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 8 Oct 2009 08:46 In news:haio3f$1fa$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Gunner Asch wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry >> <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which >>>> is the final refuge of the person who knows they have lost >>>> the debate. The obvious flaw in your comment is that you >>>> think steel has to heat to 2500 degrees before it weakens. > >>> No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, >>> a > >> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight to >> "melts" > >> Why is that? > > Because it did melt, 1) All you have is some anecdotal accounts of how someone saw something that *looked like* 'molten metal', and not molten steel. 2) None of that matters to the issue of whether or not steel weakens as it is heated. You keep insisting that steel has to melt to fail, and that's as rediculous as most of your other claims about the real world. > and if it had gradually weakened, the > buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. 1) They did not explode, and as the debris field proves, they certainly did not disintegrate. 2) Take a chain, put it under a tensile load, then heat it. At some point, even though it's gradually weakening, it will gradually weaken to the point where it will fail, and when that happens, it will fail catastrophically in that the chain will very suddenly break, and probably whip around violently. IOW, gradual weaking doesn't mean gradual failure, except, of course, to the ignorant. > They would have shown gradual, isolated, and asymmetric bending > or sagging in the areas of extreme heat. BINGO! That's exactly what happend to the latteral steel trusses. That gradual sagging steadily put significant lateral loads on the remaing steel columns which were already significanly stressed because they were carrying the loads of the columns that had been destroyed, and when they could no longer take that latteral load, they buckled inwardly, as is proven by the videos, and the rest is history. > There a reason you > conspiracy theorists can't cite even *one* example of a steel > framed high rise that collapsed due to fire.... Why don't you then explain why it is that all major building codes require the structural steel to be fireproofed? I've asked you that question dozens of times now, and you've always ignored it. > Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire > resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free fall speed? It did not.
From: AllYou! on 8 Oct 2009 08:47 In news:hainr3$gd$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Apparently, you're not sure >>> what you're arguing about, or what it is about Kevin Ryan's >>> excellent research that's got your panties all wadded up, eh >>> kooker? > >> Ryan has been completely debunked. > > But for some reason (you're helpless and deluded nut case) > you can't quote even one misleading or inaccurate claim > in any of his papers. I have, and you had no response.
From: Henry on 8 Oct 2009 12:36 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> Wow, another nut job who "thinks" you can heat steel to >>>> over 2500 degrees by exposing it to 1500 degree heat. >>>> Only on usenut.... >>> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which >>> is the final refuge of the person who knows they have lost the >>> debate. The obvious flaw in your comment is that you think >>> steel has to heat to 2500 degrees before it weakens. >> No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, > But it weakens enough to fail under load much, much sooner than > before it melts. But it did melt, and instead of failing gradually, it failed instantly. Gradually heated steel loses its strength gradually. What is it about nut jobs that prevents them from comprehending basic facts, logic, and reality? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 8 Oct 2009 12:42 In article <hal3n3$hfi$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> No video of the WTC shows anything remotely resembling a man-made >> demolition. > > We're not discussing the videos playing in your "mind", nut >job. We're discussing the demolition videos of the towers and >WTC7. Do try to keep up. You're acting like you're insane again. > > 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 There is no BOOM heard on any video. There are no silent explosives. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 8 Oct 2009 12:56
AllYou! wrote: > In news:haibou$999$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >>>> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >>>> did it? >>> If the controlled demolition of tall buildings always results in >>> their falling sideways, >> That's a very stupid thing to say. But from you, it's expected. > Ad hominem noted. You seem very scared now. > >> Dykes said that even if supports on only one side of a tall >> building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down >> onto its own footprint. The videos proved him wrong about that, >> too. What part of that is confusing you, and what makes you >> "think" that demolitions can't be timed to cause buildings >> to fall in any number of ways? > What makes you think I think that? Because you just said that the controlled demolition of tall buildings always results in their falling sideways, and you're the only person who said or implied such a stupid thing. >>> and you agree that the WTC towers did not >>> fall sideways, how can you argue that they were destroyed by >>> controlled demolitions? >> I realize that even the most clear, basic logic confuses you, >> but try to focus. If a demolition is executed *perfectly* with >> precision timing, as in WTC7, it's possible to cause a building >> to drop straight down through itself. If supports on only one >> side are destroyed, the building will topple sideways. Again >> let us know what part of this you find confusing. <chuckle> > Your point. There are several. Do you know which one has upset and confused you? <chuckle> |