From Where the WTC Demo Evidence Starts - Spheres
knews4...@yahoo.com
No "straw men" allowed.
Iarnrod
>
> No "straw men" allowed.
Then stop introducing them, nutbag,
knews4...@yahoo.com
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&feature=related
>
> No "straw men" allowed.
Everyone this is Loonrod.
She claims everything yet supports nothing.
She uses every loser tactic to distract threads.
You can decide her motives yourselves.
Now back to the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
Iarnrod
>
> > > No "straw men" allowed.
>
> > Then stop introducing them, nutbag,
>
> Everyone this is Loonrod.
Yes, thank you, I am the one who has been kicking your stupid kooker
ass over every single one of your lies.
> She claims everything yet supports nothing.
I prove everythign I say, of course, not in dispute, and I disprove
thoroughly all the lies you say. FACT.
> She uses every loser tactic to distract threads.
I prevail in every thread,of course, because I bring FACTS and SCIENCE
to the discussion rather than your debunked delusions.
> You can decide her motives yourselves.
I want people to be better informed and not be gullible sheeple like
you who reject reality and swallow physically impossible claims as
though they could be true, which ther are proven not to be.
> Now back to the evidence.
Your link was debunked years ago. It is evidence only of your
persistent mental disorder and pathological need to lie.
Michael Moroney
It's even more funny to watch the ChewToy always come back for more.
PV
Projection noted. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Spheres.
From where they come.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
"We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
Q. "How do you know they are not there?
"Because we didn't look."
NIST Official
Iarnrod
> Spheres.
> From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
Your "theories:" From where they come: http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
> "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> "Because we didn't look."
> NIST Official
CIte that quote, please. You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
shit up again!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Spheres.
> > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > "Because we didn't look."
> > NIST Official
>
> CIte that quote, please.
It is in a Gage or Jone's Lecture.
I'm looking for where.
>You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> shit up again!
If you watched the links I've posted you'd have seen it.
NFPA 921 Requires they look for incendiaries.
Read your NIST Report.
They didn't look.
knews4...@yahoo.com
This video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
At about minute 5.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Spheres.
> > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > NIST Official
>
> > CIte that quote, please. You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > shit up again!
>
> At about minute 5.
Thank you.
Once again you just proved yourself to be a pathological liar. NIST
did not say what you claim. Not even Jones says that. You again betray
your twisting delusional made-up claims as false.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Spheres.
> > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > NIST Official
>
> > CIte that quote, please.
>
> It is in a Gage or Jone's Lecture.
> I'm looking for where.
Good luck with that, because you won't find it. Hint: Neither Gage nor
Jones speaks for NIST.
You're really one confused little crack addict!
> >You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > shit up again!
>
> If you watched the links I've posted you'd have seen it.
No one is gonna watch that kookery for hours on end, except you
brainwashed sheeple. No, I told you before, if you wanna discuss
something, YOU NAME ONE THING and then give us the time that it
appears on the videos. THEN and ONLY then will I proceed to show how
you are proven wrong. I am not about to go on a hunt down a rabbit
hole for your non-existent claims that EVEN YOU won't name
specifically.
> NFPA 921 Requires they look for incendiaries.
> Read your NIST Report.
> They didn't look.
Sure they did.
There were none to find, kook.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 2, 11:58 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Spheres.
> > > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > > NIST Official
>
> > > CIte that quote, please. You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > > shit up again!
>
> > This video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
> > At about minute 5.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Once again you just proved yourself to be a pathological liar.
Projection noted.
>NIST
> did not say what you claim.
Then call J. Abel at the Hartford Advocate and tell him he's lying.
>Not even Jones says that.
Liar.
>You again betray
> your twisting delusional made-up claims as false.
Liar.
min. 4:59 - "NIST did not these steel samples (sulfidated, melted,
thin).
Investigating reporter J. Abel calls NIST and Spokesman Newman
responds.
min. 5:07 - "Was the field tested for thermite residues? (Required by
sec 921 code)
min. 5:25 Letter from NIST- "NIST did not test for the residue of
these compounds."
Reporter : "What about that letter stating NIST did not look for
thermite residues?"
min 5:45 NIST Spokesman - Newman, "Right, because there was no
evidence of that."
min 5:55 Q - "But how can you know there is no evidence if you don''t
look for it first?"
min 6:00 Newman/NIST- "If your looking for something that isn't there
your wasting your time."
(J. Abel, Hartford Advocate 29 Jan. 2008)
knews4...@yahoo.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 2, 11:45 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Spheres.
> > > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > > NIST Official
>
> > > CIte that quote, please.
>
> > It is in a Gage or Jone's Lecture.
> > I'm looking for where.
>
> Good luck with that, because you won't find it.
Liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
>Hint: Neither Gage nor
> Jones speaks for NIST.
>
No one claims they do.
The spokesman for NIST was Newman.
> You're really one confused little crack addict!
>
Dickhead.
> > >You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > > shit up again!
>
Liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
> > If you watched the links I've posted you'd have seen it.
>
> No one is gonna watch that kookery for hours on end,
Of course.
You are just like NIST, "We don't look for evidence."
>except you
> brainwashed sheeple.
USAma did it.
19 Hijackers.
Who is brainwashed?
http://framingtheworld.com/videos/politicalvideos/911videos/rgage/scienceof911/part5of5.html
>No, I told you before, if you wanna discuss
> something,
You don't discuss.
Yopu lie.
You spew.
You deny.
>YOU NAME ONE THING and then give us the time that it
> appears on the videos.
NFPA 921.
>THEN and ONLY then will I proceed to show how
> you are proven wrong. I am not about to go on a hunt down a rabbit
> hole for your non-existent claims that EVEN YOU won't name
> specifically.
>
I did it twice now.
> > NFPA 921 Requires they look for incendiaries.
> > Read your NIST Report.
> > They didn't look.
>
> Sure they did.
>
Liar.
> There were none to find, kook.
Liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
jmfbahciv
However, this subject will continue to show up because Art Bell's
program, which promotes the conspiracy, is rebroadcast.
/BAH
knews4...@yahoo.com
But the government has a "conspiracy theory" too.
Who's theory is backed by the EVIDENCE?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8119854514684528700#docid=3964499857359919664
Iarnrod
> On Mar 2, 11:07 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:58 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 2, 4:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Spheres.
> > > > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > > > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > > > NIST Official
>
> > > > CIte that quote, please. You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > > > shit up again!
>
> > > This video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
> > > At about minute 5.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Once again you just proved yourself to be a pathological liar.
>
> Projection noted.
On your pat,of course. This is not in dispute.
> >NIST
> > did not say what you claim.
>
> Then call J. Abel at the Hartford Advocate and tell him he's lying.
Why? You're the one lying, kookshit, not him.
> >Not even Jones says that.
>
> Liar.
<chuckle> You failed to watch your own video cite again! I can tell
because you're caught here in a blatant lie. Hint: Watch it.
> >You again betray
> > your twisting delusional made-up claims as false.
>
> Liar.
And now you will proceed to prove you're lying, all by yourself:
> min. 4:59 - "NIST did not these steel samples (sulfidated, melted,
> thin).
> Investigating reporter J. Abel calls NIST and Spokesman Newman
> responds.
>
> min. 5:07 - "Was the field tested for thermite residues? (Required by
> sec 921 code)
> min. 5:25 Letter from NIST- "NIST did not test for the residue of
> these compounds."
> Reporter : "What about that letter stating NIST did not look for
> thermite residues?"
> min 5:45 NIST Spokesman - Newman, "Right, because there was no
> evidence of that."
> min 5:55 Q - "But how can you know there is no evidence if you don''t
> look for it first?"
> min 6:00 Newman/NIST- "If your looking for something that isn't there
> your wasting your time."
> (J. Abel, Hartford Advocate 29 Jan. 2008)
THANK YOU, knowsknothing, for once again proving graphically and
beyond all doubt that you are a pathological LIAR!!
HERE is the quote you were asked to cite. READ IT and then wrap what
remains of your crack-addled brain around the FACT that it is NOT the
same quote, luzer:
YOU cited NIST as saying this:
"We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
Q. "How do you know they are not there?
"Because we didn't look."
NIST Official
PROOF POSITIVE of the LYING TWISTING EVIL FABRICATIONS of what
jokingly calls itself the "Truth Movement," which actually depends on
LIES to thrive.
How many times is this that you've actually done my own work for me by
PROVING IN BLACK AND WHITE and without question that you are a
pathological liar, knowsknothing?
BWAHAHAAAHAHAAAAA!!!!
<sips Victory Iced Tea>
Iarnrod
All as phony as your lying misquote of NIST!!
THANK YOU, knowsknothing, for pulling your own ripcord on this one,
you are now a SELF-PROVEN LIAR!
PV
>Spheres.
>From where they come.
>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
Total horsehit, as has been pointed out to you 97 times. If the idiots who
collected this "evidence" weren't on your side, you'd laugh at them. *
Iarnrod
> On Mar 2, 11:07 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:45 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Spheres.
> > > > > From where they come.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> > > > Your "theories:" From where they come:http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothing
>
> > > > > "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know they're not there."
> > > > > Q. "How do you know they are not there?
> > > > > "Because we didn't look."
> > > > > NIST Official
>
> > > > CIte that quote, please.
>
> > > It is in a Gage or Jone's Lecture.
> > > I'm looking for where.
>
> > Good luck with that, because you won't find it.
>
> Liar.
BWAHAHAHAA!!! Your charade doesn’t work now that you are a SELF-PROVEN
LIAR by posting the actual transcript that DOES NOT MATCH the quote
you posted!!!
YOU PROVED YOURSELF A LIAR, knowsknothing. How does it feel to be a
complete fuckin’ idiot?
> >Hint: Neither Gage nor
> > Jones speaks for NIST.
>
> No one claims they do.
You do.
> The spokesman for NIST was Newman.
