don't you, that the laws of physics were still in effect on 9/11, and that there's a huge difference between the impact of that mass, and the force due to mass as acted upon by gravity, don't you? If not, try this..... Take a 30 pound sledge hammer, and place it on your hand, and see if your hand hurts. then, take that same hammer, hoist it up about 30 feet above your hand, and then drop it onto your hand. Will your hand withstand that impact as well as it did the weight? Now, please don't guess as to the results. I know how you like hard evidence, and how you insist on the use of real physics to make your case, and so you need to perform the experiment before you answer. > Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, Before we get to any more of your questions, let's review what you've already said: " There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if someone is a deluded whack job, or a rational, logical, and intelligent person." "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." In light of the above, I've asked you the following questions.... 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? To those question, you've given no reply at all, but simply move on to ask more questions. To that end, here's what else you've said....... "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.. 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>" Well, I've given it a go, and as your responses have shown, and as your failure to answer any reasonable questions has also shown, by your standard, you're a whack job.
From: Henry on 23 Sep 2009 14:46 AllYou! wrote: > In knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> Listen to the designer. >> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/ >> But then he's not credible is he? > The WTC didn't fall from the 'hit' (i.e., impact) from the planes, Obviously. The towers didn't "fall" at all. They quite literally exploded and disintegrated in a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely foolish and gullible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related > The WTC fell due to > the effects of the fire which then ensued. That's an impossible fantasy. As always, here's hard proof. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer 23 Dec 2007 Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the steel is required. In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second stage the energy of this impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6 Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between attachments is too short for buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression. As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower. It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence. The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed. If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
From: Henry on 23 Sep 2009 14:48 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> They are exploding and disintegrating. > By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. So says the deluded nut job who has obviously never even watched a video of the demolitons. Only on usenut. The towers quite literally exploded and disintegrated in a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely foolish and gullible. 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 14:55
AllYou! wrote: > In news:h9ditu$dpo$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287 >> The molten metal observed flowing like lava deep in the >> WTC rubble can't be explained by fires. > Sure it can. Aluminum melts at the temeratures that could be found > at the WTC site. The *steel* columns in the towers weren't made of aluminum, nut job. Also, molten aluminum appears silvery, not bright red/orange/yellow. >> Demolition explains it perfectly. > If you knew anything about controlled demolitions of steel, you'd > know that there is no "molten steel flowing like lava" in those > situations at all. There is when thermite is used. >> Fires can't explain the virtual free fall speed >> or the near perfect symmetry of the explosive collapses, either. > There were no explosive collapses. The towers quite literally exploded and disintegrated in a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely foolish and gullible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related >> Demolition explains that, and all the other evidence perfectly. > There is no evidence that any explosive devices were ever planted at > the WTC site. Your lies, delusions, and ignorance seem to have no limits. Press Release: http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html Summary of research: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member Phone: 510-769-5109 Site: www.STJ911.org Email: stj911(a)gmail.com Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive. The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports. At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started. Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings without notice. NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the building failures. Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other accelerant or explosive. "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't." Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes. Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this type of application." Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption". "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7." NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse." Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005. Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet. "That was very odd to me," he said. Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust. But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material would take longer. Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry A. Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack. and says has two answers. "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer them, 'I was on your side'." Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the mainstream public and media." And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and was consequently fired. "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone." In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics. In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |