9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 12 Apr 2010 14:45 Schiffner wrote: > On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > so retard, if it took a ton of dynamite for this > http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36387551/ns/sports-nfl/ a shot made by > subject matter experts...I wonder just how much of your magic powder > it would have taken to drop the towers... According to you, none at all, right, nutjob? According to your obviously impossible and insane cartoon fairy tale, WTC7 dropped at the rate of free fall with near perfect symmetry because of nothing but random, minor, ordinary office fires. Why do you "think" demolition contractors bother with explosives when you "know" that all they need to do is start a couple of fires to achieve a picture perfect demolition? 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." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 NIST's Miracle Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so. NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse "was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles - that is, the principles of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing: A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it.... [T]he ... time that it took... for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous. Chandler's Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder?s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder's 40 percent claim contradicts "a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity." The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that "for about two and a half seconds..., the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall." Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: "Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously." NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]." "Gravitational acceleration" is a synonym for free fall acceleration. So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens." Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion." The implication of Chandler's remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them. If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened. That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)." Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was ?consistent with physical principles.? One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found. NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]" -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: nuny on 12 Apr 2010 16:43 On Apr 12, 11:45 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Schiffner wrote: > > On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > so retard, if it took a ton of dynamite for this > >http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36387551/ns/sports-nfl/a shot made by > > subject matter experts...I wonder just how much of your magic powder > > it would have taken to drop the towers... > > According to you, none at all, right, nutjob? According to your > obviously impossible and insane cartoon fairy tale, WTC7 dropped > at the rate of free fall with near perfect symmetry because of > nothing but random, minor, ordinary office fires. Why do you "think" > demolition contractors bother with explosives when you "know" that > all they need to do is start a couple of fires to achieve a picture > perfect demolition? > > Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving that the > government's 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically > impossible. You're in interesting company: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c5206eb4f8d586e9c3d38dbecf160d40.3c1&show_article=1 Mark L. Fergerson
From: S'mee on 12 Apr 2010 18:55 On Apr 12, 12:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: say fruitcake....you ready with those numbers yet? Or are you going to contiue to LIE and run and pout and cry like a little baby. YOU guys are just as crazy as teh religious nutters...everyone insane.
From: Michael Moroney on 12 Apr 2010 19:03 "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Apr 12, 11:45 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> Here are two very clear and fundamental examples proving that the >> government's 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory is physically >> impossible. > You're in interesting company: >http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c5206eb4f8d586e9c3d38dbecf160d40.3c1&show_article=1 I believe much of the 9/11 "conspiracy" movement is funded/assisted by certain somewhat radical Islamic groups. They want to take the blame off radical Islamists -- and blame it all on The JOOOZZZZ!
From: spudnik on 13 Apr 2010 13:45
the use of a "pancake theory" by the Commission et al is very unfortunate, because what really seems to have occurred was a "catastrophic failure" of the tensional integrity of the buildings -- just as in a "controlled demo" but, then, weren't the planes adequate bombs? now, the question remains, not the sillygism of "oh, a trashfire/bedfire never destroyed a skyscraper before 9-11-2001," but, "what secondary effects of Earth's tallest buildings, falling into a gigantic subway that served them, could have caused WTC7 to collapse, catastrophically?" (that is, at "free-fall," more or less.) > "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. ... > > read more » - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - thus: it seems that MPC# et al believe that c is not a speedlimit of the meidum of space, once we get rid of Pascal's perfect vacuum discovery. thus quoth: Note also that in relativity there is no possible amount of "acceleration" that will get them to "gain the speed of light prior to collision". thus: just because the Einsteinmaniacs insist -- including herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented with an article at his office in Caltech -- that Michelson and Morley got "null reults," does not mean that hte principle of relativity is wrong, Galilean or "Einsteinian." the only criterium for a phenomenon that needs any thing faster than teh dystrubance called light, is "science fiction." --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com |