And he did not say "We didn't look for incendiaries because we know
they're not there." Q. "How do you know they are not there? "Because
we didn't look."
You LIED and you stupidly CONFIRMED that you LIED. You are indeed
pathological by putting out the proof that you lied and claiming it
proved you correct. That is pure delusion, to post a DIFFERENT QUOTE
and think we your betters wouldn’t notice they were DIFFERENT.
Ladies and gentleman, this lying sack of shit who calls himself
knowsknothing is typical of the pathology of lies perpetrated by the
“Truth” movement. Truth is always the first casualty of these lying
ignoramuses. FACT. Proven fact now by their own admission!
THANKS, knowsknothing! You proved yourself to be a liar even better
than I did!
> > You're really one confused little crack addict!
>
> Dickhead.
Ok, I accept your correction. You are one confused little dickhead.
Happy?
> > > >You can't and you won't. Hint: Yer making
> > > > shit up again!
>
> Liar.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
That proves you lied, moron. THANKS!
> > > If you watched the links I've posted you'd have seen it.
>
> > No one is gonna watch that kookery for hours on end,
>
> Of course.
> You are just like NIST, "We don't look for evidence."
NIST looked at all the evidence, shit for brains. Try to develop your
thinking skills. There WAS no evidence of thermite. Thermite did not
exist at the WTC. Proven FACT.
> >except you
> > brainwashed sheeple.
>
> Usama did it.
Yes, he did. You’re right. Usama bin Laden has on many occasions
admitted being behind it. Thank you.
> 19 Hijackers.
Correct. They even made martyr videos beforehand.
> Who is brainwashed?
You are of course. This is not even remotely in dispute.
> >No, I told you before, if you wanna discuss
> > something,
>
> You don't discuss.
You give us nothing to discuss. You REFUSE to NAME ONE THING wrong
about the official findings. All you have is foaming blather. There is
nothing to discuss until you make a claim, dearie. DO IT and stop
stalling.
> You lie.
Oh the IRONY now that you are a self-proven liar!! Too funny!
NAME ONE THING I have lied about. You can’t and you won’t.
> You deny.
I deny your lies and, of course, have proven so, not in dispute.
> >YOU NAME ONE THING and then give us the time that it
> > appears on the videos.
>
> NFPA 921.
What about it? That is not a claim, it’s a document. NAME ONE THING.
Hint: I’m gonna love kicking your ass over this one!
> >THEN and ONLY then will I proceed to show how
> > you are proven wrong. I am not about to go on a hunt down a rabbit
> > hole for your non-existent claims that EVEN YOU won't name
> > specifically.
>
> I did it twice now.
You haven’t yet done it once, pumpkin. Keep going…
> > > NFPA 921 Requires they look for incendiaries.
> > > Read your NIST Report.
> > > They didn't look.
>
> > Sure they did.
>
> Liar.
You’re the self-admitted liar now, knowsknothing.
Quote the NFPA 921 section that requires they look for incendiaries.
Hint: You can’t and you won’t.
You’re in over your head, kook, which is easy in your case!
> > There were none to find, kook.
>
> Liar.
PROVEN FACT that you cannot deny, you self-proven liar.
It is physically impossible for thermite to do what was done on 9/11.
Your man found printer toner residue.
NEWS FLASH!!!
KNOWSKNOTHING THINKS COMPUTER PRINTER TONER BROUGHT DOWN THE WTC!!
Iarnrod
> Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
from the TRUTH that I have stated:
NO THERMITE was used at the WTC and further, thermite is physically
incapable of producing the collapses that occurred. In a nutshell, it
could not have happened even if your cartoon magic invisible gravity
defying thermite had been present, which it wasn’t. FACT.
By the way, knowsknothing, at what point did it dawn on you that your
NIST quote was fabricated and that you actually had posted the proof
that you lied when you later posted the actual words that were used?
Hmmmmmm? How does it feel to have pulled your own grenade pin, moron,
and PROVE you are the liar here?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>
> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>
> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>
> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC and further, thermite is physically
> incapable of producing the collapses that occurred.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
>In a nutshell, it
> could not have happened even if your cartoon magic invisible gravity
> defying thermite had been present, which it wasn’t. FACT.
>
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
> By the way, knowsknothing, at what point did it dawn on you that your
> NIST quote was fabricated and that you actually had posted the proof
> that you lied when you later posted the actual words that were used?
> > This video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
> > At about minute 5.
> Thank you.
Projection noted.
Liar.
Liar.
> Hmmmmmm? How does it feel to have pulled your own grenade pin, moron,
> and PROVE you are the liar here?
Fluuuuuuuuuuuuushshshshshshsh............
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> >Spheres.
> >From where they come.
> >http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> Total horsehit, as has been pointed out to you 97 times. If the idiots who
> collected this "evidence" weren't on your side, you'd laugh at them. *
> --
> * PV
Then get the USGS to hand over their samples.
http://www.google.com/search?q=USGS+WTC+DUST+spheres&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Henry
> I prevail in every thread,of course, because I bring FACTS and SCIENCE
> to the discussion rather than your debunked delusions.
Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
of tons of steel. <chuckle>
From Richard Gage founder of http://www.ae911truth.org
whihc now has over 1000 members.
"TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing � as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse � that
the structure had to have been removed � forcibly � by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel � because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)"
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Iarnrod
wrote:
> Iarnrod has been kicking kooker ass in my absence; I miss getting my ass kicked:
HANKIE!!! You BACK!!! The mental hospital has you out on a day pass!
Now SHOW these subgrade level moron kooks what a REAL kook is like!!
> > I prevail in every thread,of course, because I bring FACTS and SCIENCE
> > to the discussion rather than your debunked delusions.
>
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
Easy peasy, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor, that is not what
happened, Q.E.D!
Not free fall!! 16+ seconds is at least HALF the speed of freefall.
I would think while you were undergoing Electroshock Therapy, you
could have invested in a watch with a second hand.
<chuckle>
> From Richard Gage founder ofhttp://www.ae911truth.org
> whihc now has over 1000 members.
Kooker nutbags, all!
> "TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
>
> Dear Dr. Sunder,
>
> We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
> it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
> Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing as we now have
> over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
> investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
> high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
> when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Why take seriously a group that calls non-engineers "engineers" and
advocates things that are anti-physics and proven to be physically
impossible?
> Here are our talking points:
>
> 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
> fatal flaws:
Yet they can never seem to NAME ONE.
> a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
> for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
> experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth.
The final 6.5 seconds when near-freefall of the only remaining
elements took place is the completion of a total 16+ second global
collapse that proceeded progressively from the southeast corner on
Vesey Street and contonued to consume the whole structure.
A&E for 9/11 Nutbaggery always argues from disproven premises. EPIC
FAIL.
> Yet you do not
> acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse that
> the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
Yet A&E does not acknowledge the proven fact that there were no
explosives.
> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
> converted to motion.)"
Wrong.
But seriously, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor, welcome back!
Wait'll harry and george and BDK and Animal find out you're
volunteering again for getting your ass kicked! SHOW this moron
knowsknothing what TRUE kooker insanity is really like!! You're a
classic!
Iarnrod
> On Mar 3, 8:52 am, Turdrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> crapped more lies with:> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>
> > Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>
Hey knowsknothing, NAME ONE THING in that completely debunked link
that you still “think” is true! You can’t and you won’t, because I
thoroughly debunked it.
> > YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
> > from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=USGS+WTC+DUST+spheres&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-...
Hey knowsknothing, NAME ONE THING in that completely debunked link
that you still “think” is true! You can’t and you won’t, because I
thoroughly debunked it.
> > NO THERMITE was used at the WTC and further, thermite is physically
> > incapable of producing the collapses that occurred.
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Hey knowsknothing, NAME ONE THING in that completely debunked link
that you still “think” is true! You can’t and you won’t, because I
thoroughly debunked it.
> >In a nutshell, it
> > could not have happened even if your cartoon magic invisible gravity
> > defying thermite had been present, which it wasn’t. FACT.
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
Hey knowsknothing, NAME ONE THING in that completely debunked link
that you still “think” is true! You can’t and you won’t, because I
thoroughly debunked it.
> > By the way, knowsknothing, at what point did it dawn on you that your
> > NIST quote was fabricated and that you actually had posted the proof
> > that you lied when you later posted the actual words that were used?
> > > This video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&feature=related
> > > At about minute 5.
> > Thank you.
> > Once again you just proved yourself to be a pathological liar.
>
> Projection noted.
On your part of course.
I PROVED that you have proven yourself to be a liar, and you have the
stupidity to actually REPOST the proof that you are a lying sack of
shit below! THANKS! Like I said, on a typical day I kick your ass
about 10 times. TODAY YOU are doing a better job kicking your own ass!
I deserve a light day!
> >NIST
> > did not say what you claim.
>
> Then call J. Abel at the Hartford Advocate and tell him he's lying.
He isn’t; YOU are. You ALTERED the words to say something different.
This is known as LYING.
> >Not even Jones says that.
>
> Liar.
Your own cite proved me right.
> >You again betray
> > your twisting delusional made-up claims as false.
>
> Liar.
Yep, that’s you!
> min. 4:59 - "NIST did not these steel samples (sulfidated, melted,
> thin).
> Investigating reporter J. Abel calls NIST and Spokesman Newman
> responds.
>
> min. 5:07 - "Was the field tested for thermite residues? (Required by
> sec 921 code)
> min. 5:25 Letter from NIST- "NIST did not test for the residue of
> these compounds."
> Reporter : "What about that letter stating NIST did not look for
> thermite residues?"
> min 5:45 NIST Spokesman - Newman, "Right, because there was no
> evidence of that."
> min 5:55 Q - "But how can you know there is no evidence if you don''t
> look for it first?"
> min 6:00 Newman/NIST- "If your looking for something that isn't there
> your wasting your time."
