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 6 Oct 2009 13:17 In news:hafged$6le$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Just for fun, if we say the impossible did happen, then the >>> compressed air would have to somehow travel down through dozens >>> of floors before changing course for some reason and entering >>> the vast open office spaces. Then, rather than dispersing and >>> equalizing in the vast open office space and blowing out rows >>> of windows, >>> the compressed air would have to remain focused tightly in the >>> open air until it reached the exterior wall in a huge >>> explosion of pulverized concrete and debris. Kevin Ryan >>> explains why your pancaking floor, compressed air theory is >>> impossible. Let us know what part of his explanation you >>> disagree with in the >>> paper below. > >> LOL! For air to compress, very little of it has to "travel" at >> all. And the explosion of air from a confined area doesn't >> require a rush of moving air to hit the boundary surface. It >> only requires more *pressure*, not wind velocity, than the >> boundary can withstand. And given the many elevator shafts, >> stair ways, air ducts, and other mechanical systems that >> penetrate each and every floor, it's easy to see how so much >> air could continue to build on each successive lower floor, but >> with nowhere to escape the outer boundary. > > Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air remained > focused like a cannon shot when it entered the vast open office > spaces. It didn't have to do that, and your presumption that it did, as well as your previous presumptions as to pneumatics and hydrodynamics shows exactly how little you know about science and physics, and how easily you can mislead yourself. The pressure will build within the entire pressure boundary until the weakest link finally gives, and then, because we're dealing with a compressible fluid, it will fail catastrophically. You really should more about basic science before posting such silliness. I get very embarrassed for you. > Reality says it would disperse and equalize in an open > space, which might have blown out rows of windows, but would > not allow it to remain tightly focused. It doesn't need to be tightly focused. No matter how well the windows were built and installed, by scientific definition, they all vary to some small degree in strength, and so the weakest will successively fail until there are finally enough openings to allow the gas to escape fast enough relavtive to its rate of accumulation so as to keep the overall pressure from rising sufficiently to cause more of them to fail. > You're still acting like > your insane and completely out of touch with reality. :-) Whereas everything is relative, I fully appreciate, and welcome, how you can come to that opinion of me.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 13:22 In news:hafgln$74m$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > PV wrote: > >> Also, all tornadoes are actually freight trains. > > Of course they are, kooker. And, of course, a 1500 degree > fire can heat steel to well over 2500 degrees, Again, you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorace. Steel begins to weaken as it is heated. There is no magic temperature below which it is 'strong', and over which is is 'weak'. And it certainly does not have to melt before it fails. But I noticed that you snipped the quiestion I asked, and so I'll challenge you to answer it. If, when people say that the noises they heard 'sounded like explosions', it therefore means that there were explosions, then wouldn't it necessarily follow that when people say that controlled demolitions produce clouds of dust like those of volcanoes, that the clouds which were seen at those demolition sites were produced by volcanoes? And so wouldn't that also mean that many of your kooky friends are making the case that the WTC towers were destroyed by volcanoes?
