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 13 Oct 2009 14:46 On Oct 13, 4:42 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:936658c6-b1b3-444b-946c-dbc9b347170a(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 11:22 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:hav96v$fue$15(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > >>> Gunner Asch wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry > >>>> <9-11tr...(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. > > > Liar. > > Prove that I lied. > > > It wasn't a house of cards. > > It wasn't up there by magic, either. > > > 47 core columns. > > Which required latteral support. That's why they were there. > > > Hundreds of perimeter columns. > > That required latteral support, and each other. And many were > missing. > > > Where are the pancakes? > > IHOP > > > How was it turned to mostly dust? > > It wasn't. The sheet rock was, but not the concrete. Liar. Besides, drop a piece of "sheet rock" 1/4 mile and see if it turns into 90% dust. Put piece into a 100 ton press and see if it turns to dust and spreads for blocks and miles. >But how does > thermite turn the concrete to dust? > So you admit something had to turn everything into dust. > > > > H- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So you are saying that the "sheet rock" is the dust that is inches thick for blocks and spread for miles over the river AND into the atmosphere for miles? But that isn't what the USGA says. Where are all the pictures of 220 floors of 4-5" thick cement and steel decking? How do beams weighing TONS get launched 600 feet laterally from the core of the building? "Magic gravity collapse?"
From: Henry on 13 Oct 2009 15:13 Iarnrod wrote: > On Oct 13, 10:56 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. >> Your kook lies and ignorance sure are blatant and easily >> exposed. Are you mentally ill? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up... >> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 > That's not NIST Learn how to read and think, nutjob. 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: knews4u2chew on 13 Oct 2009 15:17 On Oct 13, 11:29 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) for the Spooks wrote: > In article <756b5895-e150-450a-b4f8-e9091ffba...(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups..com>, > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Oct 13, 7:59=A0am, Iarnrod (The Spook) <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 13, 8:49=A0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >> > Iarnrod wrote: > >> > > On Oct 13, 8:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> > >> =A0The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > >> > >> the =A0characteristics of controlled demolition, > >> > >> Nope, none of them does. > > >> > =A0 <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, > >> > justice, truth, and America hating extremists or nut jobs > >> > hide the truth and facts> > > >> Link deleted because it does not show anything like your delusional > >> mind claims, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. > > >Spook Speak (R) rule #1. > >"If you delete and ignore the evidence it doesn't exist." > > >> > =A0 So, in your "mind" the video on the right showing a known > >> > demolition doesn't display any of the characteristics of a > >> > demolition, eh? > > >> The WTC7 was a progressive structural collapse and had NONE of the > >> characteristics of a controlled demolition starting with the proven > >> fact that there were no controlled demolition charges, > > >"See the Emperor's new clothes?" > >www.ae911truth.org > > Why doesn't Gage or anyone else from ae811 speak in front of > professional groups of structural engineers and explain in technical > terms why a new investigation is called for? > Anyone can go to his lecture. Are you saying he won't let "professionals" in to ask questions? Have you surveyed everyone who has gone? Are you saying of the near 1000 credentialed members of ae911truth.org that none of them went to his open lecture? > Why doesn't Gage speak anywhere where he doesn't control the Q&A > microphone? > What do you want ask him? Why don't you email him or call and post his response? I don't speak for him or his org. For what org do you speak, Spook? > Why does only Gage speak for an organization that claims to have > hundreds of members. > Why does only the President speak for the U.S.? Why do you speak for the Spooks? > Why doesn't Gage speak at Ground Zero where hundreds of thousands of > people witnessed what he lies about and where all the firemen he > misquotes live and might show up. > > It could even be arraigned. > Send him an invite. > -- > Al Dykes (Spook) www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 13 Oct 2009 15:21 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. >> Your kook lies and ignorance sure are blatant and easily >> exposed. Are you mentally ill? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up... >> 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." > Which is not what your claimed. Learn how to read and think, nut job. That's an old lie, and NIST has been forced by 9-11 Truth experts to retract it and admit free fall. You're still insane. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 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: Henry on 13 Oct 2009 15:22
Al Dykes wrote: > In article <hb2c3k$qjk$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Iarnrod wrote: >>>>> There is no force on planet Earth that could divert that 30-story >>>>> upper block sideways that far. >>>> 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 >>> So what? >> So the block rotated. Iron head said it didn't. > So what? So, Ironhead, like you, is still and always wrong, nut job. You're still insane, too. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |