World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace
u2...@gmx.net
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
columns."
Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's
carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core
columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a
substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial
impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the
south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at
a point when the fires had greatly diminished.
In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal
testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for
the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6
hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is
without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at
only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not
indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was
nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this
figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that
tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles
involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually
act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real
expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.
But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging
on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of
knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can
understand that.
And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to
anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little
problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it
lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left
standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors
pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this
collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely
the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.
Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the
scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds
with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these
issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as
long as it can be videotaped for posterity.
I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd
explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and
publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical
evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale,
while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but
suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY
loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the
truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and
simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents
be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common
mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive
and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade
to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the
sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.
Physicist's Letter On 911 PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
10-3-6
More info: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/
u2...@gmx.net
Not my text... but shoulg get the brain muscle started ...
Russ Rose
<u2...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1160544208.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> columns."
Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
columns.
OG
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDY...@comcast.com...
Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
2005 is cited as evidence.
What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
upper 15 floors).
In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
there's a picture here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG
Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.
Michael J. Strickland
> But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
> failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
> collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
> unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
> roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
> the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
> at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
> to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
> undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
> pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
> fall) WHATSOEVER.
Somewhere in the impact area, the beams broke. The upper section (top third)
of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
continued falling with negligible loss in speed.
I believe the energy required to break the support beams in the floor
immediately below is negligible compared to the kinetic energy acquired by
the upper 1/3 of the building after it has fallen through the height of one
floor.
The collapse continued with the process repeating itself on succeeding
floors all the way to the ground, again, with negligible loss in speed.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services quali...@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
u2...@gmx.net
> of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
> the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
> breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
> speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
> continued falling with negligible loss in speed.
But that is not what the footage shows. The upper part disintegrated
and the rate of descent did not decrease. Even the angular momentum of
the upper section was not maintained.
Furthermore, the central core should have withstood all that, it was
overengineered.
Even if it gave way, the fact that the outer-columns and the inner core
gave way
symmetrically .. ah uhm...strains credulity.
In other words: Anyone who actually looked at the footage ... goes
quiet.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+mysteries
Protagonist
It still don't look like collapsed down to the basement, like the
twin-towers.
WTC collapse was done by implosion as building 7 was admitted to be,
were blown up.
These buildings were all ready set-up with explosives in case of
terrorist attack, so it can collapse into it's self and not falling on
the hole city.
JS
dbo...@mindspring.com
WTC conspiracists are part of a govt conspiracy too. The conspiracy is
to make the govt seem all powerful. I get all my politics from South
Park just like most conspiracy typesget theirs from the funny paper.
u2...@gmx.net
you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
were not destroyed?
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
has all you need to know.
But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
fantasies.
Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
steel,
like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
what
must be avoided....
Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
Q.E.D.
Eugene Griessel
>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
pisses me off big time.
Eugene L Griessel
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
u2...@gmx.net
you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
Keith Willshaw
<u2...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1161157973....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
I know how that happened
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
cost in excess of $200 million
What planet do you live on ?
Keith
Dan
I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.
I needed the laugh this morning.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
JAH
conspiracies.
It was hilarious.
Here's a clip from it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
JAH
Net Crimes & Misdemeanors
netcrimes.net
2nd edition NOW OUT!!
haltabuse.org
Orval Fairbairn
u2...@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
See above.
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
See above.
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
Of course -- it was the Klingons and Romulans!
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.
It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
Dan
See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
u2...@gmx.net
> >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.
> >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, you and the others:
I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.
HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.
Of course, right now, you just don't care.
3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
Me included.
Orval Fairbairn
u2...@gmx.net shared some strawberry ice cream with a Grey at Area 51,
boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a Sasquatch, avoided a
Chupacabra, inhaled some chemtrails, wet the bed and howled at the Moon:
> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>
> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> engines.
The planes were Klingon/Romulan holograms timed to coincide with the
disrupter fire.
The WTC buildings were essentially open shells, with a central core and
a thin outer skin. Certainly, large, massive parts would go through or
disrupt the central spine of the building.
Just look at the momentum of 250,000 lbs at 500 kt.
The structure of the planes worked just like a high-pressure water jet
and cut through most things in their path.
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan, you and the others:
>
> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> researched oneselves.
>
> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>
> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> searchable.
>
> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>
> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>
> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>
> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
Don't you mean "youse guys"?
> Me included.
I do not intend to apologize for stating the obvious: the self-styled
"9/11 'Truth' Movement" is composed of a bunch of hare-brained kooks,
who make a lot of bald assertions with zero evidence to back them up.
I suggest that you conspiracy loons go over to Afghanistan, look up Bin
Laden and see how long you survive.
T Wake
<u2...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1161200516....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> Me included.
You intend to apologise?
Your grammar and spelling are as poor as your conspiracy theories. At least
find an interesting / realistic one.
schoenf...@gmail.com
They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
"mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
physics. My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
_vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
and objective thought and analysis. The responses and feedback from
this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
the current state of affairs.
That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
its realization.
> Me included.
u2...@gmx.net
There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
also, causing decelleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
tailplane.
The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
towers.
And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
Easy- they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
But it's not new.
The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
Prescot Bush.
So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
Dan
I guess I don't see why I should apologize for pointing out anyone
can see wing spars are flexible as opposed to "hard and brittle" as the
cite claims.
For anyone who doesn't believe me take a flight in rough weather.
Select a window seat where you can see the wing flex. I don't know what
the numbers are on B-767 are, but on KC-135 the wing tips could flex as
much as 14 feet without damaging the wing. I saw a show on Dicovery
where they tested a B-777 wing to destruction. It flexed something like
28 feet, if memory serves, without failing. A "hard and brittle" wing
spar couldn't do that.
I guess I also don't see why I should apologize for pointing out it
makes no sense for a building to be designed to "pulverize" in order to
save it's foundation. as the cite claims.
Dan
If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.
My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
> _vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
> thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
> and objective thought and analysis.
In other words you do not understand scientific method or higher
level science and math.