From: knews4u2chew on 6 Oct 2009 13:24 On Oct 6, 12:11 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <d55f6c3a-0a74-4bd5-bb33-c4e66cdc8...(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups..com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Oct 5, 2:33=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 12:34=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > On Oct 5, 10:41=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >> > > In article <a9b2b9b8-2a29-42f5- > > >> > <snip all your distractions> > > >> > > BEEP BEEP BEEP =A0 k00k makes ad hominem attack instead of addressing= > > point =A0BEEP BEEP BEEP > >> > > BEEP BEEP BEEP =A0 k00k changes topics instead of addressing point = > >=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 BEEP BEEP BEEP > > >> > > -- > >> > > Al Dykes > >> > > =A0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is ad= > >vertising. > >> > > =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail > > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPWgSaBT9hNU > >> > Prove these guys wrong. > > >> They've been proven wrong. > > >Liar. > >Where? > >By whom? > >You? > >With your arm waving? > > >>Physics. Laws of physics are inviolate. > > >Yup. > >Those building never could have collapsed that way. > >Physics proves it. > > >> There is no such thing as cartoon magic cilent and invisible > >> "explosives." Life is not a Wile E Coyote cartoon, dearie. > > >No one claims "invisible" anything except you. > >There is a thing called a "smoke screen" though. > >The WTC dust clouds are the perfect kind. > > Hundreds of thousands of people were close enough to hear demolition > explosions. Nobody heard man-made explosives. There are no silent > demolition explosions. > > -- > Al Dykes > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail Except that you are a liar and many heard and were hit by explosions. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=explosions+wtc&search_type=&aq=f Many probably couldn't hear much "distinctly" with thousands of people screaming and yelling and sirens going off all around. Perfect cover for "cutting" charges that don't have to be loud. No "explosion" is needed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M Then, if you were far enough away across water to carry the sounds, you can hear and record the explosions. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# You and your minions area pack of liars. All the arm waving and ad hominem isn't going to make this go away. http://stj911.org/critiques/official.html
From: Al Dykes on 6 Oct 2009 13:30 In article <0e1a15b2-075e-40d7-a505-ff7bc71d3daa(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:11=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <d55f6c3a-0a74-4bd5-bb33-c4e66cdc8...(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups= >.com>, >> >> >> >> =A0<knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 5, 2:33=3DA0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 5, 12:34=3DA0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > On Oct 5, 10:41=3DA0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> >> > > In article <a9b2b9b8-2a29-42f5- >> >> >> > <snip all your distractions> >> >> >> > > BEEP BEEP BEEP =3DA0 k00k makes ad hominem attack instead of addre= >ssing=3D >> > point =3DA0BEEP BEEP BEEP >> >> > > BEEP BEEP BEEP =3DA0 k00k changes topics instead of addressing poi= >nt =3D >> >=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 BEEP BEEP BEEP >> >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Al Dykes >> >> > > =3DA0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else = >is ad=3D >> >vertising. >> >> > > =3DA0 =3DA0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail >> >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DPWgSaBT9hNU >> >> > Prove these guys wrong. >> >> >> They've been proven wrong. >> >> >Liar. >> >Where? >> >By whom? >> >You? >> >With your arm waving? >> >> >>Physics. Laws of physics are inviolate. >> >> >Yup. >> >Those building never could have collapsed that way. >> >Physics proves it. >> >> >> There is no such thing as cartoon magic cilent and invisible >> >> "explosives." Life is not a Wile E Coyote cartoon, dearie. >> >> >No one claims "invisible" anything except you. >> >There is a thing called a "smoke screen" though. >> >The WTC dust clouds are the perfect kind. >> >> Hundreds of thousands of people were close enough to hear demolition >> explosions. =A0Nobody heard man-made explosives. There are no silent >> demolition explosions. >> >> -- >> Al Dykes >> =A0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advert= >ising. >> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail > >Except that you are a liar and many heard and were hit by explosions. >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3Dexplosions+wtc&search_type=3D= >&aq=3Df >Many probably couldn't hear much "distinctly" with thousands of people >screaming and yelling and sirens going off all around. >Perfect cover for "cutting" charges that don't have to be loud. >No "explosion" is needed. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWn-MCCZ3O1M >Then, if you were far enough away across water to carry the sounds, >you can hear and record the explosions. >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6498070204870579516# > Nobody reports hearing explosions that preceded a collapse and are loud enough to be consistent with man-made demolition. Nobody. You could prove me wring by naming ONE. Just one. Make it your best case. Lets see where he was and what he heard. The video from across the river has had the audio added. It's fake according to the guy that shot it. It explosions were heard by him, a few million New Yorkers would have also heard it and it would be recorded on the sound tracks of countless video cameras. No such audio exists. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 6 Oct 2009 13:44
In article <hafvcs$24k$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > > >>> Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air remained >>> focused like a cannon shot when it entered the vast open office >>> spaces. > >> It didn't have to do that > > Compressed air can't do that if it enters a huge open area of >uncompressed air, but according to you, it did. That's why we >know you're nuts. > >> It doesn't need to be tightly focused. Nobody saw or heard anything consistent with man-made demolition at WTC. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |