Do you believe your own eyes, the principles of physics, and reality?
Henry
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
than a small one."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
> than a small one."
> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
My copy says that he wrote that in 1924.
g,d,r....
The Older Gentleman
Who cunting cares?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Tim
Gentleman) wrote:
> ??? ??? ????? ??? <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 11:23 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > > "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
> > > than a small one."
> > > Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
>
> > My copy says that he wrote that in 1924.
>
> > g,d,r....
>
> Who cunting cares?
Two slathering Hitler admirers, would be my guess.
Uncle Al
>
> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
Again? Why won't they stay down?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
S'mee
Proof of what? Where is the hundreds of trucks hauling explosives?
PROVE your logistical support and plan...hell prove you have a brain
with a higher functioning power than a cocker spaniel or an irish
setter!
PROVE IT or fuck off and talk motorcycle you punk....I don't want some
shitbag FAKES proofs. I want your proofs, logistics, actual explosive
types (free clue the nano-thermite can't do it) and for that matter
prove you aren't a troll and you really believe it! Best way would to
be to take down a building similar to the towers by yourself with a
plan like the one alledgedly used.
So prove it or admit you are a fraud.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> ??? ??? ????? ??? <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 11:23 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > > "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
> > > than a small one."
> > > Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
>
> > My copy says that he wrote that in 1924.
>
> > g,d,r....
>
> Who cunting cares?
Well If he bought it NEW when first published (in german not a wide
priniting) a book collector might care...he (gael) might be storing it
improperly.
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> Two slathering Hitler admirers, would be my guess.
How about your own slobbering love affair with Barry Soetoro?
One doesn't have to admire a political strategist to appreciate what
he has to say about the workings of propaganda in power struggles.
Anybody who takes the time to read this quote from the Murphy
translation can easily find parallels between what the Social
Democrats were up to in
the Weimar Republic and what the socialist Democrats of the
Obamanation are up to:
"The PSYCHE of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong
and uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so
much under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to
the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that
completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than
dominate the weakling--in like manner the masses of the people prefer
the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of
mental security by a
teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a
liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a
choice and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned.
They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and
they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human
beings is impudently abused; and thus they have not the slightest
suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see
only the ruthless force and brutality of its determined utterances, to
which they always submit.
"IF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY A MORE TRUTHFUL TEACHING,
THEN EVEN, THOUGH THE STRUGGLE BE OF THE BITTEREST KIND, THIS TRUTHFUL
TEACHING WILL FINALLY PREVAIL PROVIDED IT BE ENFORCED WITH EQUAL
RUTHLESSNESS.
Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of
Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations.
"I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement
carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who
are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such
attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a
given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the
man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their
adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they
sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being
allowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be a foolish
one, for they were never left in peace. The same tactics are repeated
again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through
suggestion, a paralysing effect on their Victims."
Hmmmm. I wonder which German political commentators were the
equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck back in 1924?
Henry
> Proof of what?
Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
you post someday...
Autymn D. C.
> S'mee wrote:
> > Proof of what?
>
> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
> you post someday...
What undamaged the frame?
By the way, know anything about catastrofè theory and tipping points?
Henry
>>> Proof of what?
>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>> you post someday...
> What undamaged the frame?
The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
<link restored>
MikeWhy
"Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
news:heh2vf$4gv$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>> S'mee wrote:
>
>>>> Proof of what?
>
>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>> you post someday...
>
>> What undamaged the frame?
>
> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>
> <link restored>
>
> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Watch it all you like. It comes down to this: the collapse was from the top
down, not bottom up, as would have to happen with a lower floor demolished
to take down the tower. Surely, we're now completely done with this.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote
>>>>> Proof of what?
>>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>>> you post someday...
>>> What undamaged the frame?
>> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>>
>> <link restored>
>>
>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
with the points made in the video.
> the collapse was from the
> top down, not bottom up, as would have to happen with a lower floor
> demolished to take down the tower. Surely, we're now completely done
> with this.
What makes you think that demolition charges can't be detonated in any
sequence desired? Here's another top down demolition
http://911blogger.com/node/11538
Tim
<AmericaHaterand...@sexperverts.org> wrote:
> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
> than a small one."
> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
(Ridiculous cross-post list trimmed, of course.)
Tim
> On Nov 23, 2:13 pm, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Two slathering Hitler admirers, would be my guess.
>
> How about your own slobbering love affair with Barry Soetoro?
Wow. I had to look that one up. You're going to have to show me the
evidence, you silly, old, lying, fool.
BrianNZ
:) Well said!!
Henry
> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
>> to a big lie than a small one."
>> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
> The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
> lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
> perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
> one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
points raised in the video. It must be strange to have your
ignorance and blind faith in government propaganda force you
believe in something that you know is both physically impossible
and at odds with expert research, hard evidence, and reality.
That's why you're forced to humiliate yourself by resorting to
emotional, fact free kook rants rather than think or address
the actual evidence.
And of course, it's rather pathetic that you've also convinced
yourself that challenging the lies, crimes, and injustices of
government is an indication of hatred for one's country. Of course,
the opposite is the truth, and what our Country was founded on.
You must really despise our Founding Fathers and feel nothing but
contempt for the strength and courage they displayed.
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
BrianNZ
> Tim wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>
>>> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
>>> to a big lie than a small one."
>>> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
>
>
>> The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
>> lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
>> perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
>> one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
>
>
> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
> points raised in the video.
Where do you 'see' that? I got the opposite impression from his post.
Your 'reading between the lines' ability is beyond me. Nor is what he
posted a 'rant'....far from it. It was concise and to the point.
<snip fact free kook rant>
Tim
wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
> >> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
> >> to a big lie than a small one."
> >> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
> > The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
> > lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
> > perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
> > one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
>
> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
> points raised in the video.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Your conclusion, or your
video.
> It must be strange to have your
> ignorance and blind faith in government propaganda force you
> believe in something that you know is both physically impossible
> and at odds with expert research, hard evidence, and reality.
Actually, it is your ignorance and blind faith in kook conspiracy and
pseudo-research, pseudo-evidence, and fantasy that is on display here.
> That's why you're forced to humiliate yourself by resorting to
> emotional, fact free kook rants rather than think or address
> the actual evidence.
Actually, I can't imagine why you continue to humiliate yourself here,
where once you respected and well liked and now are nothing but a
laughingstock.
> And of course, it's rather pathetic that you've also convinced
> yourself that challenging the lies, crimes, and injustices of
> government is an indication of hatred for one's country.
Oh, another false conclusion drawn. You see, if you were "challenging
the lies, crimes, and injustices of government" I would be agreeing
with you, congratulating you, and cheering you on as a true patriot.
But what you are really doing is humiliating yourself with a display
of your own ignorance and blind faith in kook conspiracy and pseudo-
research, pseudo-evidence, and fantasy, while attacking the government
(both the Bush administration and the Obama administations, the
Defense Department, the Intelligence community, and all those who
investigated and reported the truth about the 9/11 attacks) that had
nothing at all to do with them.
> Of course, the opposite is the truth,
As I have been telling you for years. You're simply too paranoid and
spellbound by the fantasy weavers and your own love of a cryptic
conspiracy that is really nothing but Hitler's "big lie" to ever
actually see the truth.
> and what our Country was founded on.
Your conspiracy theories are certainly not what this country (and it
needn't be capitalized) was founded on.
> You must really despise our Founding Fathers and feel nothing but
> contempt for the strength and courage they displayed.
They would be laughing at you today, given the opportunity, Henry.
Just as everyone else in Reeky is.
> <link to kooky pseudo research restored because we America hating extremists simply can't let go of our wierd-Alice fantasies, and we side with mass murdering terrorists as their misguided, clueless apologists in our attempts to hide the truth>
Yeah, you "restore" your links to America-hating raving lunatics who
agree with you, and I'll just keep trimming them out, along with your
insane list of off-topic croos posts.
Welcome back, Henry, you poor, deluded, fool.
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>>>> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
>>>> to a big lie than a small one."
>>>> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
>>> The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
>>> lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
>>> perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
>>> one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
>> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
>> points raised in the video. It must be strange to have your
>> ignorance and blind faith in government propaganda force you
>> believe in something that you know is both physically impossible
>> and at odds with expert research, hard evidence, and reality.
>> That's why you're forced to humiliate yourself by resorting to
>> emotional, fact free kook rants rather than think or address
>> the actual evidence.
> Where do you 'see' that?
Are you saying that Tim lacks the intelligence to articulate
the points in the video that he disagrees with, and that he's
limited to spewing emotional, fact free kook drivel when he's
challenged to think or defend his beliefs? I suppose you could
be right, as that's about all we ever see from mindless parrots
of the government's insane 9-11 fairy tale - not at all unlike
like explaining to a learning disabled child why Santa isn't
real.
For some reason, I still expect sane adults to be able to
express their views in detail. Perhaps magic fire/Super Arab
cartoon conspiracy kooks are somewhat less than sane... ;-)
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
>> points raised in the video.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Your conclusion, or your
> video.
But, for some reason (you believe in an insane, physics
and reality defying cartoon fairy tale on ignorance and
blind faith alone) you can't tell us what it is you disagree
with or why, so you humiliate yourself and amuse your
betters by spewing fact free kook drivel. As predicated <g>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>>>> S'mee wrote:
>
>>>>>> Proof of what?
>
>>>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>>>> you post someday...
>
>>>> What undamaged the frame?
>
>>> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>>>
>>> <link restored>
>>>
>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>
>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>
> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> with the points made in the video.
The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a controlled
demolition can account for the average constant acceleration of 1/3 G. It
collapsed from top to bottom. The simplest explanation is still that it
collapsed that way of itself. The overly complicated explanation of
controlled and carefully sequenced demolition, floor by floor on every floor
including those wrecked by the aircraft, is much more unlikely and much less
believable. No, I don't accept the conclusion. No, I don't agree with the
points made. I accept the measurements they present.
BrianNZ
Wow, you're on a roll today....Where did you see that!!??
<snip more fact free kook rant>
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Tim wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
> >> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
> >> points raised in the video.
> > Nothing could be further from the truth. Your conclusion, or your
> > video.
>
You still haven't even figured out that I am part of the national
conspiracy to marginalize you, have you?
Oh Henry! You poor, deluded fool. I'm paid well to convince the
others in this newsgroup that you are an insane kook, and I'm doing a
great job of it.
For instance, you haven't even noticed that people who used to listen
to you and give you the benefit of the doubt, now openly laugh at you
and call you a kook. Why? Entirely as a result of my efforts on
behalf of the evil and secretive cabal.
You think I snip other newsgroups because I don't want them to see my
posts? Nope, I snip them because there are other conspiracists who
are responsible for ridiculing and marginalizing your deeply sincere
efforts there.
New people who come into reeky are, thanks to my efforts alone,
immediately able to dismiss you as a clown and an inconsequential
little off topic annoyance. And as a bonus, they never listen again
to anyone else in what they have come to see merely as your "silly
little conspiracy groups."
You make no inroads, no converts, find no disciples here, and you
never will, as long as the evil terroristic U.S. government secret
conspiracy agency (not that there is actually such a thing, of course;
that would just be SILLY) continues to pay me to goad you into
spluttering ineffectualness.
Which I do, at all times, with gusto beyond my conspiracy pay scale!
Conspiratorially Yours,
Evil Minion Tim
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> S'mee wrote:
> >>> Proof of what?
> >> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
> >> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
> >> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
> >> you post someday...
> > What undamaged the frame?
>
> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
Then it wasn't undamaged.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>
>>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>> with the points made in the video.
> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> of 1/3 G.
Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
and melt?
Henry
> <snip more fact free kook rant>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
Henry
>> But, for some reason (you believe in an insane, physics
>> and reality defying cartoon fairy tale on ignorance and
>> blind faith alone) you can't tell us what it is you disagree
>> with or why, so you humiliate yourself and amuse your
>> betters by spewing fact free kook drivel. As predicated <g>
> Oh Henry! You poor, deluded fool. I'm paid well to convince the
> others in this newsgroup that you are an insane kook, and I'm doing a
> great job of it.
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
S'mee
> MikeWhy wrote:
> > "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
> >> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> >>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> >>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> >>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> >>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>
> >>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
> >> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> >> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> >> with the points made in the video.
> > The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> > controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> > of 1/3 G.
>
> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Nope a falling block exertes more force when falling than when at
rest...always. I can PROVE it in your presence and you'd call me a
liar and say I rigged it somehow...which would make you a bald faced
liar.
I'm what you some might call a "Practical Expert of Gravity". See,
math is theory most idiots like you never demonstrate your theory not
on paper but actually SHOW it.
You are one of those fucktards who claims there is no gravity between,
say, they earth and uranus...there most assuradly is.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 5:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
>>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>>>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>>>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>>>> with the points made in the video.
>>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
>>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
>>> of 1/3 G.
>> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
>> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
>> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
>> and melt?
> Nope a falling block exertes more force when falling than when at
> rest...always.
Absolutely dead wrong. Take a high school physics class - and some
tutoring...
Tim
> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest.
Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
yourself? Get back to us when you "know" the force exerted down to 10
decimal places, and have video to back it up.
Sheesh, you kooks....
Tim
> You are one of those fucktards who claims there is no gravity between,
> say, they earth and uranus...
I knew Henry would dispute this, dispite the obvious fact that the
gravity between earth and his anus is the only thing keeping his ass
from flying off into orbit!
Tim
> Are you saying that ....
Henry, are you saying that you haven't yet gotten tired of being the
pet kook of reeky?
Tim
> > Are you saying that ...
> Wow, you're on a roll today....Where did you see that!!??
Henry sees all and knows all, even that which is not there and that
which does not exist.
It's his "gift."
Henry
> Sheesh, you kooks....
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
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
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. But obviously, partial
is not total, gradual is not instant, and random is not
symmetric. The contradiction is blatant and extreme. That's why
no one can produce even *one* example of a steel framed high rise
that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not anywhere. It's
physically impossible.
Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's
the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot nor did they even make contact with most of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
and common sense, to prove that random, gradual heating can not possibly
cause the free fall and symmetric drop of a steel framed high rise.
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Proof that WTC 7 was demolished professionally
(This is a summary of the argument presented here, complete with more
detailed source links, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth.)
WTC 7 was the third steel-framed skyscraper that was completely
destroyed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
Its height was 174 meters, and it had 47 floors. It was located in a
block separate from the other WTC buildings, 110 meters from the closest
tower. The implosion of WTC 7 is shown below (note the dropping of the
penthouse).
Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in
world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been
painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the
ground as a result of fires ? as FEMA speculated in 2002 ? the
significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is
enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from
the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not
done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and
destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still ?
well after 6.5 years from the event ? trying to come up with a plausible
report, ?no steel was recovered from WTC 7?. This can be seen as either
suspicious or absurd, and I don?t think building disasters are
investigated absurdly.
The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in
approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95
seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds
to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air
resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building,
therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However,
destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter
building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic
energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures
would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down
required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time
it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere
air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only
be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled
demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically
reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]
The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly
straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in
simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and
damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in
a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover,
achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and
damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in
controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.
Hot debris. According to NASA?s thermal imaging, the surface temperature
of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius ? five days after
the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by
fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few
degrees' increase in temperature.
Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten
steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples
that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially
vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett
points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these
samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can
be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply
cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the
temperature required by vaporization.
Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a
demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as
certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous
architects, engineers and other demolition professionals ? see
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and
this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the
official account.
The testimony of first responders. Several rescue personnel have
testified to being told that WTC 7 would be brought down.
[1] Another way of looking at this:
1) In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An
object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything ?
not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let
alone the rest of the building) would have separated its roof from the
ground.
2) WTC 7 collapsed into a rubble pile in approximately 6.5 seconds.
3) As an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything, the
time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's
~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds
(6.5 - 5.95 seconds) ? or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47).
4) The 0.5 seconds is not enough even in theory for a total
gravitational collapse of a 174-meter highrise. Ergo, the structural
resistance was removed by means of explosives.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
Henry
> I knew Henry would dispute this, dispite the obvious fact that the
> gravity between earth and his anus is the only thing keeping his ass
> from flying off into orbit!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
> Henry, are you saying that you haven't yet gotten tired of being the
> pet kook of reeky?
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
Vito
[ Henry sees all and knows all, even that which is not there and that
[ which does not exist.
[ It's his "gift."
It would be entertaining if it wasn't so repetative.
Henry: Keep them retorts and test tubes polished and do write about riding
if you get a chance. Do you still ride?
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> > Sheesh, you kooks....
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
> intelligent person.
(Snipped cut-n-paste nonsense gibberish)
Yep, the deluded nutjob cuts-n-pastes HUGE, LONG, ridiculous replies
OVER and OVER and OVER again, despite repeated evidence that doing so
accomplishes absolutely nothng (other than wasting bandwidth) and
convinces NO ONE else of ANYTHING other than the cut-n-paste artist's
INSANITY.
Congratulations, you usenet kookmeister! You pass your OWN test!
(ridiculous set of unrelated crossposted newsgroups snipped, of course)
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> > Henry, are you saying that you haven't yet gotten tired of being the
> > pet kook of reeky?
>
> What part of the video do you disagree with?
I'll take that as a "no."
People were asking about you, afraid that you had gotten yourself
locked up in some secret government prison, where you were being
waterboarded in an effort to get you to reveal the source of all the
knowledge and truth that you have been criminally sharing on usenet!
Thank goodness that wasn't the case, and it was really jsut a brief
encounter with an alien UFO that abducted you and did sexual
experiments on you! But never mind about that, now!
Welcome back; we missed ya, Henry!
Tim
> > I knew Henry would dispute this, dispite the obvious fact that the
> > gravity between earth and his anus is the only thing keeping his ass
> > from flying off into orbit!
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob
Yes, yes,yes, and we've already determined that you passed that test
with flying colors. We all admire your cut-n-paste skills, Henry, so
you needn't display them to us again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
And again. And again.
You see, eventually it just gets annoying.
(Snipped ridiculous set of multiple crossposts to groups where Henry
is apparently intent on becoming THEIR favorite usenet kook as well.
You're going to have to EARN their adoration, Henry, just as you
EARNED ours. No hanging on Reeky coattails to get there, my boy!)
Henry
>On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
>> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
>> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> People were asking about you, afraid that you had gotten yourself
> locked up in some secret government prison
When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs with even
a trace of logic or reason, you act like a frustrated, learning
disabled child who just had an adult explain to him why Santa
isn't real, you prove my point - which of course, is that mindless
parrots of the government's insane magic and physically impossible
9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their fairy tale based on
nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance. Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Try this experiment, Mr. science.
Observe and measure the force that you feel while
standing on your head.
Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
second story window.
Report back to us with your observations.
Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
on your head cause you believe even more strongly
than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
I predict it will.
Henry
>On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
>> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
>> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> You see, eventually it just gets annoying.
Actually, I find your simple minded, childish, fact free, and
moronic kook rants slightly amusing and somewhat comforting.
After all, if you were able to defend your reality defying nut
job conspiracy theory with anything even remotely close to logic,
reason, research, or evidence, I'd have to give you and your
conspiracy theory some consideration.
When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs, you act like
a frustrated, learning disabled child who just had an adult explain
to him why Santa isn't real, you prove my point - which of course,
is that mindless parrots of the government's insane magic and
physically impossible 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their
fairy tale based on nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance.
Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> second story window.
Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
funny... <chuckle>
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
*us*
>... know so little ...
Did you know that Bush and Cheney lied about 9/11?
If you could manage to find out that fact, how would
you attempt to explain it, were you able?
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
> >> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
> >> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> > People were asking about you, afraid that you had gotten yourself
> > locked up in some secret government prison
>
> When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs with even
> a trace of logic or reason, you act like a frustrated, learning
> disabled child who just had an adult explain to him why Santa
> isn't real, you prove my point - which of course, is that mindless
> parrots of the government's insane magic and physically impossible
> 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their fairy tale based on
> nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance. Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
Excuse me, Henry, but you've apparently confused me with someone who
is interested in LISTENING to your kooktales. Have you found anyone
interested in your fantasies yet, Henry? Have you found anyone who
AGREES with your "PROOF" of the big, bad, U.S. government cover-up of
President Bush bombing the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 after you've
"explained" it?
Remember, Henry, the definition of insanity is continuing to parrot
the same silly conspiracy kooktales on rec.motorcycles for nearly a
decade without converting ANYONE to your religon, and expecting
somehow that things will MAGICALLY change in the future, if you JUST
KEEP DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER again!
(Snipped unrelated newsgroups sci.physics, talk.politics.misc,
talk.politics.mideast, soc.veterans, as usual. Do your own work,
yourself, Henry.)
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
> >> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
> >> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> > You see, eventually it just gets annoying.
>
> Actually, I find your simple minded, childish, fact free, and
> moronic kook rants slightly amusing and somewhat comforting.
> After all, if you were able to defend your reality defying nut
> job conspiracy theory with anything even remotely close to logic,
> reason, research, or evidence, I'd have to give you and your
> conspiracy theory some consideration.
Hey Henry.... you're the only one here with a theory, you're the only
one here with a conspiracy, and you are the only one here with a
"movement."
Sheesh. Talk about your flights from reality.
I've never said I had a theory. Go ahead, Henry, find the post where
I said I had a theory.
We're talking about YOUR fantasy here, Henry. It's not about ME,
Henry. It's not about the other thousands of rec.motorcycles
contributors and readers whom you have been EQUALLY unable to convert
to your religon, Henry. It's about YOU and YOUR mental illness,
Henry. Not me.
Please get back on track. Practice your cut-n-paste skills or
something..... Or, go have another "movement."
(Snipped completely unrelated newsgroups sci.physics,
talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.mideast, soc.veterans to which you
insist on crossposting all your insane drivel.)
Tim
> Did you know that Bush and Cheney lied about 9/11?
>
> If you could manage to find out that fact, how would
> you attempt to explain it, were you able?
And this, folks, is what you get when you overlook snipping Hankie's
insane crossposted newsgroup list of sci.physics, talk.politics.misc,
talk.politics.mideast, and soc.veterans.
Don't let this happen to you if you decide to play with Henry, Reeky's
pet kook!
(Snipped sci.physics, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.mideast,
soc.veterans this time, at least.)
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> > second story window.
>
> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
> funny... <chuckle>
So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
controlled thermite demolition.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 12:07 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs with even
>> a trace of logic or reason, you act like a frustrated, learning
>> disabled child who just had an adult explain to him why Santa
>> isn't real, you prove my point - which of course, is that mindless
>> parrots of the government's insane magic and physically impossible
>> 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their fairy tale based on
>> nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance. Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
> Excuse me, Henry, but you've apparently confused me with someone who
> is interested in LISTENING to your kooktales.
Not at all. As I said, I know you don't read, think, or listen.
Like the child described above, you spew your childish fact free
drivel out of confusion, ignorance, and frustration. But thanks
for proving my point again...
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
Henry
> So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
> caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
> controlled thermite demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
MikeWhy
"Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
news:hej7v9$m7$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>>
>
>>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>>> with the points made in the video.
>
>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
>> of 1/3 G.
>
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Every engineer and scientist understands the peer review process well enough
to know, to be taken seriously, she has to address the obvious and unobvious
concerns the audience might, will, or have already raised. What else can
cause the tower to fall from top to bottom at an average constantly
accelerating rate of some fraction of the natural acceleration of gravity?
Why are these explanations not reasonable? Why is controlled demolition at a
quadratically increasing rate the only feasible explanation? The video
doesn't answer those questions. It's your job, not mine, to anticipate and
answer them. As it stands, the presentation delivers only (unverified)
measurements of the collapse rate that graph out to a constant acceleration
of .36 G. That is its only value.
From my chair, it seems obvious that there is no upward force equalling .64
G to offset the steady pull of gravity on the constantly increasing collapse
mass. The .36 G is only an average then, with some portion of time in free
fall, some at rest, and the remainder at some other value.
Henry
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
What explanations? By the way, I appreciate the fact that you're
actually reading, thinking, and replying coherently. That's pretty
rare among followers of the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory... ,g>
> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the only
> feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
The video proves that something other than the falling upper block
(which disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you
think of any cause other than controlled demolition? Whatever you
come up with also has to explain the massive explosions, the molten
metal, the destruction of evidence, and the refusal of the Bush regime
to investigate the crime.
Here, read this. There's a reason why fires - even raging infernos -
have never dropped a steel framed high rise.
Tim
> Every engineer and scientist understands the peer review process well enough
> to know, to be taken seriously, she has to address the obvious and unobvious
> concerns the audience might, will, or have already raised. What else can
> cause the tower to fall from top to bottom at an average constantly
> accelerating rate of some fraction of the natural acceleration of gravity?
> Why are these explanations not reasonable? Why is controlled demolition at a
> quadratically increasing rate the only feasible explanation? The video
> doesn't answer those questions. It's your job, not mine, to anticipate and
> answer them. As it stands, the presentation delivers only (unverified)
> measurements of the collapse rate that graph out to a constant acceleration
> of .36 G. That is its only value.
>
> From my chair, it seems obvious that there is no upward force equalling .64
> G to offset the steady pull of gravity on the constantly increasing collapse
> mass. The .36 G is only an average then, with some portion of time in free
> fall, some at rest, and the remainder at some other value.
Mike,
you do realize that thoughtful, considered, factual, responses
like yours just create more work for Kookster Henry, don't you? I
mean, now he is going to have to either cut out what you wrote, ignore
it, mischaracterize it, rephrase it, paste over it, cut-n-paste
nonsense above and/or below it, or simply lie outrageously about it,
in order to maintain his standing as Reeky's favorite netkook.
You should take it easy on the poor guy, he is, after all, "zero
for everyone he has ever tried to convince" and it's starting to fray
his nerves.
Note: (crossposts to Henry's favorite "on-topic" 9/11 kook theory
newsgroups sci.physics, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.mideast, and
soc.veterans snipped.)
