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 18:13 In news:h9dqvt$rkc$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9ditu$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, There's no evidence that the "molten metal" of which you speak was steel, much less that it camme from the columns. > nut job. You: "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." " Also, molten aluminum appears silvery, not bright > red/orange/yellow. :-) Cold aluminum appears silvery. Molten aluminum, just like most metals, turns red, then orange, then white. You reAlly ARE making a fool of yourself now. > >>> 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. Never, in the modern history of controlled demolition, has any of it ever resulted in molten steel. Never.
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 18:24 In news:h9du52$4a4$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Sep 23, 8:45 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. > >>> 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off in "minutes"? Cite? > >> Try and slow down an open air petroleum fire. >> It spills spreads everywhere while vaporizing in the air while >> burning. >> In the south tower hit most of the fuel can be seen burning on >> impact as the plane goes through the corner section. >> Hardly any jet fuel was left to burn. > > And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, There is no evidence of molten steel. There isn't even much evidence of molten metal. To the degree that there could've been some molten metal present, occupied buildings of those size obviouly contained lots and lots of aluminum, copper, brass, pot metal, and all sorts of other low-melting point metals. > and it didn't affect the 80,000 tons of undamaged cold steel > columns below. Sure it did. Did you perform the experiment that I asked you to perform? Place your hand on a hard surface, then 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.
From: Henry on 24 Sep 2009 08:10 AllYou! imagined: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> articulated: >> 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. > Those two factors then combined to heat the steel bar joists > to the point where it could not be disappated as it would if > the fires were isolated, Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? The fires were isolated. Not only were they oxygen starved with few emergent flames, and limited to just a few floors, but in the south tower, they didn't even reach a large portion of the few floors where they were present. As always, here's shard proof. BTW, it's hard not to notice that you have provided exactly zero evidence or research to support your impossible cartoon fantasies. It's all based on your own personal blind faith and ignorance. 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. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 24 Sep 2009 08:31 AllYou! wrote: > In news:h9dqiq$qm1$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> They are exploding and disintegrating. >>> By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. >> So says the deluded nut job who has obviously never >> even watched a video of the demolitions. Only on usenut. >> The towers quite literally exploded and disintegrated in >> a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view >> the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting >> government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely >> foolish and gullible. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related > Q. E. D. In your state of delusion, do those three letters "explain" why you "think" that a building that is quite clearly and beyond any doubt exploding and disintegrating with such incredible force that it's ejecting huge steel columns laterally for hundreds of feet in all directions... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html and pulverizing thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html ....is actually just sagging due to gradual softening of a few steel columns? -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 24 Sep 2009 08:33
In news:h9fnif$g5f$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! imagined: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> articulated: > >>> 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. > >> Those two factors then combined to heat the steel bar joists >> to the point where it could not be disappated as it would if >> the fires were isolated, > > Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? Why do you keep insisting that your wild assertions are evidence? > The fires were isolated. Not true. The were present through vast areas of the affected floors. > Not only were they oxygen starved > with few emergent flames, and limited to just a few floors, It only took a part of one floor for the collapse to happen. > but in the south tower, they didn't even reach a large portion > of the few floors where they were present. The fires didn't rteach the floors where they were present? Hmmmmm. > As always, here's > shard proof. BTW, it's hard not to notice that you have provided > exactly zero evidence or research to support your impossible > cartoon fantasies. It's all based on your own personal blind > faith and ignorance. And what hard evidence have you provided? You've provided assertions and theories, but you can't even explain how those have anything to do with the collpase of the towers. If your theory held any water at all, you'd be able to answer the following, which you've repeatedly continued to ignore.... 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? > 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 Do you have any hard evidence of this assertion? Please provide a scientific analysis for how this would be true. Not the hand waving of some other lunatic, but hard evidence. And while you're at it, please provide a plausible theory of how all of those charges necessary for a controlled demolition, and all of the associated wiring, could have survived the plane crashes such that they could have been triggered so as effect such a perfectly 'controlled' demolition as you describe. Again, no hand waving allowed. > 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 If that were true, then the controlled demolition could not have caused what the video shows either. > As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, > fire resistant perimeter columns And why do you think that the columns were, by code, fireproofed? > 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? Almost none of the above is true. First of all, what reduced weight? Secondly, are you referring to the steel perimeter above the floors of the plane crash, or below them? The ones above didn't collapse because nothing caused them to. However, if your controlled demolition theory were true, those would've been blown up as well. As to the columns below the plane crashes, they only collapsed when the 15 to 20 stories above them came crashing down upon them. Have you tried the sledge hammer experiment I suggested? Get back to me when you do. >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. No one ever said that it was a gradual bending and buckling of the steel frame. The conclusion is that the steel joists gradually heated and sagged to the point where they pulled inwardly on the columns until the columns remaining after the plane crashes finally, and rather quickly, gave way. See? That's one of your problems. You take different words from different contexts (e.g., gradual, bending, failure, etc..), jumble them up, and then vomit them back out so as to change their meaning. > Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a > controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions do not require huge explosions. They only require very many, precisely placed explosive charges, noe of which result in piles of "molten steel that flows like a river". > Keep in mind that this is at the onset of > the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point. |