> (J. Abel, Hartford Advocate 29 Jan. 2008)
THANK YOU for reposting the proof that you lied when you claimed NIST
has said something else.
> > Hmmmmmm? How does it feel to have pulled your own grenade pin, moron,
> > and PROVE you are the liar here?
>
> Fluuuuuuuuuuuuushshshshshshsh............
There you go again, lying turd, down the hole!! AT YOUR OWN HAND, no
less!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>
> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>
> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>
> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
It doesn't matter what you think.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Henry
> <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)"
> Wrong.
Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
of tons of steel. <chuckle>
From Richard Gage founder of http://www.ae911truth.org
which now has over 1000 members.
"TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing � as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse � that
the structure had to have been removed � forcibly � by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel � because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)"
Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire
resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free fall speed? We know
that gradual weakening due to the gradual heating of a few columns
can't cause that. Take a look for yourself. WTC7 on the left - known
demolition on the right. What you see are two controlled demolitions.
Gradual asymmetric heating can't possibly do that to a hurricane and
earthquake resistant, highly redundant and resilient steel framed
structure. Your cartoon conspiracy theory requires you to believe that
partial equals total, gradual equals instant, and asymmetric equals
symmetric. It's an absurd and physically impossible fantasy - even a
form of insanity.
Does it strike you as unusual that in spite of requests from
hundreds of people, NIST refused to test the evidence for
explosive residue of any kind? WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid, total, symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual, partial, localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition wasn't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about modern
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST's reports on the WTC, and its periodic
responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before.
But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved
in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of
nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology."
"4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and
materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President
George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary
of defense, former director of DARPA's office of materials science,
and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders
in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005)."
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
Henry
> On Mar 3, 8:52 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>>
>> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
>> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>>
>> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
>
> It doesn't matter what you think.
Ironhead doesn't think - quite =simply= spews for the
amusement of its many betters... <>g>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Out of curiousity, are you cheating on taking what I assume are
> your prescribed meds?
To the helpless, clueless, gullible sheep that are limited to
hiding behind their killfiles, spewing childish drivel and/or
lies about my Mother, my career, or =simply= spewing childish,
grade school "insults" at those of us who display the intelligence
and courage to challenge the lies and crimes of our government -
thanks for helping me prove my points so effectively, convincingly,
and consistently. ;-)
If there are any followers of the "official" conspiracy theory
reading this thread who have the ability to read, think, and defend
their beliefs with something more intelligent than grade school
drivel, here are a few questions for you. C'mon, try to defend your
conspiracy theory with a trace of logic and reality - it'll be fun. <vbg>
1. How did ordinary office fires cause the severe high temperature
vaporization of steel, as documented in the link below?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
2. NIST's latest conspiracy theory states that an explosion
loud enough to destroy the one column who's failure they imagine
somehow caused the entire steel frame to suddenly disintegrate
and drop at free fall speed would have been louder than any of
the many explosions that were heard. How does this claim rule out
the use of thermite or nano thermite, which cuts steel with far
less noise and would explain the vaporised steel, the extremely
high temperatures, the free fall speed, and the symmetry of the
demolition?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
3. How did the BBC "learn" that WTC7 "collapsed" 20 minutes
before the actual "collapsed"? It looks like they were handed
a script and read it too early. If you have another plausible
explanation, please do share it - it'll be fun. <vvbg>
4. Since no steel framed building has ever "collapsed"
in a manner that even *remotely* resembles a controlled
demolition, why did the Bush regime refuse to consider the
obvious and test the evidence for demolition? The Bearded Cave
man is a very clever, capable, and formidable foe. Since he can
shut down the entire North Eastern United States air defense
network and leave our Capitol undefended for almost and hour
after the first tower was hit, certainly he can demolish a
skyscraper. So why refuse to test the evidence for demolition,
given that hundreds of experts have suggested that NIST do
so?
5. Hundreds of experts agree that the instant, total, and
symmetric failure of a hurricane and earth quake resistant
steel framed skyscraper can not possibly be caused by the
gradual asymmetric failure of some steel supports due to
gradual heating. Here is a small sampling of these experts
and their research..
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Where, exactly, do you believe these experts are in error?
Remember, grade school "insults" only weaken your conspiracy
theory and make Bush parroting cartoon cave man conspiracy
theorists seem helpless, ignorant, and deluded. <g>
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Iarnrod
> On Mar 3, 8:52 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>
> > Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>
> > YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
> > from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>
> > NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
>
> It doesn't matter what you think.
Correct. Even if I did not think this, it would remain true. You need
to understand this.
But thankfully, for the sake of komedy gold on usenet, you never will!
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> tried to pass off his delusions onto his many
betters:
> Iarnrod resumed spanking Hankie's stupid kooker ass in her Fabled Woodshed of Truth:
> > <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
> >> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
> >> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
> >> converted to motion.)"
> > Wrong.
>
> Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
> class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Apparently you still have access to chemicals to huff even after being
fired as the night janitor, Hankie.
Physics contradicts you and corroborates me. As far as logic, you will
never get within striking distance of it!
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed
This delusion of yours did not occur. I would think the pawn shop near
your weekly-rate hotel would sell a watch with a second hand. Suggest
you use it.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>I keep saying "impossible".
>See I told you.
>When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
>motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
>The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
>right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
>at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
>This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
>virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
>absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
>of heat."
You finally got it.
Good for you.
Iarnrod
>When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
>motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
Lie.
>The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
>right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
>at that rate until out of sight.
Only the part of the roof that was the last to fall after the eastern
portion was already lying in a state of rest across Vesey Street from
falling 16 seconds before, kook.
> There is no hint of a slow start.
There is, of course, in all of the videos that do not selectively edit
and instead choose to start only at the point of the north and west
curtain wall collapse at the end.
OPEN YER EYES and watch the FULL videos, moron.
>This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
>virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
>absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
>of heat."
It wasn't. It was due to dynamic load, idiot.
Henry
> On Mar 3, 8:52 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>>
>> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
>> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>>
>> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
>
> It doesn't matter what you think.
Ironhead doesn't think - quite =simply= spews for the
amusement of its many betters... <>g>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
If there are any followers of the "official" conspiracy theory
Henry
> <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)"
> Wrong.
Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
of tons of steel. <chuckle>
From Richard Gage founder of http://www.ae911truth.org
which now has over 1000 members.
"TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed ? forcibly ? by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)"
Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
PV
> Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
>class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
As opposed to knews and your stupid asses, who don't understand even the
things you repeat over and over? Hint: you're way dumber than you think you
are.
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
>WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
>crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
>of tons of steel. <chuckle>
Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
can't. The truthtards have this weird idea that if they can show a small
portion of the collapse happened a freefall speed, that must mean the whole
thing did. Here's a thought experiment:
Take a one ton weight and haul it up 300 feet in the air with a crane.
Start filming as you lower it towards the ground at 20 feet per second,
and when it reaches 100 feet above the ground, cut the cable holding the
weight.
View just the last 2 seconds of the film. What does that part of
the film look like, and what does it tell you about the entire trip
that the weight made from the top of the crane? It's a highschool physics
problem, figure it out. *
Iarnrod
wrote:
> Ironhead doesn't think - quite =simply= spews for the
> amusement of its many betters... <>g>
Hmmm, then explain how I have consistently proven you wrong, Hankie?
Has your unemployment from Cornell run out yet?
Then explain
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
> >> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
> >> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
> >> converted to motion.)"
> > Wrong.
>
> Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
> class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Hmmm, must be a mystery to you then how I manage to prove you wrong
all the time, eh, Janitor Boy?
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed
Well, Little Hankie, it didn't. FACT. <chuckle> I see you haven't yet
invested in a watch with a second hand!
spudnik
what its primary use is?
thus:
perhaps, the answer lays in front of you;
how well do you see, underwater?
thus:
the funny thing about this thread, is that
There Are No Electrons -- oops;
that was a pedagogical treatise on "basic electronics,"
I suppose, using hydraulics analogies etc.
I meant, there clearly are no photons,
in the same way that there are no phonons,
except in a delimited "quantization" or math
(the photoelctrical instrumentation e.g.)
"Death to the lightcone; long-live the lightcone!"
thus quoth:
The negative AO has brought warmer temperatures to the arctic but has
also lead to wind patterns that tend to keep the ice intact. If the
AO stays negative then this year's September ice coverage minimum
should be fairly normal. It was wind patterns, and not temperature,
that lead to the record arctic ice lost in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
thus:
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
what the Hell;
do what ever you were going to do with your typewriter,
anyway. if we can get a Psalm per century out
of you two, we'll win the Lotto!
> How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
cop welfare
wrote:
> It's funny to watch Iarnrod playing with her ChewToy and tearing it apart.
> It's even more funny to watch the ChewToy always come back for more.
piss on larnrod.
is the world going to change if she suddenly manages to come out of
her drug fog and admit that there is room for doubt on some issues?
no.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 2, 3:45 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > It's funny to watch Iarnrod playing with her ChewToy and tearing it apart.
> > It's even more funny to watch the ChewToy always come back for more.
>
> piss on larnrod.
Like you could, you dickless wonder. You piss your pants.
> is the world going to change if she suddenly manages to come out of
> her drug fog and admit that there is room for doubt on some issues?
> no.
NAME ONE THING that is doubtful about the official findings,
buttercup. You can't and you won't. You're afwaid.
You are an impotent dickless kook who can't accept reality, and worse,
you can't even say why.
Try it.. NAME ONE THING wrong with the official findings. You can't.
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> writes:
>> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
>> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
>> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
>> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> can't.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
that fact. As always, here's proof.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread418776/pg1
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> NAME ONE THING that is doubtful about the official findings,
> buttercup. You can't and you won't. You're afwaid.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> lied:
> PV wrote:
> > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> >> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> >> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
> >> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> >> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> > Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> > can't.
>
... that Hank the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor cannot explain how he
gets around the FACT that his claims have been disproven and are
physically impossible. <chuckle>
you conspiracy
> Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
> that fact.
No, it hasn't, actually. You're just, as usual, lying about what is
being said, nothing new about you being deluded!
> As always, here's proof.
Proof of your mental impairment, yes.
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread418776/pg1
"Above Top Secret" is not NIST, Hankie. I know you're stupid but are
you really this stupid?
HERE is NIST: http://wtc.nist.gov/
That's a good little kook.
Iarnrod
> Ironhead continued to amuse its many betters with the following idiocy:
>
> > NAME ONE THING that is doubtful about the official findings,
> > buttercup. You can't and you won't. You're afwaid.
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml
Oooops, try again, Hankie!! Political polemic is not the answer.
Hint: I knew you would fail!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > Ironhead continued to amuse its many betters with the following idiocy:
>
> > > NAME ONE THING that is doubtful about the official findings,
The "findings" draw no provable conclusions.
They can't "find" anything because they ignore evidence.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
> > > buttercup. You can't and you won't. You're afwaid.
>
> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml
>
> Oooops, try again, Hankie!! Political polemic is not the answer.
>
> Hint: I knew you would fail!
Liar-rod "thinks" lies are polemic.
Oh Boy!
No wonder she is so lost.
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> writes:
>> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
>> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
>> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
>> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> can't.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
that fact. As always, here's proof.
Nine minutes into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
More proof of free fall.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Iarnrod
> On Mar 5, 8:34 am, Iiar-rod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > > Ironhead continued to amuse its many betters with the following idiocy:
>
> > > > NAME ONE THING that is doubtful about the official findings,
>
> The "findings" draw no provable conclusions.
>
> > > > buttercup. You can't and you won't. You're afwaid.
>
> > > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml
>
> > Oooops, try again, Hankie!! Political polemic is not the answer.
>
> > Hint: I knew you would fail!
>
> Liar-rod "thinks" lies are polemic.
Actually, your lies are both, knowsknothing.
WHERE'S YOUR ONE THING that you "think" is wrong with the official
findings, kook? Stop stalling. You look stupid enough. Time to end it
and jump off the cliff and just NAME ONE THING and then take the ass-
kicking that will follow.
> No wonder she is so lost.
Holy SHIT, the irony is palpable!
Iarnrod
Janitor <9-11tr...@experts.org> flailed hopelessly in front of his
many betters:
> PV wrote:
> > Hankie the Self-Professed Fired Failure of a Janitor <9-11tr...@experts.org> flailed hopelessly in front of his many betters:<9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> >> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> >> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
> >> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> >> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> > Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> > can't.
>
> I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
> spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
> obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
> that fact. As always, here's proof.
>
> Nine minutes into the video.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
>
> More proof of free fall.
You stupid moron fired janitor, THAT IS THE FINAL SIX SECONDS!! It was
the north wall, and it came at the end of the more than 16 seconds of
total collapse of the building. At this point, not much was left of
the south side of the building, which already was draped across Vesey
Street. Don't you remember, I kicked your stupid kooker ass over this
before. The collapse of WTC7 took in excess of 16 seconds. nowhere
near freefall. In your link, NIST is reporting on the rate of collapse
of the north wall, which was the last thing to fall and of course with
no supports and its lower columns buckling under the excessive
transferred load, was close to free fall.
Nothing about this indicates any use of yoru physically ipossible
cartoon magic silent and invisib;e eplosives, which it has been proven
were not used,
Good gawd, you;re dumb. Exactly what chemicals did you ingest before
getting fired from the Cornell lab night janitorial shift?
spudnik
of "Dick cheeny in the basement with Thermite (tm);" so,
do you know what thermite is primarily used for, and how?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
thus:
I believe that commercial airliners, generally,
do not engage in "level flight," but
make some kind of *trajectory*, akin
to the brachistochrone (for the "ray-tracing"
of light in a stratified medium, air e.g.). also,
note that Fermat's least-time principle is done
in terms of rays (or the phictive foton), but
that is just a formality.
the trajectory wouldn't be bilaterally symmetrical
around the highest reach, because of drag & so forth;
eh?
thus:
there is no need of a resolution between wave & particle;
they are just formal duals -- don't try to us both,
at the same time!
heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong
with saying that light "goes from A to B instantaneuosly
in its own frame of reference," except that
it doesn't have one, nor is aether necessitated as such.
(there is no vacuum; it's just a verb.)
thus quoth:
“Its [corpuscular theory] place is taken by the undulatory theory,
first suggested by Huygens in 1690, reconciled to some extent with
the
discoveries of Newton by Euler, advocated by Hartley, and finally
established by a study of the phenomenon of interference by Thomas
Young and by Fresnel. This theory gives a complete explanation of all
phenomena of light. According to this view, light, objectively
considered, is simply a mode of motion of a substance called the
luminiferous ether which pervades not only what is commonly regarded
as space, but also all translucent substances. By the molecular
movements of luminous bodies, this ether is set vibrating in a series
of waves.”
thus:
ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).
thus:
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
thus:
didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
as http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- or knot.
> http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
thus:
the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
(tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
the speed of sound depends upon the density
of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
at sea-level!
PV
> I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
>spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
Excuse me, I think you have a very confused idea what conspiracy theories
are. And I don't think NIST "acknowledged" anything in an offical manner on
a kooktard site.
Also noted - you can't do highschool physics problems. Who's ignorant
here? *
PV
>You stupid moron fired janitor, THAT IS THE FINAL SIX SECONDS!! It was
Notice how I gave the kooktards a physics problem which a reasonably clever
9th grader could finish in a couple of minutes, and they both skipped right
over it.
These are not smart people. *
Iarnrod
Henry cleaned up science labs on the night shift before he was fired,
he "thinks" that gives him some kind of "knowledge." <chuckle>
cop welfare
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
yuk yuk yuk
Iarnrod
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1...
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
You're amused by the antics of an admitted mass killer?
cop welfare
Iarnrod
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=PlayList&p=0218920...
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
> yuk yuk yuk
People dying in an attack by Muslim extremists amuses you?
spudnik
produce a catastrophic collapse that is essentially "free falling;"
it is particularly true of "skyscrapers" that were built
with only secondary consideration given to tension (that is to say,
they are heavily over-engineered; see "tensegrity,' if
you can restrain yourself from googoling it .-)
thus:
the OP's 2-meter-per-second-or-less turbines wouldn't neccesarily
scale
for higher speeds; that's the problem with wind's huge dynamic range
(and this applies just as much to drag
on vehicles -- no dragsters with good mileage), although
I'm not sure of the power-law, since I have not proven it, myself.
thus:
I never saw that bin Laden really claimed that Queda did it, nor
have I seen proof that President Cheeny didn't allow it (or,
possibly just some thing, acoording to Mineta) to happen. But,
who are the muslim phsikists, who think that those planes had
constituted inadequate bombs (per comparison
to what is required for Cheeny to do it in the basement
for a week with the engineer) ??
> Now our enemies know we were hoodwinked too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6251AO20100306
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of
Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> writes:
>> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
>> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
>> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
>> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> can't.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
that fact. As always, here's proof.
Nine minutes into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
More proof of free fall.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/49
Henry
> Excuse me, I think you have a very confused idea what conspiracy theories
> are.
Yours is based on the magic powers of a bearded man living
in a cave thousands of miles away, from where he can suspend
the principles of physics and shut down NORAD at will. <chuckle>
> Also noted - you can't do highschool physics problems. Who's ignorant
> here? *
Since you believe the government's insane physics, reality, and
evidence defying cave man conspiracy theory, that'd be you.
Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving that the
government's 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
impossible.
Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent manner.
They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating grade school
kook drivel, though... <g>
Example #1:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing � as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse � that
the structure had to have been removed � forcibly � by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel � because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)
Example #2.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
Summary
"The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
collision with the lower section of the building indicates
that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
weight on the lower section of the building. Any accretion
of material into the upper block would have acted as an
inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further.
The undamaged lower section of the building was built to
support several times the weight of the material above it,
but whether or not we take the safety factor into account,
the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have
been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen
in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top
section of the building is strong confirmation that some other
source of energy was used to remove the structure below it,
allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance.
Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling
block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that,
given the observed acceleration, such a block could not
possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building.
When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the
hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a
fiction. Videos show that the section of the building above
the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate.
It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of
destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the
roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further
evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it
was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point.
We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact,
it could not have played a significant role in the destruction
of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of
a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger
lower section of same structure by gravity alone."
Henry
> On Mar 3, 8:52 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 9:23 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
>> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>>
>> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
>> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>>
>> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
>
> It doesn't matter what you think.
Ironhead doesn't think - quite =simply= spews for the
amusement of its many betters... <>g>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
If there are any followers of the "official" conspiracy theory
reading this thread who have the ability to read, think, and defend
their beliefs with something more intelligent than grade school
drivel, here are a few questions for you. C'mon, try to defend your
conspiracy theory with a trace of logic and reality - it'll be fun. <vbg>
1. How did ordinary office fires cause the severe high temperature
vaporization of steel, as documented in the link below?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
2. NIST's latest conspiracy theory states that an explosion
loud enough to destroy the one column who's failure they imagine
somehow caused the entire steel frame to suddenly disintegrate
and drop at free fall speed would have been louder than any of
the many explosions that were heard. How does this claim rule out
the use of thermite or nano thermite, which cuts steel with far
less noise and would explain the vaporised steel, the extremely
high temperatures, the free fall speed, and the symmetry of the
demolition?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
3. How did the BBC "learn" that WTC7 "collapsed" 20 minutes
before the actual "collapsed"? It looks like they were handed
a script and read it too early. If you have another plausible
explanation, please do share it - it'll be fun. <vvbg>
4. Since no steel framed building has ever "collapsed"
in a manner that even *remotely* resembles a controlled
demolition, why did the Bush regime refuse to consider the
obvious and test the evidence for demolition? The Bearded Cave
man is a very clever, capable, and formidable foe. Since he can
shut down the entire North Eastern United States air defense
network and leave our Capitol undefended for almost and hour
after the first tower was hit, certainly he can demolish a
skyscraper. So why refuse to test the evidence for demolition,
given that hundreds of experts have suggested that NIST do
so?
5. Hundreds of experts agree that the instant, total, and
symmetric failure of a hurricane and earth quake resistant
steel framed skyscraper can not possibly be caused by the
gradual asymmetric failure of some steel supports due to
gradual heating. Here is a small sampling of these experts
and their research..
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Where, exactly, do you believe these experts are in error?
Remember, grade school "insults" only weaken your conspiracy
theory and make Bush parroting cartoon cave man conspiracy
theorists seem helpless, ignorant, and deluded. <g>
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> writes:
>> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
>> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
>> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
>> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> can't.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
that fact. As always, here's proof.
Nine minutes into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
More proof of free fall.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
--
Henry
> <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)"
> Wrong.
Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
of tons of steel. <chuckle>
From Richard Gage founder of http://www.ae911truth.org
which now has over 1000 members.
"TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed ? forcibly ? by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)"
Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire
resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free fall speed? We know
that gradual weakening due to the gradual heating of a few columns
can't cause that. Take a look for yourself. WTC7 on the left - known
demolition on the right. What you see are two controlled demolitions.
Gradual asymmetric heating can't possibly do that to a hurricane and
earthquake resistant, highly redundant and resilient steel framed
structure. Your cartoon conspiracy theory requires you to believe that
partial equals total, gradual equals instant, and asymmetric equals
symmetric. It's an absurd and physically impossible fantasy - even a
form of insanity.
Does it strike you as unusual that in spite of requests from
hundreds of people, NIST refused to test the evidence for
explosive residue of any kind? WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid, total, symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual, partial, localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition wasn't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about modern
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST's reports on the WTC, and its periodic
responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before.
But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved
in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of
nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology."
"4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and
materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President
George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary
of defense, former director of DARPA's office of materials science,
and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders
in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005)."
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> got all confused again:
> PV wrote:
> > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> >> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> >> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
> >> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> >> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
> > Just as soon as you prove that it actually happened, which of course you
> > can't.
>
> I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you conspiracy
> spewing nutters are ignorant of even the most basic, easily
> obtained facts. Even NIST has finally been forced to acknowledge
> that fact. As always, here's proof.
As always, here is Hankie lying!
> Nine minutes into the video.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
Hankie, you must have been huffing your cleaning chemicals again. We
debunked that claim last week. NIST does no such thing, dearie.
They're talking about the final sequence, which occurs well over
halfway into the collapse.
> More proof of free fall.
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/info/49
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
Hankie, Hankie!! Will we ever get you into drug rehab? Get a watch
with a second hand. The collapse was not "free fall." This is a proven
fact, proven by the basic method of looking at your watch.
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> continued to suffer delusions from huffing
cleaning solutions:
> PV wrote:
> > Excuse me, I think you have a very confused idea what conspiracy theories
> > are.
>
> Yours is based on the magic powers of a bearded man living
> in a cave thousands of miles away,
Who would that be, kooker? UBL, who of course has admitted he did
this, did not live in a cave; he is a multi-millionaire and at the
time was an honored guest of the Taliban, a pampered terrorist. This
is not in dispute.
Tell us, janitor boy, what “magic powers” are involved in hijacking an
airplane and crashing it. What is it you view as requiring “magic” in
this? <chuckle>
> from where he can suspend the principles of physics
How about you try to tell us what principles of physics you “think”
were suspended that day, dearie, and explain how you imagine that
could be possible. I’ll bet your “drugs” are involved somewhere here!
<snicker>
The official findings are in fact the only scenario fully consistent
with all the principles of physics. Principles of physics are what
show us the kooker theories of physically impossible cartoon-magic
“controlled demolition” are what is impossible. <guffaw>
> and shut down NORAD at will. <chuckle>
Tell us when NORAD was shut down in your kooker delusional view of the
world. You seem unaware that NORAD was in fact fully involved on 9/11.
Is it the cleaning solution affecting what’s left of your “brain,”
Hankie?
> > Also noted - you can't do highschool physics problems. Who's ignorant
> > here? *
>
> Since you believe the government's insane physics, reality, and
> evidence defying cave man conspiracy theory, that'd be you.
Tell us what you “imagine” defies the official findings, Hankie. You
Iarnrod
>
> >>> Fix loser Subject change meant to distract from the Truth:
> >> Fixing it back to PROVEN TRUTH.
>
> >> YOU, the self-proven pathological LIAR, are lying again to distract
> >> from the TRUTH that I have stated:
>
> >> NO THERMITE was used at the WTC
>
> > It doesn't matter what you think.
>
> Ironhead doesn't think - quite =simply= spews for the
> amusement of its many betters... <>g>
Hmm, then put down the cleaning solution, clear your head, and explain
how come I am proven correct while you are proven wrong. That would
seem to contradict you, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor.
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> once again made up "facts" that don't exist:
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
Why are you publicly embarrassing yourself by calling on me to explain
why you suffer delusions about things that did not happen? <snicker>
Henry
> How about you try to tell us what principles of physics you �think�
> were suspended that day, dearie, and explain how you imagine that
> could be possible.
It's not possible to suspend the principles of physics,
nutbag, which is why your many betters have rejected your
insane cartoon fary tale. <chuckle>
Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
impossible.
Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
manner. They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
Example #1:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed ? forcibly ? by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> continued to have great difficulty with basic
physics:
> Iarnrod spent more fruitless time trying to educate the stupir kooker Hank:
>
> > How about you try to tell us what principles of physics you think
> > were suspended that day, dearie, and explain how you imagine that
> > could be possible.
>
> It's not possible to suspend the principles of physics,
> nutbag,
EXACTLY, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor, and that is what
makes your claims so crazy that they WERE suspended.
> which is why your many betters have rejected your
> insane cartoon fary tale. <chuckle>
If by “betters” you mean your fellow delusional drug addicts. Out here
in the sane world, we your betters don’t do drugs but prefer proven
reality, such as NIST. How about you spend some of your awake time
trying to explain what it is you “think” violates the laws of physics
in the NIST report? I’ll bet you can’t even come close to being
coherent.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Because ALL you do is contradict, deny, deride, distract, and disrupt.
Yet you NEVER provide one CITE for everything you claim you've
"proven."
You are a useless wind bag.
Henry
> How about you spend some of your awake time
> trying to explain what it is you �think� violates the laws of physics
> in the NIST report? I�ll bet you can�t even come close to being
> coherent.
Iarnrod
Janitor <9-11tr...@experts.org> continued to evade reality:
> Iarnrod is enjoying kicking Hankie’s stupid kooker ass with the following:
>
> > How about you spend some of your awake time
> > in the NIST report? I ll bet you can t even come close to being
> > coherent.
>
> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
> that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
> impossible.
They do no such thing, of course, Hankie. Not in dispute. How about
trying again?
> Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
> government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
> incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
> manner.
A lie of course since we have thoroughly and completely debunked all
of your kooker klaims with proven truth. YOUR claims violate the laws
of physics as well as reality. You believe in silent and invisible
explosives. You cannot even count collapse time with a watch! <giggle>
> They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
> grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
We aim our insults down to your educational level, Fired Janitor Boy.
> Example #1:
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
This claim is based on false premises and is DISMISSED. Try again
without the straw man this time.
> TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
>
> Dear Dr. Sunder,
>
> Here are our talking points:
>
> 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
> fatal flaws:
>
> a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
> for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
> experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
> acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
> the structure had to have been removed ? forcibly ? by explosives.
That is not a conclusion at all, of course. It is a proven FACT that
no explosives were used. None are going off. You’re just making stuff
up. And this kook who wrote the letter, Hankie, is lying from a false
premise. NIST did not say the collapse took 6.5 seconds and at free
fall. It said the final wall to collapse essentially was in free fall
since the rest of the building was already lying across Vesey Street
by that point. The final 6.5 seconds is well over 10 seconds AFTER the
collapse initiated in the southeast corner of the building. FACT. Deal
with it and stop pretending the collapse only started 6.5 seconds
before it finished.
> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
> steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
> converted to motion.)
False premise of course since that is not what happened on 9/11. Why
do you keep wanting us sane people who do not huff cleaning solutions
like you do to explain your delusions?
> Example #2.
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccele...
>
> Summary
>
> "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
> North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
> collision with the lower section of the building indicates
> that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
> driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
> the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
> weight on the lower section of the building.
Duh. The lowest supports buckled under the weight of the dynamic load
above once the adjacent portions of the building had collapsed. Of
course the roofline comes down.
What do you find mysterious about this? What about this makes you
“think” your cartoon-magic silent and invisible explosives would be
required, Hankie?
Try reality sometime. You might like it.
Iarnrod
A lie of course. I have proven completely everything I have said,
while simultaneously disproven your physically impossible claims. You
cannot deny this.
> Yet you NEVER provide one CITE for everything you claim you've
> "proven."
I always provide cites. YOU never provide cites because since your
claims are proven false, cites cannot be obtained.
> You are a useless wind bag.
Projection.
Henry
> <9-11...@experts.org> proved:
>> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
>> that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
>> impossible.
>> Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
>> government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
>> incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
>> manner.
>> They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
>> grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
>> Example #1:
>> http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
> This claim is based on false premises and is DISMISSED.
Your delusions and lies are irrelevant here in the real
world, nutbag. <chuckle>
>> TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
>>
>> Dear Dr. Sunder,
>>
>> Here are our talking points:
>> 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
>> fatal flaws:
>> a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
>> for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
>> experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
>> acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
>> the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
> That is not a conclusion at all, of course.
Well, not if you're a dimwitted and deluded nutbag, of
course. Otherwise, it's reality.
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)
Reality and hard evidence kick ironhead's ass again...
>> Example #2.
>>
>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccele...
>> Summary
>> "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
>> North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
>> collision with the lower section of the building indicates
>> that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
>> driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
>> the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
>> weight on the lower section of the building.
> What do you find mysterious about this?
Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
upper block was designed to withstand several times the
force exerted on it by the mass above it, it wouldn't
explode and disintegrate when that force was greatly
reduced. Thinking is very difficult for you, isn't it,
nutbag? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up.... <chuckle>
"Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another
light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite,
the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the
lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the
falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive
result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building
is significantly less than its static weight."
Henry
> <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)"
> Wrong.
Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
WTC7 could drop at free fall speed while simultaneously
crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
of tons of steel. <chuckle>
From Richard Gage founder of http://www.ae911truth.org
which now has over 1000 members.
"TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building
7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly
by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse (that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives).
Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.
Here is the world in the "mind" of Ironhead... <chuckle>
http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/the-world-according-to-americans.jpg
--
Iarnrod
> >> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
> >> that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
> >> impossible.
> >> Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
> >> government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
> >> incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
> >> manner.
> >> They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
> >> grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
> >> Example #1:
> >>http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
> > This claim is based on false premises and is DISMISSED.
>
> Your delusions and lies are irrelevant here in the real
> world, nutbag. <chuckle>
Are you a parrot? Those are the words your betters keep repeating to
you, Hankie, since it is proven FACT that the claims you make are
delusions and lies. Witness the two "examples" you gave that had no
actual basis in fact! I proved they are based on false premises.
<chuckle>
> > What do you find mysterious about this?
>
> Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
> upper block was designed to withstand several times the
> force exerted on it by the mass above it,
Only in a static loading situation. This is going over your "head," I
can tell.
> it wouldn't
> explode and disintegrate when that force was greatly
> reduced.
What does that have to do with what happened, Hankie? The building did
not "explode."
Tell you what, you take a 30-story building and drop it on the roof of
a one-story building. What happens?
Now take that mass and drop it on another one-story building... see
what happens.
Come back and report to us <snicker> after you wipe the chemically-
induced spittle off your chin, Fired Janitor.
> Thinking is very difficult for you, isn't it,
> nutbag? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up....
Oh, no, not at all. I can see why you'd wonder since it is obviously
so hard for you, but hankie, there is this whole world of your betters
out here who think all the time and work in the reality-based world.
You cannot, of course, because of the impact the Cornell cleaning
chemicals have had on your brain. <chuckle>
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> was lost in the confusion of his physically
impossible claims:
> Iarnrod, in her kindness, sought to educate the brain-damaged kook Hank:
> > Wrong.
>
> Apparently, Ironhead never took a basic physics (or logic)
> class - or perhaps it never went to school at all. <g>
Apparently you are intent on being wrong about EVERYTHING, fired
janitor boy.
Come back when you buy a watch with a second hand, and I shall kick
your ass once more.
We really missed your kookery around here while you were in treatment.
> Hey Ironhead, keep your betters amused by "explaining" how
> WTC7 could drop at free fall speed
It didn't. You posted the proof yourself, but in your retarded state
you didn't know how to read it correctly.
> while simultaneously
> crushing, bending, breaking, and tearing tens of thousands
> of tons of steel. <chuckle>
Dynamic load, simple physics. No other explanation even comes close to
fitting.
spudnik
do either of you know the primary use of thermite, and
what it is made of?
> Dynamic load, simple physics. No other explanation even comes close to
> fitting.
thus:
I respect his right to wait til "P3" is out, but
a precis would be appreciated.
and, please, don't just *say* that Michelson, Morley et al go "no"
results,
because they actually got some (small) seasonal anomalies --
that goes for you, two, Uncle Al!
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
AllYou!
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> mused:
> Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
> upper block was designed to withstand several times the
> force exerted on it by the mass above it,
Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge hammer,
and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it break your hand?
No. So it would then be valid to assert that your hand was capable
of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that sledge up
about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go so that it falls
directly onto your hand. What do you think the results will be
then? So is your hand capable of withstanding a 50 pound load, or
not?
Do the experiment, and you'll then learn the difference between a
static load, and a dynamic load. And, BTW, thee is no such thing as
withstanding mass. There's withstanding force, and that force is
sometimes in the form of weight, but there's no such thing as
withstanding mass. If you're going to try to make a physics case,
learn physics first.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:hn3ian$m5v$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu,
> Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> mused:
>
> > Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
> > upper block was designed to withstand several times the
> > force exerted on it by the mass above it,
>
> Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge hammer,
> and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it break your hand?
> No. So it would then be valid to assert that your hand was capable
> of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
>
> Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that sledge up
> about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go so that it falls
> directly onto your hand. What do you think the results will be
> then? So is your hand capable of withstanding a 50 pound load, or
> not?
>
The resistance of the steel equals the load.
A hand is soft.
One steel beam dropped on another is not unequal.
Along with the fact that the other 80 plus stories of structure would
cushion and flex to absorb some shock.
The Top of the North tower disintegrated UPWARD.
The antenna tower started dropping before the outer walls.
It was gutted in the core columns.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > Innews:hn3ian$m5v$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu,
> > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> mused:
>
> > > Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
> > > upper block was designed to withstand several times the
> > > force exerted on it by the mass above it,
>
> > Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge hammer,
> > and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it break your hand?
> > No. So it would then be valid to assert that your hand was capable
> > of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
>
> > Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that sledge up
> > about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go so that it falls
> > directly onto your hand. What do you think the results will be
> > then? So is your hand capable of withstanding a 50 pound load, or
> > not?
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> The resistance of the steel equals the load.
>
> A hand is soft.
The resistance of the hand equals the load of the sledgehammer resting
in it. FACT.
> One steel beam dropped on another is not unequal.
Yes it is.
Besides, the tower collapse was not one steel beam dropping on
another, it was a 30-story office building falling onto a single floor
below.
Face it. You've been proven to be full of shit. There is no way the
towers would NOT fall completely to the ground given what happened.
> Along with the fact that the other 80 plus stories of structure would
> cushion and flex to absorb some shock.
No, that is not possible. Sorry. Which office floor do you "think"
should have arrested the increasingly powerful falling mass? Explain
how such a thing could work on planet Earth.
> The Top of the North tower disintegrated UPWARD.
WTF?
BWAHAHAAAHHAAAA!!!! Now THIS kookery is FRESH MEAT!!
Explain just WTF that is supposed to mean -- it disintegrated UPWARD?
Are you a complete idiot?
> The antenna tower started dropping before the outer walls.
> It was gutted in the core columns.
Now I've heard every bit of kookery I imagine we could hear form you
nutters!
If only...!
knews4...@yahoo.com
You are LYING through your missing teeth.
>YOU never provide cites
Liar.
Just about every post I make has a cite.
You just keep snipping them away like losers do.
>because since your
> claims are proven false,
You claims of "dismissed" are meaningless.
>cites cannot be obtained.
>
> > You are a useless wind bag.
>
> Projection.
Yet you just keep lying.
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
Iarnrod
Explain then how everything I have said is the proven factual truth,
knowsknothing.
> >YOU never provide cites
>
> Liar.
Your new sig.
> Just about every post I make has a cite.
To a debunked lie. TRY AGAIN, liar. A lie is not a cite.
> You just keep snipping them away like losers do.
Yet I won.
> >because since your
> > claims are proven false,
>
> You claims of "dismissed" are meaningless.
No, they are proven.
> >cites cannot be obtained.
>
> > > You are a useless wind bag.
>
> > Projection.
>
> Yet you just keep lying.
You are unable to NAME ONE THING I have ever liked about, because I
have never lied and you have ONLY lied.
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
I see your picture on that site, as the prime example of a
pathological LIAR. Nothing you have yet said is the truth.
knews4...@yahoo.com
So one whole floor just disappeared so it could drop?
No.
The the inner and outer columns were still attached end to end
offering resistance even if they were "soft" from fire.
You are full of shit.
Even if the all core columns and all the outer columns were "weakened"
it would deform slowly and asymetrically.
It wouldn't just drop like a rock.
Steel get's stronger as it deforms not weaker.
The whole thing would not just shatter.
There was not a "global collapse."
The mechanism for this is NOT explained in any report.
Every report stops right at the point when collapse is initiated at
the point where the demolition begins.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+nist+global+collapse+fraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
AllYou!
news:d1b99c7f-73ed-4678...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:hn3ian$m5v$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu,
>> Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> mused:
>>
>>> Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
>>> upper block was designed to withstand several times the
>>> force exerted on it by the mass above it,
>>
>> Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge
>> hammer, and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it break
>> your hand? No. So it would then be valid to assert that your
>> hand was capable of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
>>
>> Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that
>> sledge up about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go so
>> that it falls directly onto your hand. What do you think the
>> results will be then? So is your hand capable of withstanding a
>> 50 pound load, or not?
>>
> Apples and oranges.
The claim was that the structure was designed to resist the load
above it. My experiment proves that there's a difference between
resisting a static load, and a load in motion. Apples and apples.
> The resistance of the steel equals the load.
Not when the load is in m otion.
> A hand is soft.
Then use wooden box instead. It's irrelevant. The experiment
simply shows the significant difference between a static load, and
one which is falling. To deny this difference only proves to what
idiotic audience you have left that you have no credibility.
>
> One steel beam dropped on another is not unequal.
Your point?
> Along with the fact that the other 80 plus stories of structure
> would cushion and flex to absorb some shock.
Actually, as each subsequent floor collapsed, to total load on the
remaining floors increased.
>
> The Top of the North tower disintegrated UPWARD.
LOL!
