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 12 Oct 2009 14:11 In news:hav93p$fue$13(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> Gunner Asch wrote: > >>>> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight >>>> to "melts" Why is that? > >>> Because it did melt, and if it had gradually weakened, the >>> buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. > >> 1) They did not explode, and as the debris field proves, they >> certainly did not disintegrate. > > Your conspiracy kook lies and delusions certainly are stupid, > blatant, and easily exposed. Why do you refuse to get informed? Well, by your standards, you've exposed yourself as a whacko with those ad hominems, but that notwithstanding, go look up the definition for disintegrate, and then tell me what all that stuff is at ground zero of the towers disintegrated. Don't you realize that you hurt your own cause with this nonsense?
From: AllYou! on 12 Oct 2009 14:22 In news:hav96v$fue$15(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, and if it had gradually weakened, the > buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. Just some of the stupidity you spout: 1) You claim that the buildings exhibited all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and yet controlled demotions of buildings cause them to implode, not explode. You're reading from at least two different whacko sites, and getting confused. 2) Look up the word 'disintegrate' and then reconcile that with ground zero. 3) 'Gradually weakening' doesn't mean 'gradually fail'. Take a steel cable, put it under 99% load capacity, and then 'gradually' heat it up. Keep heating it. Does it fail just as gradually as it's heated, or does it fail catastrophically? > They would have shown gradual, isolated, and asymmetric bending > or sagging in the areas of extreme heat. 1) There's nothing about gradula heating that causes anything to be asymetric.] 2) How do you know that the trusses didn't sag to some degree before failing? If you do, prove it. 3) The sagging was isolated to the buildings. 4) Steel begins to weaken (and hence, sag) with every increase in temperature, no matter how small. > There a reason you > conspiracy theorists can't cite even *one* example of a steel > framed high rise that collapsed due to fire.... You kooks can't give one reason why all major building codes require the steel to be fireproofed. > Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire > resistant steel frame Why do you think its frame was fire resistant? > suddenly dropped at free fall speed? It didn't. > We > know You mistakenly believe. > that gradual weakening due to the gradual heating of a few > columns can't cause that. Sure it can.
From: knews4u2chew on 12 Oct 2009 14:32 On Oct 12, 10:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of > >>>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight > >>>> down onto its own footprint? > >>>> Yes. > >> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing > >> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they > >> did it? > > <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, truth, > justice, and America hating extremists hide the truth and > facts> > > http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ > > > I have no idea how this paragraph applies to WTC and 9/11. > > Conspiracy theorists tried to claim that WTC7 suffered severe > structural damage on one side. It was pointed out that if one > side had been severely damaged, any collapse would have started > on that side, and the building would have tilted towards the > damage. You denied that fact, and I proved you wrong yet again. > See how it applies now, or are you still confused? > Also, do you still believe that if supports on only one side of > a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight > down onto its own footprint? If so, who do you "think" faked all > the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, > and why do you "think" they did it? <vbg> > > -- > > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org I'll make it even more simple. Show how a 47 story building starts to "collapse" from the penthouse down. What "fire" burned enough near perfectly in the center to make this wonderful perfectly symmetrical pile of rubble. Show the heat and energy input that made building fail wherein the penthouse starts to fall first as is clearly visible in ever WTC 7 "Gutting." How did 47 stories of structural steel all fail "at once." Where is all the spaghetti of "melted" steel super structure? Where are the pictures? Then show the energy input to make the 47 core column core of the WTC 2 Tower structure below the WTC 2 Radio Tower start to drop before the "block of floors" starts to "dust." All THREE "collapses" for all intents and purposes were at near free fall speed, in controlled, top down symmetrical fall. Two were exploded. The mushroom is right there. Why are dust clouds shooting up into the air? Since when does what we see as "turns to dust" mean "Global collapse?"
From: AllYou! on 12 Oct 2009 14:38 In news:b935d0c6-cd8c-491a-a712-7a872ec55160(a)f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 12, 10:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>>>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >>>>>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop >>>>>> straight down onto its own footprint? >>>>>> Yes. >>>> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >>>> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >>>> did it? >> >> <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, truth, >> justice, and America hating extremists hide the truth and >> facts> >> >> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ >> >>> I have no idea how this paragraph applies to WTC and 9/11. >> >> Conspiracy theorists tried to claim that WTC7 suffered severe >> structural damage on one side. It was pointed out that if one >> side had been severely damaged, any collapse would have started >> on that side, and the building would have tilted towards the >> damage. You denied that fact, and I proved you wrong yet again. >> See how it applies now, or are you still confused? >> Also, do you still believe that if supports on only one side of >> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >> down onto its own footprint? If so, who do you "think" faked all >> the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, >> and why do you "think" they did it? <vbg> >> >> -- >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net >> http://www.journalof911studies.com/ >> http://www.ae911truth.org > > I'll make it even more simple. > Show how a 47 story building starts to "collapse" from the > penthouse down. Show me where that's eveer happened, and I'll show you how it happened. > What "fire" burned enough near perfectly in the > center to make this wonderful perfectly symmetrical pile of > rubble. To what fire, center, or symmetrical pile do you refer? Bottom line is that you have no plausible theory as to what happened. Even your limited theories as to the use if thermite makes no sense. For instance, hos is it that the use of thermite has neve been demonstrated to be feasible. sure, there are undocumented videos on utube which pretend to cut a tiny bit of steel, but why has no one ever taken a real, 200 pound per foot wide flange beam, put it in the verical position, and used thermite to show not only how it could cut through it horizontally, but to do so in such a precisly timed way which would be required to simulate free fall of an entire structure. The whole experiment would only take about $400 and a weekend to produce, and yet, nothing. Nadda! Why is that? and that's only one small part of a whole theory that you'd have to put together. So why has it never been done? Why have you never done it?
From: knews4u2chew on 12 Oct 2009 15:53
On Oct 6, 1:20 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:hag59i$cct$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > All the videos show massive > > I'd ask you to quantify "massive" in this context, but mass is a > property of matter, or relates to a body of matter. An explosion is > a physical process, and so cannot be massive in any respect. But > what the hell. Please try to quantify "massive" as you've used it > here. > > > synchronized explosions > > Excepting your fantasies about the WTC, please show me where using > an explosion to cut thousands of structural steel members so > precisely as to result in a so-called free fall of a sky scraper has > ever resulted in pools of molten metal flowing like lava. > > > at the start > > of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started > > 1000 feet above street level with multiple synchronized > > explosions > > That's a fantasy, not a fact. > > > is the reason you don't hear one "boom" before the > > building starts to explode. > > So an explsion so massive as to cause the collapse of the WTC can't > be heard 1,000 feet away? > How does one "dust" a building into micron sized particles? Put a piece of concrete in the microwave. > > Apparently, you're unaware of the > > fact that sound waves travel *much* more slowly than light > > waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, given the level of > > your insanity and your other insane, reality defying beliefs, > > though.... > >>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of > >>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight > >>> down onto its own footprint? > > >> Yes. > > > Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing > > tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they > > did it? > > So you claim that all tall buildings destroyed by controlled > demoltions always fall sideways, No he didn't. You are lame. "The "Spook Conspiracy theorist's" claim "one side damaged by heavy fire" caused the building to fall in perfect symmetry. >but yet, you argue that the WTC > towers did not. Hmmmmm. All three "guttings" were symmetrical. Two were "explosive" dust balls. WTC 7 was gutted from inside and fell into itself in near perfect symmetry at near free fall speed. What causes so much steel and concrete to all fail at once? It's like it had every bone broken inside and out at once. It literally turns to dust as well. Look at it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739# >Do the math on that logic train, Uhuh... >and see > where it leads you. Do the "seeing is believing." Dust....hiding in plain site. Where did the cement go? Where are the blocks of 1 acre squares from wtc 1 and 2? There was over 100 of them 4 inches thick. Drop a stack of cement blocks and steel decking 10, 100, 1000 feet and see if 90 % of it turns into micro sized dust. Show us. >Your logic has already shown that you believe > that the towers fell do to volcanic reuptions within them. Funny you should mention that Spooky. Are you hiding in plain site again? The two tower's dust clouds look much like volcanic eruptions or nuclear blasts. Molecular disassociation The dust clouds are best described as pyroclastic "like" flows. They are ground hugging waves of cauliflower like dust storms. Are you denying that that is what we see? How would you describe the dust storm that went all the way into the river? You are the most convoluted Spook I ever met. You are lost. Take your meds. You are either drunk or a Spook. |