The responses and feedback from
> this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
> the current state of affairs.
>
> That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
> deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
> amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
> its realization.
>
You mean like the deception set forth by the OP that the subway
wasn't damaged?
LiRM
>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>were not destroyed?
>
>http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>has all you need to know.
>
>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>fantasies.
>
>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
and those you count as your peers...
John Smith
>You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
>
<stupid crap deleted>
You clearly don't have a hint of a clue what the hell you are talking
about.
Since it is ALL crap from start to finish - I'm not going to waste
several hours refuting all your wrong conclusions proceeding from
wrong premises and wrong "facts".
Go get a degree in engineering and you might - maybe - figure out how
far you are into LA LA land - but I seriously doubt it.
Dan
> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
Not only is the physics there but all the video showing impact into
the towers show penetration.
> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
> pieces and fall into the street.
The only way for that to happen is if the wall was completely
indestructible.
> I will deal with this first.
> PHYSICS.
> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
> That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
> be equal.
> Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
> Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
> break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
> recieved by EACH object.
> If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
> all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
> would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
> not break up.
No, it means that the aircraft MASS remained great enough to
maintain inertia into the building. It does NOT mean it remained
"intact," just that, as the aircraft was destroyed on impact it imparted
enough force to damage the buildings.
> I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
> it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
> Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
> If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
> intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
> that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
> also, causing decelleration and deflection.
> The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
> though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
> in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
See above. If you want to argue terminal ballistics you have to be
able to define which parts of the airplane struck which structural and
non structural member.
> AERODYNAMICS.
> The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
> tailplane.
That would be a function of torque, not aerodynamics.
> The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
> of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
> surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
> to determine the direction of tumble.
Think of inertia at that point.
> And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
> tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
> us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
Are you saying that an aircraft MUST gain altitude when banking? What
about banking when descending or maintaining altitude? Pilots do it
every day.
Well, I guess I don't want to try whatever you are on. I prefer reality.
schoenf...@gmail.com
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
Orval Fairbairn
u2...@gmx.net Again, boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a
Sasquatch, inhaled a bunch of chemtrails, wet the bed, howled at the
Moon and excreted:
> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
> pieces and fall into the street.
Now we're back to the Klingon/Romulan notion.
The planes came apart as they encountered other objects (floors, outer
skin, center spine, office furniture, people, etc. Their sheer momentum
acted as a tsunami, sweeping all before it. As the planes disintegrated,
their fuel started a fuel/air explosion and created massive secondary
fires on the impacted floors.
> I will deal with this first.
> PHYSICS.
> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
> That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
> be equal.
> Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
> Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
> break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
> recieved by EACH object.
> If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
> all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
> would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
> not break up.
> I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
> it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Your contention is erroneous, in that it ignores the momentum of the
disintegrating aircraft, which, even if it were a liquid, would impart
enough dynamic pressure to sweep everything in its path.
> Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
> If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
> intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
> that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
> also, causing decelleration and deflection.
> The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
> though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
> in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
Momentum, momentum, momentum!
> AERODYNAMICS.
> The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
> tailplane.
> The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
> of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
> surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
> to determine the direction of tumble.
> And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
> tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
> us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
> Then there are the glaring anomalies.
The planes may have tumbled after impact, acting as a huge rifle bullet
tumbling after impact, causing even more damage than a homogenous bullet.
> People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
> wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
> been fitted to a 767.
How do you know it was a CFM56?
> And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
> number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Different tires may be present on the same aircraft, depending on what
spares were in house when they were changed.
> Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
> And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
> aircraft we were told hit the building.
How do you know it was a JT8D?
> I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
> custom-made for the job.
> Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
> A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
> back.
Good Photoshop!
> WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
> In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
> would they go and spray that on it?
> Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
> There were no planes that hit the towers.
> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.
Back to the Klingon/Romulan idea.
> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.
> They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
> Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
> Prescot Bush.
> So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
> And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
> pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
> the next.
> Who made those?
> And why?
> Check 3 of them out here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
> When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
> ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
> intentions.
> Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
> agents?
> They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
But I can spot a stooge!
Dan
Firstly use the simpler equation x = 1/2(9.8065 m/s²) t² since
initial velocity can be assumed to be 0 m/s. I won't quibble with your
height since I don't really care. In rounding off acceleration due to
gravity you have come close to eliminating difference the actual fall
time from free fall. When dealing with a short distance like 174m and a
relatively small acceleration like g rounding errors give false results.
Find actual t out to 3 places right of the decimal and you will
see what I mean.
A very important consideration is over small distances
electromagnetic force is stronger than g. If you don't believe me think
about why you don't fall through the floor. When you do the final
calculations you can't omit anything that will effect acceleration.
Also, your basic formula doesn't take into consideration air compressing
in lower floors during collapse. That's what was blowing out the windows.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who have taken more math and physics
than you have know what they are talking about.
John Keeney
u2...@gmx.net wrote:
> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>
> > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>
> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> engines.
Odd, I heard the planes' engines when I saw the video tapes.
We won't go into how oddly your sentence reads... And how many
witnesses *does*
it take to say "they heard the roar of the engines?"
> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead,
No, just the Arabs on the planes.
>we got the oil.
We did? What did we do with it?
renab...@aol.com
Dan wrote:>
> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
SNIP
JC on burnt toast!! If the damn spars were brittlle, the %$#& wings
would fall off the first time they encountered a gust. I knew that, oh,
around 12 or so....but then, I had an engineer father and actually knew
how to read things like books on airplanes.....
He's peddling pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo designed to impress the
technologivallly illiterate.
u2...@gmx.net
:-)
The red-neck americans here CANNOT understand. They will keep fighting
tooth and nail that 911 conspiracies are crap.. They just cannot
understand, because their universe would collapse. USA being a force
of evil? Can't be.
Here an animation that might interest you.
WTC Finite Element Analysis --- Animated Rendering
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3861
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
NO!!
They were gray!
Bogus phyiscs demolished by others snipped
?
> None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
SNIP
Excuse me?