BTW, everything that Henry has faithfully copied and regurgitated in
reeky over the years is neatly, dispassionately, scientifically, and
totally debunked in multiple places on the web, but the best is
possibly:
Tim
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
> > caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
> > controlled thermite demolition.
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
> intelligent person.
There is indeed. The sanity of the poster is inversely
proportional to the size of the posting. As a rule, rational,
logical, intelligent people don't feel the need to spew tens
of thousands on lines of drivel all over usenet.
Twibil
>
> On Nov 25, 7:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
>
> Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
> yourself?
Oh GAWD! He didn't *really* say that did he? (Note: rhetorical
question. Of *course* he did.) Poor Hen3ry either thinks that the
laws concerning mass and kinetic energy are just "theories", or he
doesn't know that there *are* any such laws.
Suggested change to Rob's original Modest Proposal: (A) Restrain
Hen3ry securely. (B) Place a bowling ball gently atop one of Hen3ry's
feet and let it sit there at rest. (C) Now drop that same bowling ball
on the same foot from a height of, oh, let's say, twenty feet.... (D)
Record Hen3ry's reaction to the differing effects of (B) and (C), and
post the video to U-Tube.
As compared to Rob's suggestion, this has the added benefit of keeping
Hen3ry alive to suffer the humiliation of seeing his agony shared with
millions of hysterically laughing viewers, a result which I'm sure we
all agree is much preferable to merely mulching his remains after
having dropped him head-first from a second-story window.
Best of all, it leaves him with no room to complain about anything*.
For if his statement that a falling object exerts only 36% of the
force it exerts at rest is *true*, he cannot possibly be harmed by the
falling bowling ball... QED.
I'm quite looking forward to this!
(* Note: My wife has pointed out that Rob's proposal also leaves
Hen3ry with nothing to complain about by reason of his being recently
deceased. Pooh.)
Henry
> BTW, everything that Henry has faithfully copied and regurgitated in
> reeky over the years is neatly, dispassionately, scientifically, and
> totally debunked in multiple places on the web, but the best is
> possibly:
Tim, your anonymous kook site needs to update its lies. It still
claims that WTC7 suffered significant structural damage from debris
impacts, which contributed to its "collapse".
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
That's a lie. The "official" conspiracy theory now blames WTC7's
free fall and symmetric drop on nothing but minor, ordinary office
fires.. Even NIST has been forced to finally admit that fact thanks
to the meticulous research of 9-11 truth experts.
The anonymous authors of your kook site also deny WTC7 's free fall.
But NIST has been forced to admit that fact, too. Their lies are very
silly and blatant to all but the severely deluded, ignorant, and
confused.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
"Finally, the report notes that ?while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
Also, what do the anonymous authors of your kook site mean by
the drivel quoted below? It looks like they're saying that tall
buildings can't topple sideways, but smaller ones can. WTF? You
and your fellow conspiracy kooks are severely deluded, incoherent,
and confused - but at least slightly amusing... <chuckle>
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own
foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47
story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel
reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of
buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up
of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those
steel reinforced concrete buildings."
But of course, you won't be able to answer these questions or
defend your kook site, because as you have so clearly demonstrated
on numerous occasions, your belief in the government's insane 9-11
conspiracy is based on nothing but your blind faith and extreme
ignorance. That being the case, you either get even more stupid or
simply run away whenever you're challenged to defend your comical
lies, delusions, and fantasies. But thanks for proving my point...
Henry
> The sanity of the poster is inversely
> proportional to the size of the posting.
No doubt, if someone sent out a post with nothing but a
"0" in it, Rob would "think" he discovered a real genius.
<chuckle>
I'd like to thank you for not only helping to keep this great
thread alive, but also for so clearly demonstrating the severely
challenged "intellect" of a typical Bush parroting magic fire
cartoon conspiracy kook. Couldn't have done it much better myself.
<chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence.. <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That's also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you've got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
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
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 6:55 am, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 7:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
>>> force it exerted while it was at rest.
>> Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
>> yourself?
> Oh GAWD! He didn't *really* say that did he?
Proved it, too. As always, here's the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Were you not spewing your silly drivel while hiding and
cowering behind your killfile, you might not make quite
such a fool of yourself. But as my most psychotic and
rabidly obsessed "critic", I prefer you to be fool, so
please do continue to spew your drivel from a position
of total ignorance <chuckle>
Vito
| Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
|
| > Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
| > second story window.
|
| Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
| melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
| funny... <chuckle>
|
|
| There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
| someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
| intelligent person.
| If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
| the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
| credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
| in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
| OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
| the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
| and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
| rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
| logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
Ahhh, what did you just do in response to Rob's valid, albiet tougue in
cheek, illustration?
You changed the subject.
The Older Gentleman
> Poor Hen3ry
Oh, has he popped up again? Blimey.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > The sanity of the poster is inversely
> > proportional to the size of the posting.
>
> No doubt, if someone sent out a post with nothing but a
> "0" in it, Rob would "think" he discovered a real genius.
> <chuckle>
Not necessarily a genius, just a mite saner than you.
The Older Gentleman
> There is indeed. The sanity of the poster is inversely
> proportional to the size of the posting. As a rule, rational,
> logical, intelligent people don't feel the need to spew tens
> of thousands on lines of drivel all over usenet.
Too right. I'd add a corollary: the literacy of the poster is inversely
proportional to the number of speeling, grammer, punktuation and
sin-tacks mistakes that it gleefully attributes to others.
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the only
>> feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
>
> The video proves that something other than the falling upper block (which
> disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
> is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you think
> of any cause other than controlled demolition?
I'm outa here after this... The video doesn't prove or even illustrate
anything of the sort. It looks to me, as a non-expert, how a building should
look as the top floors collapse onto the lower floors.
The Older Gentleman
I'm impressed that you made the fine distinction between intelligence
and sanity, and not surprised that Drain Man couldn't.
BrianNZ
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>
<snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
Try this experiment, Mr. science.
Observe and measure the force that you feel while
standing on your head.
Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
second story window.
Report back to us with your observations.
Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
on your head cause you believe even more strongly
than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
I predict it will.
Henry wrote:
>
> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
> funny... <chuckle>
>
<snip more unrelated comments>
C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point re.
your claims and you just completely ignore it and go off on another
tangent.......not really surprising, but a cop out none the less.
Rather than risk death performing Rob's experiment, try something a
little smaller.....a single brick should be heavy enough. Place it on
your foot....feel the weight. Now, lift the brick up to waist height and
release it over your foot......feel the weight. Now, compare the
feelings you received.
Before replying, just try it........
MikeWhy
That wasn't my intention, of course, although I've managed more than once to
convince myself of the validity of something I had initially set out to
disprove. On something like this, I prefer to be spoonfed. Maybe someone
else will find themselves enlightened in their effort to make the point.
It's good to re-examine your beliefs from time to time. I find here that not
much has changed since I last peeked.
Henry
Rob posted moronic, irrelevant kook drivel and ignored the
research - like you did. Thanks for proving my point...
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
> news:heju15$4hv$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the
>>> only feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
>> The video proves that something other than the falling upper block
>> (which disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
>> is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you
>> think of any cause other than controlled demolition?
> I'm outa here after this... The video doesn't prove or even illustrate
> anything of the sort.
Of course it does. Watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> It looks to me, as a non-expert, how a building
> should look as the top floors collapse onto the lower floors.
Impossible. The upper block was far too light. Imagine building
a 15 foot high steel tower by welding a stack of steel shopping
cart baskets together. Now get on a step ladder and heat up the
bars near the top. Do you think that could cause the top cart to
suddenly crush it's way through the carts below it? The upper block
had nowhere near enough mass to crush the undamaged, thicker, stronger,
heavier steel frame belwo it. Besides, the videops show the upper block
disintegrating at the start of the demoltion.
BrianNZ
Bollocks Henry....you stated.......
"Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
force it exerted while it was at rest."
......all Rob did was show how wrong you are by giving you a simple
experiment you could carry our yourself (OK, with a little bit of help
from a friend to let you go, but just free falling head first would have
the same result).
For you to write it off as irrelavent just shows how far in denial you
are. You simply ignore anything that doesn't fit you pre-conceived ideas.
You merely saying your point has been proven doesn't make it so.
Henry
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> <snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
>>> Try this experiment, Mr. science.
>>> Observe and measure the force that you feel while
>>> standing on your head.
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> Report back to us with your observations.
>>> Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
>>> ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
>>> on your head cause you believe even more strongly
>>> than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
>>>
>>> I predict it will.
> Henry wrote:
>> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
>> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
>> funny... <chuckle>
> <snip more unrelated comments>
> C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
The Older Gentleman
> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> second story window.
If only.....
Road Glidin' Don
Gentleman) wrote:
And people are feeding his obsession. Again.
BrianNZ
> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>> second story window.
>
> If only.....
>
First he has to find one! :)
Twibil
Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
> Oh, has he popped up again? Blimey.
He does it every time his girlfriend* goes out of town to visit her
parents, and isn't there to calm him down, put him into restraints,
and administer his twice-daily Thorazine.
* Well, he <says> it's his girlfriend, but all we know for sure is
that her mail comes addressed to "Mildred Ratched".
eric gisse
[snip spew]
Go away, dishonest spamming moron.
BTW, nice crosspost.
Twibil
>
>
> >> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> >> second story window.
>
> > If only.....
>
> First he has to find one! :)
Oh, second-story windows are quite common; no problem there.... And
believe me: he won't need a friend to drop him head-first from one,
either.
In fact, I'm only charging $20 per lottery chance to <be> that guy,
and the line forms on the left.
Better apply now if you wanna beat the holiday rush.
S'mee
FUckyou you hypocrite. I answered All your old questions and destroied
every fucking theory with FACT. You've always lied cheated and ran
like a little scared pogue from mine. So fuck you and fuck your flm if
you are not smart enough to figure out your theory is as fucked as a
woman 8 months pregnant you fucking failure at life.
S'mee
> S'mee wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 5:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>> "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
> >>>> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> >>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> >>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> >>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> >>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> >>>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> >>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> >>>> with the points made in the video.
> >>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> >>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> >>> of 1/3 G.
> >> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> >> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> >> and melt?
> > Nope a falling block exertes more force when falling than when at
> > rest...always.
>
> Absolutely dead wrong. Take a high school physics class - and some
> tutoring...
>
and you obviously want to suck my cock you dirty old man. I'm correct
and you are a LIAR and THIEF and CHEATING SLUM LORD...not only that
you hate the fact you never could answer my questions whilst I a
greater expert on those subjects than YOU destroied every post you've
made so far you plageristic fucking communist.
Rob Kleinschmidt
A quick game of whack-a-troll.
A jolly time had by all, especially Henry.
The Older Gentleman
> > >> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> > >> second story window.
> >
> > > If only.....
> >
> > First he has to find one! :)
>
> Oh, second-story windows are quite common; no problem there
<G>
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
<9-11ko...@treeexperts.org> wrote:
> I'd like to thank you for helping to keep this great thread alive
(Snipped the additional 10,752 lines that Henry cut-n-pasted.)
(Snipped the other four newsgroups Henry infests.)
You're welcome, Henry. Any opportunity to display your insanity
again is fun. Tell us again, Henry;
how many people have you convinced of your theory?
Oh, that's right.
None.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Of course the
> upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
> it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
> in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated.
Of course not; it is obviously still moving. The terrorist Obama
administration is secretly keeping a covert eye on it through the
Hubble telescope as it continues its path out of the solar system.
Good point, Henry!
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
You should try it, it's FUN!
Twibil
<tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Poor Hen3ry
>
> > > Oh, has he popped up again? Blimey.
>
> > And people are feeding his obsession. Again.
>
> You should try it, it's FUN!
Well, it *is* the holiday fruitcake season, so poor Hen3ry's posts are
at least seasonal!
S'mee
Now wait just a cotton pickin' min...you know, the boy does have a
point there. Fortunately I keep all my feathers numbered for occasions
such as this.
Rob Kleinschmidt
Anybody who ever raised dogs should recognize
the game of "try to take it away from me". Tail
wagging, a pup will approach you with a soggy,
unrecognizable object covered with slobber and
drool, brought almost but not quite close enough
to snatch it away.
The object in question is of no earthly use to you
or the dog, but you're supposed to try to grab it
away while the dog gloats at your failures. When
you finally get tired of the game, the dog looks
crushed but shows up again an hour later, tail
wagging, with another soggy object in it's mouth.
I think we can expect Henry to show up periodically
with new postings on his favorite topic for the
forseeable future.
Now
S'mee
wrote:
heh...two ways to deal with that. Neither involves training the dog to
let you have the "wet soggy object" to throw it. 8^) My way is far
more relaxing and fun in the long run. ;^) They again I don't have
some mangy retriever...
MikeWhy
> Anybody who ever raised dogs should recognize
> the game of "try to take it away from me". Tail
> wagging, a pup will approach you with a soggy,
> unrecognizable object covered with slobber and
> drool, brought almost but not quite close enough
> to snatch it away.
>
> The object in question is of no earthly use to you
> or the dog, but you're supposed to try to grab it
> away while the dog gloats at your failures. When
> you finally get tired of the game, the dog looks
> crushed but shows up again an hour later, tail
> wagging, with another soggy object in it's mouth.
It works both ways. I've thrown sticks that neither of us cared about for
anything other than just something for him to swim after and fetch.
Rob Kleinschmidt
In this case though, it's not about swimming
or fetching. More like "Try to take my conspiracy
theory away from me. Betcha can't talk me out
of it".
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> I think we can expect Henry to show up periodically
> with new postings on his favorite topic for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Now
"Henry pops up, but then he poops out!" A Reeky cautionary tale.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Ah, no one cares if Henry clings to his conspiracy theory. What's
funny and entertaining is is assumption that anyone who doesn't buy it
is an idiot.
He hates being thought of as a kook, but his "logical, scientific
reasoned, unassailable, infallible proof" of his theory hasn't
convinced ANYONE else, EVER, so therefore we must all be stupid,
because he KNOWS it's true and that he is not a kook.
And that, is what makes the "debate" so much fun!
Road Glidin' Don
Yep, he's just got no staying power, that boy. Judging by the reduced
frequency of his posts, methinks his faith in his cause is beginning
to dwindle.
All these years and not a single convert. Must be starting to depress
him...
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
> In this case though, it's not about swimming
> or fetching. More like "Try to take my conspiracy
> theory away from me. Betcha can't talk me out
> of it".
Good simile.
Makes me picture holding a 'squib' over Hen3ry's head and making him
jump for it. ("UP, boy! UP!")
Rob Kleinschmidt
I think somebody beat you to this by at least
five or six years.
S'mee
<nochalantly strolls away whistling innocently>
t'weren't me...I'm not that nice.
Henry
> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>> second story window.
> If only.....
The mind of deluded nut jobs - they don't make any sense or
address the facts, evidence and expert reseqch, but they do
slightly amuse their many betters....
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
than a small one."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> <snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
>>> Try this experiment, Mr. science.
>>> Observe and measure the force that you feel while
>>> standing on your head.
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> Report back to us with your observations.
>>> Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
>>> ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
>>> on your head cause you believe even more strongly
>>> than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
>>>
>>> I predict it will.
> Henry wrote:
>> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
>> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
>> funny... <chuckle>
> <snip more unrelated comments>
> C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point
Henry
> On Nov 25, 3:15 pm, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> If only.....
>> First he has to find one! :)
> Oh, second-story windows are quite common;
I'd like to thank you silly clowns for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn't have done it much better myself. <chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. Petie "twitbull" Roehling operates at that
level. Pitiful, but at least slightly amusing. <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That's also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you've got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
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
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
--