>
> The antenna tower started dropping before the outer walls.
> It was gutted in the core columns.
Your point?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:d1b99c7f-73ed-4678...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
Iarnrod
WTF are you babbling about? 30 stories above the impact zone fell onto
the floor below and started the inexorable destruction of the
building. This is simple physics and all of your lies cannot get
around this PROVEN FACT.
> The the inner and outer columns were still attached end to end
> offering resistance even if they were "soft" from fire.
Not enough to hold back the massive dynamic load above. C'mon, nutbag,
this truth is staring you in your stupid face from EVERY SINGLE VIDEO.
There are NO EXPLOSIVES, none of your MAGIC THERMITE. Nothing. It's
simple physics. Cripes, you're stupid.
> Even if the all core columns and all the outer columns were "weakened"
> it would deform slowly and asymetrically.
No it wouldn't, idiot. You're just saying that because you "think"
that should have happened but there is no basis for it. It's just your
alternate story contradicted by evidence.
> It wouldn't just drop like a rock.
Of course it would. What's your basis for saying it wouldn't? That's
ludicrous. Life and physics is not a Wile E Coyote gravity-defying
cartoon, dearie.
> Steel get's stronger as it deforms not weaker.
No, it gets weaker when it heats up.moron. It LOSES strength. Where
are you getting your delusions? From a crack pipe? You are full of
some funny shit here tonight.
> The whole thing would not just shatter.
Why not? Of course it would. What could have stopped it? Nothing on
earth.
> There was not a "global collapse."
> The mechanism for this is NOT explained in any report.
Yes it is. You're lying. NIST explains it fully and completely and
proves it.
> Every report stops right at the point when collapse is initiated
So what? It is not possible or necessary to explain in a chaotic
collapse of millions of pieces of the building and its contents just
how each beam, each piece of concrete, each body part ended up where
it did. It's obvious to people with brains. which leaves you out.
> the point where the demolition begins.
There is no "demolition," knowsknothing. That has been proven
conclusiovely to be a physical impossibility.
knews4...@yahoo.com
subject changes:
> > Just about every post I make has a cite.
>
> To a debunked lie. TRY AGAIN, liar. A lie is not a cite.
>
Yes.
You lie again without a cite.
> > You just keep snipping them away like losers do.
>
> Yet I won.
>
Your "claim" means nothing.
> > >because since your
> > > claims are proven false,
>
> > You claims of "dismissed" are meaningless.
>
> No, they are proven.
>
And you lie again.
No cite.
No proof.
Nada.
Just lies and arm waving.
> > >cites cannot be obtained.
>
> > > > You are a useless wind bag.
>
> > > Projection.
>
> > Yet you just keep lying.
>
> You are unable to NAME ONE THING I have ever liked about, because I have never lied and you have ONLY lied.
>
> http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
>
> I see your picture on that site,
Well that just proves your lies and hallucinations.
>as the prime example of a
> pathological LIAR. Nothing you have yet said is the truth.
Everyone can see who is lying here.
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
AllYou!
news:8ec26425-94df-4ba8...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Thanks for providing the proof that what I posted was correct, and
what you posted was not.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Henry
> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> mused:
>>> Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
>>> upper block was designed to withstand several times the
>>> force exerted on it by the mass above it,
>> Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge hammer,
>> and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it break your hand?
>> No. So it would then be valid to assert that your hand was capable
>> of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
>> Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that sledge up
>> about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go so that it falls
>> directly onto your hand.
So, you "think" someone picked up the upper block of the North
Tower and dropped it, eh? Amusing, to say the least. As absurd
as you "analogy" is, the sledge would slow down on impact. The
upper block accelerated through a mass that was much stronger
and heavier than itself, which, of course, is impossible without
demolition.
If there are any followers of the "official" conspiracy theory
reading this thread who have the ability to read, think, and defend
their beliefs with something more intelligent than grade school
drivel, here are a few questions for you. C'mon, try to defend your
conspiracy theory with a trace of logic and reality - it'll be fun. <vbg>
1. How did ordinary office fires cause the severe high temperature
vaporization of steel, as documented in the link below?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
2. NIST's latest conspiracy theory states that an explosion
loud enough to destroy the one column who's failure they imagine
somehow caused the entire steel frame to suddenly disintegrate
and drop at free fall speed would have been louder than any of
the many explosions that were heard. How does this claim rule out
the use of thermite or nano thermite, which cuts steel with far
less noise and would explain the vaporised steel, the extremely
high temperatures, the free fall speed, and the symmetry of the
demolition?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
3. How did the BBC "learn" that WTC7 "collapsed" 20 minutes
before the actual "collapsed"? It looks like they were handed
a script and read it too early. If you have another plausible
explanation, please do share it - it'll be fun. <vvbg>
4. Since no steel framed building has ever "collapsed"
in a manner that even *remotely* resembles a controlled
demolition, why did the Bush regime refuse to consider the
obvious and test the evidence for demolition? The Bearded Cave
man is a very clever, capable, and formidable foe. Since he can
shut down the entire North Eastern United States air defense
network and leave our Capitol undefended for almost and hour
after the first tower was hit, certainly he can demolish a
skyscraper. So why refuse to test the evidence for demolition,
given that hundreds of experts have suggested that NIST do
so?
5. Hundreds of experts agree that the instant, total, and
symmetric failure of a hurricane and earth quake resistant
steel framed skyscraper can not possibly be caused by the
gradual asymmetric failure of some steel supports due to
gradual heating. Here is a small sampling of these experts
and their research..
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Where, exactly, do you believe these experts are in error?
Remember, grade school "insults" only weaken your conspiracy
theory and make Bush parroting cartoon cave man conspiracy
theorists seem helpless, ignorant, and deluded. <g>
Henry
> How about you try to tell us what principles of physics you ?think?
> were suspended that day, dearie, and explain how you imagine that
> could be possible.
It's not possible to suspend the principles of physics,
nutbag, which is why your many betters have rejected your
insane cartoon fary tale. <chuckle>
Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
impossible.
Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
manner. They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
Example #1:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed ? forcibly ? by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)
Example #2.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
Summary
"The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
collision with the lower section of the building indicates
that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
Henry
> <9-11...@experts.org> proved:
>> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
>> that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
>> impossible.
>> Also worth noting, is that virtually all followers of the
>> government's 9-11 conspiracy theory are pitifully and comically
>> incapable of addressing these facts in a rational, coherent
>> manner.
>> They certainly know how to spew the self deprecating
>> grade school kook drivel, though... <g>
>> Example #1:
>> http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
> This claim is based on false premises and is DISMISSED.
Your delusions and lies are irrelevant here in the real
world, nutbag. <chuckle>
>> TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
>>
>> Dear Dr. Sunder,
>>
>> Here are our talking points:
>> 1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
>> fatal flaws:
>> a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
>> for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
>> experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
>> acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
>> the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
> That is not a conclusion at all, of course.
Well, not if you're a dimwitted and deluded nutbag, of
course. Otherwise, it's reality.
>> (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
>> falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
>> steel ? because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
>> converted to motion.)
Reality and hard evidence kick ironhead's ass again...
>> Example #2.
>>
>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccele...
>> Summary
>> "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
>> North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
>> collision with the lower section of the building indicates
>> that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
>> driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
>> the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
>> weight on the lower section of the building.
> What do you find mysterious about this?
Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
upper block was designed to withstand several times the
force exerted on it by the mass above it, it wouldn't
explode and disintegrate when that force was greatly
reduced. Thinking is very difficult for you, isn't it,
nutbag? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up.... <chuckle>
"Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another
light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite,
the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the
lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the
falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive
result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building
is significantly less than its static weight."
Henry
> Then use wooden box instead. It's irrelevant. The experiment
> simply shows the significant difference between a static load, and
> one which is falling.
The falling upper block was exerting less force on the
undamaged steel frame below while it was accelerating
downward than when it was stationary. Fundamental
physics destroys your fairy tale yet again. As always,
here's hard proof.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
Summary
"The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
collision with the lower section of the building indicates
that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
the upper block exerted a force less than its own static
--
AllYou!
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> mused:
>> On Mar 8, 1:13 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>> Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> mused:
>
>>>> Well, nutbag, since the undamaged steel frame below the
>>>> upper block was designed to withstand several times the
>>>> force exerted on it by the mass above it,
>
>>> Put your hand on the ground, and then take a 50 pound sledge
>>> hammer, and place it in that hand. Does it hurt? Did it
>>> break your hand? No. So it would then be valid to assert that
>>> your hand was capable of withstanding a 50 pound load, right?
>
>>> Now, leave your hand there, and find someone to raise that
>>> sledge up about 40 to 50 feet in the air, and then let it go
>>> so that it falls directly onto your hand.
>
> So, you "think" someone picked up the upper block of the North
> Tower and dropped it, eh? Amusing, to say the least. As absurd
> as you "analogy" is, the sledge would slow down on impact. The
> upper block accelerated through a mass that was much stronger
> and heavier than itself, which, of course, is impossible without
> demolition.
As with virtually everything else you've read, you missed the point
of this as well. What I posted was two different scenarios, and not
one. The 1st scenerio begins with a load which is static. The 2nd
scenerio begins with a load which is moving downward as by gravity.
Whereas your contention was that the structure "frame below the
upper block was designed to withstand several times the force
exerted on it by the mass above it," I'm illustrating the difference
between a static "load" and a dynamic "load".
But, as expected, you'd rather continue to demonstrate your
ignorance than admit your mistake and move on. Is that working for
you?
> If there are any followers of the "official" conspiracy theory
> reading this thread who have the ability to read, think, and
> defend their beliefs with something more intelligent than grade
> school drivel, here are a few questions for you. C'mon, try to
> defend
> your conspiracy theory with a trace of logic and reality - it'll
> be fun. <vbg>
> 1. How did ordinary office fires cause the severe high
> temperature vaporization of steel, as documented in the link
> below? http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
There was no general "vaporization of steel". This study is of the
examination of microscopic bits of the grain boundaries of some of
the steel found at the WTC. The report claims that this
demonstrates that some temperatures at the WTC got as high as 1,800
degrees F. An ordinary candle flame will produce a temperature of
over 1,600 degrees F. Therefore, it would not be unexpected that
microscopic bits of steel grain structure would get as hot as 1,800
degrees F when continually subjected to fires being fed by all sorts
of wood, plastic, and other debris.
But if not, then maybe you can tell the world why you think that all
major building codes require all major structural steel components
to be insulated against fire. Any theories there?
> 2. NIST's latest conspiracy theory states that an explosion
> loud enough to destroy the one column who's failure they imagine
> somehow caused the entire steel frame to suddenly disintegrate
There was no disintegration of any steel frame, nor has the NIST
ever suggested any such thing.
> and drop at free fall speed
There was no drop at free fall speed, nor has the NIST ever
suggested any such thing.
> would have been louder than any of
> the many explosions that were heard. How does this claim rule out
> the use of thermite or nano thermite, which cuts steel with far
> less noise and would explain the vaporised steel, the extremely
> high temperatures, the free fall speed, and the symmetry of the
> demolition?
>
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
The claim that it was a nice September day doesn't rule out the use
of thermite either. What rules out the use of thermiste is the fact
that thermite can't be used in the way that you suggest. If it
could, there'd be all sorts of video clips of huge steel columns
being cut laterally in half using thermite. But none exists, and
nothing in that link above contains anything credible.
> 3. How did the BBC "learn" that WTC7 "collapsed" 20 minutes
> before the actual "collapsed"?
They did not.
> It looks like they were handed
> a script and read it too early. If you have another plausible
> explanation, please do share it - it'll be fun. <vvbg>
>
> http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html
>
> 4. Since no steel framed building has ever "collapsed"
> in a manner that even *remotely* resembles a controlled
> demolition,
All sorts of steel framed buildings are collapsed via controlled
demolitions.
> why did the Bush regime refuse to consider the
> obvious and test the evidence for demolition?
Because everyone saw the jets fly into the buildings, and everyone
saw the fires rage, and everyone saw them collapse from the top
down, and because qualified experts in every relevant field were
assembled to study the exact cause of the collapses, and they came
to the only logical conclusion, and because there was absolutely no
evidence to the contrary. They didn't look for evidence of little
green men from Mars either.
> The Bearded Cave
> man is a very clever, capable, and formidable foe. Since he can
> shut down the entire North Eastern United States air defense
> network and leave our Capitol undefended for almost and hour
> after the first tower was hit, certainly he can demolish a
> skyscraper. So why refuse to test the evidence for demolition,
> given that hundreds of experts have suggested that NIST do
> so?
There are no such experts calling for any such investigation.
> 5. Hundreds of experts agree that the instant, total, and
> symmetric failure of a hurricane and earth quake resistant
> steel framed skyscraper can not possibly be caused by the
> gradual asymmetric failure of some steel supports due to
> gradual heating. Here is a small sampling of these experts
> and their research..
Well, whereas the WTC towers didn't fail by "instant, total, and
symmetric failure", I don't see your point.
> http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
>
> Where, exactly, do you believe these experts are in error?
Well, there are no such experts, and that kind of failure didn't
happen on 911.
> Remember, grade school "insults" only weaken your conspiracy
> theory and make Bush parroting cartoon cave man conspiracy
> theorists seem helpless, ignorant, and deluded. <g>
Do your insults weaken your case, then?
Iarnrod
sea of DISPROVEN LIES:
> On Mar 8, 8:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> spoke only the proven truth:
Mine is to speak the proven physical truth; your MO is to make claims
that are clearly physically impossible and already thoroughly
debunked.
You have YET to make one single claim that has withstood one second of
fact-checking. And you have yet to NAME ONE THING I have said that is
wrong.
> > > Just about every post I make has a cite.
>
> > To a debunked lie. TRY AGAIN, liar. A lie is not a cite.
>
> Yes.
ARE YOU NUCKIN' FUTZ!?! You REALLY think that a lie is a cite? Holy
crap, thanks for admitting you are a loon job.
> You lie again without a cite.
Name one thing I have said that is a lie. You cannot and you will not
because it is not possible, as I have never lied. Let's see if you can
overcome your intellectual impotence for once in your life and
actually try to take me on on the merits. You're afraid.
> > > You just keep snipping them away like losers do.
>
> > Yet I won.
>
> Your "claim" means nothing.
Not to you, of course, since you are a proven pathological liar, but
to thinking people who know that your claims are physically
impossible, they revel in my continuing victories over you.
> > > >because since your
> > > > claims are proven false,
>
> > > You claims of "dismissed" are meaningless.
>
> > No, they are proven.
>
> And you lie again.
Nope. You are.
> No cite.
From you, of course.
> No proof.
From you, of course.
> Nada.
From you, of course.
> Just lies and arm waving.
From you, of course. That's the proven fact. ALl you do is "claim" and
then offer "claims" as proof of themselves when they've been proven
wrong. FACT: It is observable proven irrefutable FACT that there were
no controlled demolition explosives going off at collapse initiation.
This cannot be disputed. It is a FACT that no thermite burned -- this
is provable just by watching the event. You are clearly insane and a
pathological liar.
You should seek help but if you were cured, we would all be denied
your foaming nutbaggery.
> > > >cites cannot be obtained.
>
> > > > > You are a useless wind bag.
>
> > > > Projection.
>
> > > Yet you just keep lying.
>
> > You are unable to NAME ONE THING I have ever liked about, because I have never lied and you have ONLY lied.
>
> >http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
>
> > I see your picture on that site,
>
> Well that just proves your lies and hallucinations.
Projection.
> >as the prime example of a
> > pathological LIAR. Nothing you have yet said is the truth.
>
> Everyone can see who is lying here.
Yes, they can. It is you. FACT. All your claims are proven false yet
you still make them. You are a pathetic example of a krazy kook.
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> amused its many betters with the following
idiocy:
> Iarnrod continued to spank Hankie’s stupid kooker ass in her famous Woodshed of Truth ©:
>
> > How about you try to tell us what principles of physics you ?think?
> > were suspended that day, dearie, and explain how you imagine that
> > could be possible.
>
> It's not possible to suspend the principles of physics,
Exactly, Hankie. So why do you keep contending that it happened, and
why does your physically impossible “theory” literally depend on
suspension of laws of physics?
> nutbag, which is why your many betters have rejected your
> insane cartoon fary tale. <chuckle>
Insane projection duly noted, Hankie. The official findings have been
proven beyond doubt. The claims you make have been disproven and in
fact cannot occur on Planet Earth, where your betters live, even if
you were able to conjure them in your head while in your rubber-
wallpapered room at Bellevue.
<chuckle>
> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving
> that your 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically
> impossible.
They do no such thing of course, since they are straw men based on
false premises. Your persistence in trying to amuse us by continuing
to post your disproven idiocy is admirable though. You should try some
new nutbaggery though, lest you start boring us.
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> AllYou! wrote:
> > Then use wooden box instead. It's irrelevant. The experiment
> > simply shows the significant difference between a static load, and
> > one which is falling.
>
> The falling upper block was exerting less force on the
> undamaged steel frame below while it was accelerating
> downward than when it was stationary. Fundamental
> physics destroys your fairy tale yet again.
BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Hankie actually proposes the opposite of
reality!
Too funny, Hank!
Tell ya what, why doncha lean up against the bumper of a car, tell us
how that feels, then let that car hit you at, oh, 10 mph, and report
back, then let it hit you at 40 mph, and report back....
I have to admit, this latest nutbaggery from you actually made me
laugh out loud!!
> As always, here's hard proof.
As always, thank you. The hard proof you always provide is that of
your insanity!
AllYou!
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>> Then use wooden box instead. It's irrelevant. The experiment
>> simply shows the significant difference between a static load,
>> and one which is falling.
>
> The falling upper block was exerting less force on the
> undamaged steel frame below while it was accelerating
> downward than when it was stationary. Fundamental
> physics destroys your fairy tale yet again. As always,
> here's hard proof.
Here's where you prove your ignorance of physics. The fact that
less force was actually being exerted only proves that the lower
structure was crumbling for some reason or other. You've made the
mistake of equating the potential for the force which could be
exerted with the force that was actually exerted. Or, in terms that
you should be able to understand, take that sledge hammer, and, as
hard as you can, swing it laterally though a piece of wood. The
force you could've exerted had you done so against a huge boulder
would've been greater than what you would've exerted when the sledge
went though the wood. Why? Because the wood resisted only to the
point that it broke. This resistence was the total force applied by
the sledge, and not the total force it could've applied.
Therefore, the fact that the total force being applied to the steel
frame below was less than the staic load of the structure above only
proves that the steel frame below was failing. It doesn't prove why
it was failing, but only that it was. The fact that a moving load
can exert more force than a staic one also proves that the total of
the force being exerted on the steel below was greater than it's
static weight. Whereas the steel frame was designed to carry the
static weight, and not it's dynamic weight, it makes sense that it
would fail.
So you've demonstrated exactly nothing here.
BTW, here are the two equations for you.
F = (d/dt) * (mv)
F = ma
Do the math.
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
>
> Summary
>
> "The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
> North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
> collision with the lower section of the building indicates
> that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
> driver.
Clearly, that's wrong. Whether or not the upper section was
accelerating is only a function of how much resistance was being
provided by the falling upper section relative to the strength of
the lower sections, and not simply the presence of the latter in the
face of the former. Is this an indication of the 'expertise' of
your 'experts'? :-)
See above.
AllYou!
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> mused:
> Your delusions and lies are irrelevant here in the real
> world, nutbag. <chuckle>
So what was that about how your insults ruin your credibility? :-)