What the HELL is this?
http://www.members.aol.com/spiritflight7/WTCAirCrash.jpg
Considering sevearl million - perhaps tens of millions - saw this event
happen in reaal time on TV, did the entire species have a mass
hallucination? Someone spiked the world's water supply with acid?
With that one sentense, you have completely and utterly blown whatever
shards of credibiliity you might have had to Hell.
> There were no planes that hit the towers.
SNIP
http://chelpacat.journalspace.com/gallery/view.php?u=32790&i=183791
> There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
> towers.
SNIP
So tell us how all those people had a mass hallucination
> And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
> Easy- they are B2s.
> They can cloak in ionised gas
SNIP
"Cloak"
We're back to the Romulans and Klingions again
We've got invisible aircraft
Wanna know a really, really top, absolute secret? The US military just
wishes it could do a tenth of what foamers like you claim it can
BTW, the postulated ionized gas effect ONLY would work against RADAR -
which last time I cracked a physics textbook was a long way down the
electromganteic spectrum from visible light
"The Russian Academy of Sciences, however, according to a 1999 report
by Jane's Defense Weekly, claims to have developed a low-budget
RADAR-stealth technique, namely the cloaking of aircraft in ionized gas
(plasma). Plasma absorbs radio waves, so it is theoretically possible
to diminish the RADAR reflectivity of an otherwise non-stealthy
aircraft by a factor of 100 or more by generating plasma at the nose
and leading edges of an aircraft and allowing it flow backward over the
fuselage and wings. The Russian system is supposedly lightweight (>220
lb [100 kg]) and retrofittable to existing aircraft, making it the
stealth capability available at least cost to virtually any air force.
A disadvantage of the plasma technique that it would probably make the
aircraft glow in the visible part of the spectrum."
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Sp-Te/Stealth-Technology.html
So your "invisble" airplane would glow in the dark!
And Janes didn't say one damn word about the B2
and they can hover.
> Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
SNIP
OK, cite issue and page, so I can view this wonder
> But it's not new.
> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
SNIP
OMFG! !!
It's ARNDT !!!!
http://www.2000ad.org/thrillpower/straitjacket.jpg
> Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
SNIP
Gustav Krupp und Von Bohlen, for one
> When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
> ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
> intentions.
SNIP
Flunked your science courses, did you....
> Do you not think our truth movement
SNIP
"Truth Movment"....yep, just like Herer Doktor Goebbel's ran "The
Ministry of Public Enlightenment"..(Did you think George Orwell was
just making that stuff up?)
would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
> agents?
SNIP
Fighting developing within the ranks is it? Well, when you lock a bunch
of paranoid lunatics in a room together, taht's what always happens.
Since they're motto is "trust no one", tghey can't trust their own
allies and the knives come out
> They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
SNIP
They CAN'T make a plane invisible, asshole.
As ai said before, that ONE statement makes whatever physics you can
drag out - I don't give a damn if you manage to unify the forces and do
what Einstein couldn't - totally irrelevant and your argument
http://www.vortrupp.de/humor/pics/bullshit.jpg
No, allow me to correct myself
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4750/elephantdung9pi.jpg
So it is with great pride that we award you RAM's highest dishonor
renab...@aol.com
u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> The red-neck americans here
SNIP
Ahh, but they are vastly more educated and have reams more practical
experienec on the subject than ignorant <insert ethnic/religious/etc
slur of your choice here> slime like you, pinhead
CANNOT understand.
SNIP
So tell us your backgriound that makes your understanding superior to
ten rest of the world
1) Degree, Year and School
2) Experience in the study of materials and structues under extreme
conditions
3) Papres, if any, published on the subject at hand -- Title, Journal
and Issue
They will keep fighting
> tooth and nail that 911 conspiracies are crap.
SNIP
IThat it's crap is self-evident
"The UFO's that poeple see in September 11 videos are actually B2
bomberss using secret Nazi technology to hover while remeinaing
invisble due to ionizing gas"
That's at least three or four howlers in onel lousy sentence
. They just cannot
> understand, because their universe would collapse.
SNIP
Sounds like agood self-description of you, Charlie
As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which
embraced Lauro Chavez as its poster boy for the "Trutth" with his
"shocking revelations" of how "NOARD Was shut down" on September 11,
2001. To bad that Chavez has been provee dto be an utter fraud - his DD
Form 214 (Discahrge) proveeddto have been doctored, that the whole
"truth" movement has been running away from him so fast that their
shows are smoking. Here's whta the blog owner has to say:
"Arg, he got meh!
In fact a lot of 911 truthers feared it was too good.
I hearby retract my support of this peice of trash.
Looking at the document he provided even I can say its clearly been
doctored. What a cockbag.
Seeing as I'm of the conspiritorial mindset, I could see how this was
diversionary and a very good attempt to discredit some of the movement.
And the name tag Luaro Jones Chavez even seemed fishy to me but I let
it go. The majority of the 911blogger people wouldn't bite on this guy"
(Of course, NOW they are claiming he was a mole sent by the Powers of
Darkness (tm) to infltrate their little world and make them look
ridiculous (which they do quite nicely on their own))
So anything coming from that site can be treated with the respect it
desrevesa nd used as toiilet paper
Dan
OK, since that impresses you he just proved my case. He said the
building fell in 6 seconds. Not "about 6 seconds" he said "6 seconds."
Using his own calculations free fall would be 5.959 seconds which means
less than 6 seconds. In other words the building fell slower than free
fall.
Dan
> u2...@gmx.net wrote:
<snip>
>> But it's not new.
>> The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
>
> SNIP
>
> OMFG! !!
>
> It's ARNDT !!!!
>
>
<snip>
Aren't has been silent lately. I think he enlisted in the U.S. Army.
He's probably on his 9,000th push up for insisting U.S. weapons and
technology are inferior to German. "Why should I train on M-16A2 when
the Army is going to replace it with the German [insert weapon type
here] any day now? My father was a weapons inspector which makes me
smarter than you. I had an uncle who was in the SS so I know more about
tactics than you. Why aren't I a general yet?"
u2...@gmx.net
there is something very wrong when Americans look at the news channels
everyday and don't ask questions. America has been at war almost all of
the time since the Reagan administration. This has become a habit which
the current administration has made perpetual because America is
supposedly in the war on terror. And since no one knows when the war on
terror ends Americans have given carte blanche to the war monger in
chief to do as he pleases, which is war for ever. It has gotten worse
than just sending American men and women to go to faraway lands to kill
and be killed. Americans are told that it's better that way, because
it's much better to fight the terrorists on their soil than on US
proper soil. Now Americans are told to accept torture, indefinite
detentions and military tribunals as part of American laws. Well it's
the law now and Americans just don't say anything. All of this new era
of shame for America started since this fairy tale of how 9-11 happened
according to the official story line. From that make believe story
America has since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands
have been killed in those two countries with thousands of American
soldiers as well. Bush and his bosses are war mongers, but what about
the American public? Or maybe Bush thinks Americans are simply too dumb
to do anything other than what he wants them to believe!?
..
The point of all of this is to show that Americans are not in control,
and they should otherwise they will have to share the blame for all the
killings commited by the erroneous policies of this war mongering
administration. They don't know why they are killing all the peoples
they are killing and continue to kill. To me it started when they
swallowed the 9-11 lie whole. They did not ask questions. They still
believe that it's 19 Arabs wielding box cutters who hijacked 4
airplanes almost at the same time flew them for few hours without being
intercepted by the most powerful airforce in the world. Later on that
same day two of the airplanes hit the two WTC towers, that somehow
miraculously fell to their footprints just like in a planned demolition
of buildings. A third airplane supposedly hit the Pentagon. A fourth
airplane was said to have crashed in Pennsylvania. Although whatever
was left of that airplane is in thousands of little pieces which
indicate another cause than just a crash. Whatreallyhappened.com is a
very good source of information on the myth of the official story of
9-11. But I have some questions that I don't think I ever read in any
of the 9-11 debunking articles. Did they ever discover any of the
bodies of the passengers of the planes that hit the WTC towers and the
Pentagon? Especially the bodies of the so called hijackers? Or did they
just evaporate (no pun intended)? An airport is a place with cameras
everywhere. Where are the pictures and videos showing the so called
hijackers at the airport in Boston on that day?
St. John Smythe
Do you understand that when one of your assertions is that spectacularly
wrong that it undermines anything else you write?
Doesn't matter, most of it is self-undermining, anyway.
--
St. John
P.S. - maybe you simply misspelled "minutes."
Dan
> I don't mean to attack the intelligence of Americans in particular. But
> there is something very wrong when Americans look at the news channels
> everyday and don't ask questions.
We saw airplanes hit the towers. There never has been proof of
intentional demolition. The towers came down. What part do you not
understand?
America has been at war almost all of
> the time since the Reagan administration.
The human race has been at war since Adam and Eve.
<snip>
An airport is a place with cameras
> everywhere. Where are the pictures and videos showing the so called
> hijackers at the airport in Boston on that day?
The pictures of some of the hijackers have been broadcast many times.
Sorcerer
<u2...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1161289413....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|I don't mean to attack the intelligence of Americans in particular. But
| there is something very wrong when Americans look at the news channels
| everyday and don't ask questions. America has been at war almost all of
| the time since the Reagan administration.
HAHAHA! How about since 1776?
Not counting French and Indian wars before that, it was a colony.
When they couldn't find anyone else to fight they had a civil war in
the early 1860's.
Look at history. Japan lost. Japan today? Germany lost. Germany today?
North Korea wants to lose a scrap, trust me. So does Al Qaeda.
The only way to win a war and hold it is genocide, and that's what
happened to the North American aboriginal when the European
moved in.
Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
50% of Europeans are above average (not including Dork Van de merde).
Androcles.
Dan
<snip>
> Fully half of all Americans are below average intelligence, whereas
> 50% of Europeans are above average
No fooling? On ANY distribution curve 50% of the sample is below
average and 50% is above average.
u2...@gmx.net
kill the messenger when you cannot face the music.
> (Of course, NOW they are claiming he was a mole sent by the Powers of
> Darkness (tm) to infltrate their little world and make them look
> ridiculous (which they do quite nicely on their own))
Powers of Darkness (don't exist) wouldn't do that of course!
You have a deep-seated fear to appear undecided=weak with your peers.
Re: Physics Fraud
Ah, the lost art of physics. Of course! The planes were just going too
damn fast to obey Newton's Laws! Those poor steel beams never knew what
hit them!
How ironic that we don't either. Certainly not a Boeing, though.
I'm going to throw my fuzzy physics lesson out here again on yet
another site and hope that I can get someone to correct the obvious
error in it, because the error only makes my argument stronger.
Imagine a stationary and suspended Boeing 767 was struck by a 500mph
WTC2. Can you still see it being undamaged? Can you still see sheared
steel beams in the tower?
If not, then you would be right.
In the case of a mid-air collision between two objects, it doesn't
matter what hits what when it comes to damage. Due to the converging
velocity being a relative factor, the observable resultant impact event
is identical no matter which object is travelling at 500mph. The same
thing would happen if each were flying toward each other at 250mph, one
at 400, the other at 100, etc.
So many people are impressed by the high velocity of the plane, that
they fail to even consider the vast difference in the densities of the
colliding materials.
Sure, density and mass aren't as "sexy" as speed, but of all the people
in here, if placed in the driver seat of a Yugo and set on a collision
course with that concrete wall in that video, how many of you would
instinctively step on the gas?
True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
even greater factor.
Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
car?
Class dismissed.
=== try number two ===
Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into
the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the
pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point
of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep
hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just
passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single
step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit
single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely
absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number
of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower
for its entire length. This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and
concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air.
This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the
767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration
of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of
the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the
street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building
seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by
an explostion. This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't
meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.
During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as
Laws of Physics. They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and
objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a
force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the
direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action
produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these
laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must
decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before
the resistence was encountered.
I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.
Found on 911blogger. posted by Joseph M. Keith Tustin, CA
apparently a retired aerospace engineer.
