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: knews4u2chew on 1 Oct 2009 14:58 On Sep 28, 1:50 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:58:45 -0400, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >Daniel wrote: > >> On Sep 24, 8:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? > >> The only credible evidence contradicts your k00k theories. > > Let us know what you're disputing from the write > >up below. It proves that fires couldn't have caused > >the free fall and symmetric drop of WTC7's hurricane > >and earth quake resistant steel frame. > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > >the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of > >fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11 > > The only characteristic of controlled demolition displayed was that > the buildings fell down. They displayed *none* of the other > characteristics of controlled demolition while they displayed *all* > of the characteristics of fire induced structural failure. Liar. www.ae911truth.org The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics) 1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution 3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction 4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph 6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found 9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front 10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples 14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
From: Henry on 1 Oct 2009 15:09 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 28, 1:50 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:58:45 -0400, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Daniel wrote: >>>> On Sep 24, 8:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? >>>> The only credible evidence contradicts your k00k theories. >>> Let us know what you're disputing from the write >>> up below. It proves that fires couldn't have caused >>> the free fall and symmetric drop of WTC7's hurricane >>> and earth quake resistant steel frame. >>> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all >>> the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of >>> fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11 >> The only characteristic of controlled demolition displayed was that >> the buildings fell down. They displayed *none* of the other >> characteristics of controlled demolition while they displayed *all* >> of the characteristics of fire induced structural failure. > Liar. > www.ae911truth.org > > The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of > destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics) > 1. > > Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly > free-fall acceleration > 2. > > Improbable symmetry of debris distribution > 3. > > Extremely rapid onset of destruction > 4. > > Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes > 5. > > Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph > 6. > > Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking > 7. > > Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds > 8. > > 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found > 9. > > Isolated explosive ejections 20 � 40 stories below demolition front > 10. > > Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame > 11. > > Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises > 12. > > Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples > 13. > > Evidence of explosives found in dust samples > > 14. > > No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire > > And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. > 1. > > Slow onset with large visible deformations > 2. > > Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws > of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the > point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) > 3. > > Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel > 4. > > High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires > have never �collapsed� Good post. Do you get the feeling these reality defying conspiracy kooks are insane? Their lies are so blatant and comical that there's really no other plausible explanation. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 NIST's Miracle Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so. NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse "was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles - that is, the principles of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing: A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it.... [T]he ... time that it took... for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous. Chandler's Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder?s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder's 40 percent claim contradicts "a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity." The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that "for about two and a half seconds..., the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall." Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: "Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously." NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]." "Gravitational acceleration" is a synonym for free fall acceleration. So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens." Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion." The implication of Chandler's remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them. If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened. That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)." Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was ?consistent with physical principles.? One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found. NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]" -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 1 Oct 2009 15:22 In article <dd6e9f5e-86fd-4222-a0ae-dde18949092d(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 1, 8:13=A0am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 1, 7:58=A0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> > Daniel wrote: >> > > On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> > >> =A0 And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, >> > > It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. >> >> > =A0 We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite >> > explains it. >> >> No steel melted, and it is physically impossible for thermite to >> produce what happened on 9/11. Other than that, Hankie, you're still >> batting 0.000. > >How does one become such a liar? There is no eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are second-hand. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 1 Oct 2009 15:27 In article <5fc5c04f-ab48-4320-b02d-b89f30b7397d(a)m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws >of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the >point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) >3. There is no such law or concept in science or engineering as "path of least resistance". > >Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel Any fire will reduce the strength of steel by at least 50% 800DegF will do it. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Michael Moroney on 1 Oct 2009 15:42
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> writes: > Do you get the feeling these reality defying conspiracy >kooks are insane? Their lies are so blatant and comical >that there's really no other plausible explanation. Yes, Henry. We've known for a while that you, "Chewie" and the other couple of dozen or so 9/11 "Truther" kooktards are insane. There really is no other explanation why you ignore the evidence and believe that magic Wile E. Coyote invisible and silent explosives brought down the WTC, despite hundreds of videos showing how airliner-induced fires did so. "Hushaboom" explosives really are blatant and comical lies. We've heard something about how you huff used beakers in a chemistry lab. What is the explanation for the other kooktards' insanity? |