Dan
<snip> a bunch of utter BS. No one claims the aircraft were undamaged in
striking the towers. You seem to have convinced yourself a mass of
aluminum can't penetrate glass, a relatively thin skin of stainless
steel and still have enough inertia to shove steel beams and pillars
aside to do the damage even as the aircraft is destroyed.
Here's an experiment, don't do this yourself, have an adult do it.
Get a rifle on .30-06. Get a military steel helmet and some mil spec
ball ammunition for the rifle. Examine the ammunition. Notice the bullet
is copper jacketed. If you were to open one of the bullets, not the
cartridge, just the part that exits the muzzle when fired, that's the
part called the bullet. The copper jacket is filled with lead. Both
copper and lead are softer than the steel in the helmet. OK,now have an
adult the the rifle, ammunition and helmet to a shooting range. Have the
adult fire 2 or 3 rounds into the helmet. After safing the rifle and
range examine the helmet. You will see holes made by the bullets. You
have just made holes in steel with copper and lead both of which are
softer than steel.
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
Except in Lake Woebegone
Peter Twydell
u2...@gmx.net writes
knowledge of physics when you show a lack of knowledge on your own part.
You obviously know neither the difference between momentum and energy
nor the equations used to calculate them.
>So many people are impressed by the high velocity of the plane, that
>they fail to even consider the vast difference in the densities of the
>colliding materials.
>
>Sure, density and mass aren't as "sexy" as speed, but of all the people
>in here, if placed in the driver seat of a Yugo and set on a collision
>course with that concrete wall in that video, how many of you would
>instinctively step on the gas?
>
>True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
>Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
>even greater factor.
>
>Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
>be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
>car?
>
And the relevance of this to an aircraft impact with a different type of
structure is what, exactly?
The 767's initial impact wasn't with a 'a steel and concrete building',
but only with the outer cladding. The tower's core was, wait for it, in
the MIDDLE of the structure and the outer skin was just that, a skin.
Just another konspiracy kook, coming to half-baked conclusions from
false premises.
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Keith Willshaw
<u2...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1161301498.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> As far as the nanimation goes, this is from the same Blog which
>
> True, the faster you hit the wall, the more damage you would do to it.
> Unfortunately, you would also damage yourself (and your Yugo) by an
> even greater factor.
>
> Now tell me, oh wise anonymous one...exactly how fast would I have to
> be driving that Yugo to break through the wall without damaging the
> car?
>
Who has claimed the aircraft that hit the twin towers were not damaged ?
> Class dismissed.
>
You obviously failed logic and physics 1
> === try number two ===
>
> Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into
> the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the
> pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point
> of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep
> hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just
> passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single
> step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit
> single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely
> absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number
> of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower
> for its entire length.
Bad assumption, the aircraft was crumpling as it penetrated, hence the
length travelled was rather shorter.
>
> This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and
> concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air.
No it means the tail didnt rapidly decelerate during the collision event
which is exactly what one would expect
> This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the
> 767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration
> of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of
> the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the
> street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building
> seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by
> an explostion.
No the damage is clearly visible
> This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't
> meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.
Not so, when a projectile, be it bullet or airframe hits a target
it deforms.
> During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as
> Laws of Physics.
Newtons laws are a small subset of the laws of physics
> They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and
> objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a
> force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the
> direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action
> produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these
> laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must
> decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before
> the resistence was encountered.
>
Indeed and as you have observed the tail of the aircraft behaved as
described.
> I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.
>
> Found on 911blogger. posted by Joseph M. Keith Tustin, CA
> apparently a retired aerospace engineer.
>
Hopefully they retired him before he could do any damage.
Keith
Robert Sturgeon
>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
That's right.
>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
Yawn...
>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>were not destroyed?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Robert Sturgeon
<orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <1161212775....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> u2...@gmx.net Again, boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a
>Sasquatch, inhaled a bunch of chemtrails, wet the bed, howled at the
>Moon and excreted:
>
>> You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>>
>> There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
>> planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
>> For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
>> assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
>> It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
>> pieces and fall into the street.
>
>
>Now we're back to the Klingon/Romulan notion.
>
>The planes came apart as they encountered other objects (floors, outer
>skin, center spine, office furniture, people, etc. Their sheer momentum
>acted as a tsunami, sweeping all before it. As the planes disintegrated,
>their fuel started a fuel/air explosion and created massive secondary
>fires on the impacted floors.
All the sane people know that.
The mainstream news media would like nothing better than to
pin 9/11 on Bush and the Evil Republicans. If there was
anything at all to indicate that Bush and the Evil
Republicans did it, the mainstream news media would be all
over the story. They aren't, because this 9/11 conspiracy
crap is nonsense, pure and simple.
(rest snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
David E. Powell
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> u2...@gmx.net wrote:
> > Dan, Griessel, Orval
> >
> > > >> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> >
> > > > I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
> >
> > Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
> >
> > But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
> > There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
> > engines.
> >
> >
> > > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
> > > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
> >
> >
> > I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
> > provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
> > researched oneselves.
> >
> > HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
> >
> > Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
> > searchable.
> >
> > Of course, right now, you just don't care.
> >
> > 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
> >
> > But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
> >
> > And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
> incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
> meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
> physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
> instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
> even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
> "mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
> physics.
Did you even consider they know more than pseudoscientists like you?
Sir, to call your understanding of physics "child like" is an insult to
children everywhere.
My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
> _vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
> thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
> and objective thought and analysis. The responses and feedback from
> this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
> the current state of affairs.
No. You're a dorf. That's the state of affairs. In the words of the
rec.sport.pro-wrestling policy for responding to trolls: You suck. Go
away.
> That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
> deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
> amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
> its realization.
Well, your posts aren't one of the greatest deceptions in history. In
fact, they are pretty lame, but I guess that's how it goes.
> > Me included.
Yeah, you suck too, original poster.
As for Dan, seeing as he is former Air Force, I think he would be a bit
more knowledgable about aircraft than you or I. I just know you and
your colleague in the conspiracy crowd are coo-coo for cocoa puffs.
Andrew Chaplin
More usually, "Lake Wobegon" "where the women are strong, the men are
good looking, and all the children are above average."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
Sorcerer
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1161377541.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If I recall correctly, Garrison Keillor said Lake Woebegone was
populated with Northern Europeans.
As I stated above, 50% of Europeans are above average.
I might remind everyone that the parrot that appeared on Monty
Python's Flying Circus was a Norwegian Blue, pining for the fjords.
Even our parrots are above average.
Androcles
Day Brown
> u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>
> pisses me off big time.
>
>
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Its becoming kinda obvious that there is no rebuttal, only ad hominum.
Day Brown
> On 18 Oct 2006 01:16:49 -0700, u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>>has all you need to know.
>>
>>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>>fantasies.
>>
>>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
>
> I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
> and those you count as your peers...
>
>
Oh, you dont have any facts to rebut with either?
Day Brown
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>
>
>
>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>
>
> Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
> cost in excess of $200 million
>
>
> What planet do you live on ?
>
>
> Keith
You are three so far that have no facts to rebut with, only ad hominum.
Day Brown
> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
of that effect.
>
> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.
> I needed the laugh this morning.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
hominum. Shall we go for four?
Day Brown
> The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
> conspiracies.
>
> It was hilarious.
>
> Here's a clip from it:
>
> http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
Sorry, I run Linux, not windoze.
But now, yours is the sixth that fails to provide any *facts* that can
be reasonably used to refute the 911 links.
Day Brown
> In article <1161157973....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
Day Brown
> On 18 Oct 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>
> That's right.
>
>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>
> Yawn...
resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go on,
but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's why 84%
now think there are questions that beg answers, which were not provided
here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
Keith Willshaw
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:8Si_g.88$fX6....@news.sisna.com...
I quoted facts that you chose not to rebut
You lose sucker
Keith
Dan
He did rebut with a fact.
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
> Well that's better, at least one fact. Which however, is not relevant.
> the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
> the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
> the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
> of that effect.
The cite said the wing spar were "hard and brittle" which I proved
they weren't. Instead of trying to insult me please accept that fact.
>>
>> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
>> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.
>
>> I needed the laugh this morning.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
> hominum. Shall we go for four?
My first point was perfectly relevant to the cite given. The comment
about the WTC being built to be pulverized to protect the foundations
was just that; a comment about a point made in the cite that was laughable.
Dan
Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
Dan
The "facts" given by the OP were NOT facts, just opinions base on a
blog that was utter manure on the face of it.
Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
of insulting him.
It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
that is exactly what you have been doing.
Dan
> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2...@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know I know...
>>>
>>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>>
>>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>
>> Yawn...
> This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
> resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go on,
> but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's why 84%
> now think there are questions that beg answers, which were not provided
> here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
So, other than being rude what have you to offer?
Johnny Bravo
>You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
>
>There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
>planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
>For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
>assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
Why? I can throw a brick through a window and I can take the same brick and
smash it into pea sized pieces and throw them together at the same speed and
they will still go through the window. In much the same manner that a shotgun
slug will go through plywood and buckshot will go through plywood.
>It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
>pieces and fall into the street.
<snip outrageous bullshit>
In 1945 a 10 ton army twin engined bomber smashed into the Empire State
building at a modest 200 mph. It went right through the steel girder and
concrete wall. Despite the low speed it did not smash into pieces and fall into
the street. In fact, the only things to hit the ground were small pieces of
debris and burning fuel.
>And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
>Easy- they are B2s.
>They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
>Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
ROTFLMAO. I served on a US airbase where the B2 was operated. When the front
landing gear failed on one of them in 1989, it didn't hover and float to the
ground. It flew all the way to Utah to do a vastly more dangerous wheels up
landing on a dry salt lake bed.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>Your contention is erroneous, in that it ignores the momentum of the
>disintegrating aircraft, which, even if it were a liquid, would impart
>enough dynamic pressure to sweep everything in its path.
Actually, when modeling the Pentagon crash, they treated the plane impact as
it were a liquid, just as they would model an avalanche of various sized rocks.
Orval Fairbairn
Day Brown <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote:
They are in the same category!
Johnny Bravo
>PROPOSITION 1:
> It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
>ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
> Collapse start time: 17 seconds
> Collapse end time: 23 seconds
> Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view¤t=911NewsReport.flv
Collapse start time: 3:25 (penthouse falls through the roof)
Collapse end time: 3:38 (roof hits the ground)
Total collapse time: 13 seconds.
Reality sucks, doesn't it.
Orval Fairbairn
Day Brown <dayb...@wildblue.net> whined:
Since the self=styled "9/11 'Truth' Seekers" have no facts other than
rank speculation to go on, I have to assume that they are nothing but a
bunch of technically incompetent loons whose only statement of fact is,
"I hate Bush, so he *HAD* to be involved!"
The diligence of their pursuit of the "truth" reminds me of O J
Simpson's pursuit of the *REAL* killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman.
Day, you are DISMISSED!
Johnny Bravo
>
>Dan wrote:>
>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
>
>SNIP
>
>JC on burnt toast!! If the damn spars were brittlle, the %$#& wings
>would fall off the first time they encountered a gust. I knew that, oh,
>around 12 or so....but then, I had an engineer father and actually knew
>how to read things like books on airplanes.....
One of my favorite bits on the Discovery channel showed Boeing testing a brand
new 757 to destruction. They held the plane up by the wing tips and applied
downward pressure until failure; when the spars finally gave the wing tips were
a good 6-8 feet above their normal position.
Johnny Bravo
Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
substantively" with?
Steve Hix
> Day Brown <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > In article <1161157973....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > u2...@gmx.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I know I know...
> > >>
> > >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> > >>
> > >>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> > >>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
> > >
> > >
> > > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> > > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> > > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
> > >
> > > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
And that signature would be what, exactly?
Dan
If it was the same show I saw it was a a lot more than 8 feet and I
believe it was a 777.
Day Brown
> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
"hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.
Starlord
spider Starship coming out of Hyperspace and using it's partical beam to
distroy them.
I live for the One ... I Die for the One.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Orval Fairbairn" <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-50BE...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Day Brown
> Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
> actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
> pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
> foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
> biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
> are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
> instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
> undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
> of insulting him.
>
> It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
> that is exactly what you have been doing.
have seen others do so. I do not defend everything in every harebrained
website, but it is abundantly clear to me that the 911 commission report
is simply not credible.
I did not say what I think was credible. I only commented on the point
about "hard and brittle", pointing out that at the speed of aircraft,
the term is appropriate. How flexible wings appear out the window of an
aircraft is not relevant. You could throw Jellow at the buildings at 500
mph and have devastating effects.
Perhaps you've not seen photos of wheat straw embedded in wood studs
after a tornado?
I have not said anyone was stupid or crazy. I have seen several others
in this thread do that, and realized that I was looking at a trend I had
seen in many other threads, most specifically having to do with anyone
who poses *questions*, not theories, about 911.
Day Brown
> Since the self=styled "9/11 'Truth' Seekers" have no facts other than
> rank speculation to go on, I have to assume that they are nothing but a
> bunch of technically incompetent loons whose only statement of fact is,
> "I hate Bush, so he *HAD* to be involved!"
if any that he played in 911.
But as for *facts*, I have gone to the 911 websites and looked at the
very same video that Big Media showed us all hundreds of times. The
images are about as factual as things in this world get. But then, I saw
how the webmasters slooooowed the video down, and began talking about
details (which is to say *facts* that you say dont exist) that are
evident in replay and freeze frame. The same as seen in sporting events
to have another look to better understand what happened.
> The diligence of their pursuit of the "truth" reminds me of O J
> Simpson's pursuit of the *REAL* killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
> Goldman.
>
> Day, you are DISMISSED!
Did Jesus give you that power? Scuze me, but I dont think he cares what
I say here. You may believe the case is closed, but its a free Web, and
you dont have the power to dismiss anyone.
Day Brown
>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
> substantively" with?
Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
*facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
soon after they convene.
There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
"facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.
If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.
But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress
makes of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.
No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a
concerted effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in
charge of the 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.
Day Brown
>> This is 8 posters in a row who were unable to come up with anything that
>> resembled a rigorous scientific analysis of the facts we have to go
>> on, but instead relied on lame humor and/or ad hominum. Maybe that's
>> why 84% now think there are questions that beg answers, which were not
>> provided here, by the 911 commission, or anywhere else.
>
>
> So, other than being rude what have you to offer?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
As for the facts of the issue at hand, that's in another post.
St. John Smythe
> its a free Web, and
> you dont have the power to dismiss anyone.
I thought this was Usenet. One of us is confused.
--
St. John
I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else.
-Winston Churchill
Keith Willshaw
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are *facts*.
> We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down.
The minor problem with that statement is that they have
in fact released preliminary reports.
For a printed copy of NIST-NCSTAR 1, contact NIST at inqu...@nist.gov.
Also available are CD sets containing all of the reports, from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), http://www.ntis.gov or 800-553-6847.
NTIS order number: PB2006-100819
> Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
Its called thoroughness, a concept alien to you.
Keith
slas
u2...@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
>
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.
Ironic: the people who accuse the 9/11 oubters of wearing "tinfoil
hats" are really the ones who should be wearing them.
slas
Ironic: the people who accuse the 9/11 doubters of wearing "tinfoil
Keith Willshaw
So you are now claiming that jello would be devatasting but a 767
should bounce off.
Hardly a credible position now is it ?
Keith
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>Na, it wasn't Klingons, you need to change your thinking to a Shadow Battle
>spider Starship coming out of Hyperspace and using it's partical beam to
>distroy them.
>
>I live for the One ... I Die for the One.
Maybe it was a White Star, they could have detected Shadow Agents in New York
and took out the towers to save the Earth before the Vorlons dropped by and took
out the whole planet.
Johnny Bravo
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
>> substantively" with?
>Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
>*facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>
>Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
>why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
Because four years ago a report was issued by the Structural Engineering
Institute of the American Society for Civil Engineers in conjunction with the US
government; with the assistance of the New York City Department of Design and
Construction, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, the American
Concrete Institute, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council of
American Structural Engineers, the International Code Council, the Council on
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations, the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers and the Masonry Society.
And it is just possible that they are giving themselves every opportunity to
make the best case possible that either confirms their previous work as reported
in the September 2002 report or conclusively refute it. Until such refutation
surfaces, I'm going to have to go with the collective wisdom of SEI/ACE, NIST,
OEM, the Port Authority, SEAoNY, ACI, AISC, CASE, ICC, CATBUH, SCSEA,
NFPA, SFPE and TMS.
>There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
>shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
>knowledgeable in controlled demolition.
And the footage shows that WTC7 took 13 seconds to fall.
>Do you regard their comments as
>"facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
>the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
>conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.
Really? Do your controlled demolitions ever show part of the building, a
penthouse in the WTC7 case, fall into the interior of the building and then
nothing happens for six seconds and then the rest of the building starts to come
down?
>If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.
You could always check out the Sep 2002 World Trade Center Building
Performance Study, chapter 5 deals with WTC7 and presents the alternative
explanation you are looking for.
>But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress
>makes of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.
Why? Does congress get some special government engineering training?
>No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
>what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
>speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a
>concerted effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in
>charge of the 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.
Rather than debate experts and evidence, ponder few points.
#1: It was only by random chance that WTC 7 was hit by a large piece of
debris and a fire started.
#2: Unless the Government has a time machine, there is no way they could have
known in advance that WTC 7 would catch on fire.
#3: No other building in the WTC complex was found to be wired for detonation.
That means that this controlled demolition was set up some time in the 12 hours
between the time the fire started and the building fell; otherwise the
government would have had to destroy a completely untouched building.
#4: Controlled demolition takes weeks, not days to set up; interior walls
have to be knocked out and structural members have to be partially cut through,
then the charges have to be placed. Note that no one working in WTC 7 reported
that people were in their offices destroying walls prior to or on 9/11. That
means that hundreds of engineers would have had to go into a smoke filled
burning building and perform weeks worth of prep work in less than 12 hours.
#5: City engineers were busy trying to repair a 20 inch broken water main in
the street right in front of WTC-7, they didn't see hundreds of people carrying
explosives into the building. Neither did the thousands of rescue workers,
hundreds of spectators or dozens of cameras. No one saw them enter, no one saw
them working, no one saw them leave.
#6: There is absolutely no motive to bring down an empty building that 99.99%
of the people in the US didn't even know existed. Not with the chances that the
prep work would be seen during the 12 hours that multiple cameras were focused
on the burning building.
In light of the above, it's a declaration of utter insanity to think that
either a) the government has a time machine, or b) that they sent hundreds of
invisible ninja engineers carrying tons of explosives into a smoke filled
burning building to do a couple of weeks worth of work in 12 hours and then
disappear without a trace, or c) that the government somehow snuck explosives
into WTC7 while it was built in 1985 so they could destroy it 16 years later.
Dan
The cite said "hard and brittle" it didn't specify under what
conditions. At 500 mph the spars would still bend before failing, that's
hardly brittle. I have seen the aftermath of aircraft collisions, have you?
David G. Nagel
The Military Channel has a show called GI Factory. A recent program
showed a bomb disposal technique where a slug of water is shot out of a
gun barrel using a 20 gage shot gun shell. The slug put a 4 inch entry
hole and a 10 exit hole in a cooler basket. The demonstrator pointed out
that at 20 feet all you got was wet but at 2 feet you got the
aforementioned holes. It's called "INERTIA". At and above a certain
velocity matter stops flowing and starts acting like a solid block.
Dave N
Dan
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>
> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
> soon after they convene.
>
> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
> the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
> conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.
OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by
controlled demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened
or removed, windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready
explosives are carefully installed in specific order and all are
connected with great lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought
down in seconds just remember it took weeks to prepare the building to
include hauling off tons of debris before the building site is safe for
demolition. In order for YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with
controlled demolition you have to be able to show us one of two things:
1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges
or
2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no
one noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors
didn't missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't
notice a mile or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.
Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
experts at all.
Orval Fairbairn
Day Brown <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote:
Day,
Now you are starting to make sense! Can't you just make the transition
from Jello at 500 kt to something a little harder -- say, a B757 at 500
kt, and loaded with fuel to start some massive primary and secondary
fires? Or is that a stretch of your abilities?
Dan
From the first post you made yesterday you accused us all of making
"ad hominum" attacks and not addressing the cite given. You persisted on
saying that even after some of us addressed the errors given in the
cite. Did it ever occur to you the best way to deal with a cite that
tells us the buildings were designed to pulverize to protect the
foundations is to laugh at it? You went out of your way to make your
comments so I'd say you were rude and I bet most people reading your
posts would agree.
Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
Dan,
I *HAD* to be the invisible space aliens mentioned in a thread in
sci.space.policy! That or a cloaked Romulan battle cruiser!
Dan
Either that or the buildings are all still there under cloak. No one
died, they were all bought off and put in the federal witness protection
program. Hey, it makes as much sense as the conspiracy theories I have
seen. Oops, was that an "ad hominum" attack?
Starlord
about as bad as those who belive there's a face on mars when all it is is a
wind blown hill that's now all the special at all.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:dTw_g.130$6B7.1...@news.sisna.com...
Starlord
elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
of this was seen to be going on on 911
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Gkz_g.31726$eZ4.2059@dukeread06...
Starlord
people SEE it happen, many of them also died afterwards when the building
crumbled after the fire from the jet fuel did it's job.
Saying the 911 report is not true or beliveable is the same as saying you
could walk across a stream of flowing hot lava.
END OF LINE
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:7Nw_g.129$LX6.1...@news.sisna.com...
Starlord
a WATER saw, shoots a stream of water over a 2inch gap and it'll cut just
about anything they want.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"David G. Nagel" <na...@core.com> wrote in message
news:12jlfkj...@corp.supernews.com...
Starlord
charges in it and then blew them. For those people I issure an invite to
take a swim in the living , flowing stream of lava coming from the volcano
in Hawaii.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:x2x_g.132$ZV6....@news.sisna.com...
David J. Hughes
> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>
>
Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
firing cable will be used.
In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance
circuits will be used from single firing signal.
IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as
a patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.
u2...@gmx.net
I don't think you really believe your own writing, you just play
devil's advocat.
I recommend the calm explanation type:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-275577066688213413
Ah yes ... and about the alledged 767 crashing into the WTC a friend
said this:
Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction! If the wall was breached
or not by the nose of the plane, then the steel of the outerwall would
receive force from the plane.
An equal amount of force would be received back by the plane from the
wall.
The direction of that resultant force would be in the opposite
direction of the aircraft's motion, since the alleged straight entry of
the plane into the building requires the plane's motion into the
building to have been perpendicular to the face of the building (i.e.
at a right angle, 90 degrees etc).
That resultant force would have caused a DECELLERATION of the plane,
and this should be aparrent when carrying out the above test.
But it is not.
The crash was not real.
Of course, most of that resultant force would have in reality smashed
the plane to bits.
The force on the nose of the aircraft would have crushed the cockpit,
and the decelleration from the impact would have caused the wings, with
all of the fuel and the weight of the engines to at least partially
shear off.
And the lift from the wing and tailplane would have pulled the rear of
the craft violently upwards on impact.
And the plane was banking to the left, and therefore rising to the left
as it is shown just before it hits the building.
That also should have caused the rear of the plane to be thrown
violently in that direction as the nose dug in and the diagonal rising
of the plane was suddenly stopped.
And finally terminal ballistics show that when the resultant force
caused deflection of the nose of the craft, the heavier part of the
plane further back should have kept it's momentum and continued to the
wall faster than the deflected front of the plane, causing the plane to
tumble into the outerwall.
Just like a rifle bullet tumbles when it penetrates kevlar.