Collapse vs Demolition
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 19 Jul 2010 08:54 Ray Fischer wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >>> Why? >> You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >> Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >> evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. >> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >> or object encounters no significant resistance. > "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. Well, technically, no resistance at all. Even air resistance will reduce the rate of acceleration to less than free fall, but the change can be so minor that it's difficult to observe. >> Obviously, a steel >> frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight > "melted and vaporized steel columns" Could not have been the result of the minor, ordinary office fires that were in WTC7, which is more proof of demolition. >> can not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. > Why? Wow... First, if an object or structure accelerates at the rate of free fall, *all* of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion, and no energy is available to crush, bend, and break 10s of thousands of tons of structural steel. Obviously that would *greatly* reduce or stop the acceleration. A steel structure that's capable of supporting several times the weight of the building would produce significant resistance. Free fall can only take place when there is no resistance. Look at some of the presentations on this website. The author is a physics teacher and presents the information very articulately. Let us know if you disagree with any of his research. It's been peer reviewed, and so far, no one has been able to find any errors. http://www.911speakout.org/ -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 19 Jul 2010 09:40 Twibil wrote: > On Jul 17, 8:36 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Al Gore planed and financed the 9/11. > > I know. I was there, and he did the whole thing on behalf of the > Mossad-owned World Bank. Wow, these two clowns really *don't* seem to understand just how incredibly helpless, and even mentally ill, they appear to their many sane betters. Those of us who understand the value of facts, evidence, and expert research watch their pitiful display with a blend of humor and pity. They really are utterly helpless, clueless, and deluded. Thanks for demonstrating that for us yet again, boys. <vbg> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Curly Surmudgeon on 19 Jul 2010 09:47 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:20:33 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > Curly Surmudgeon wrote: >> (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>> More proof that you're a crazy dumbass. > >> Stand back and look at what you've just posted. If you're hoping to >> portray Henry as a wacko you just shot yourself in the foot. > > What's really quite telling, is that these folks can't seem to > see how foolish they look when they run and hide from any and all > challenges to address the evidence, defend their impossible conspiracy > theory, or show us where any of the 9-11 Truth research is misleading or > inaccurate. They behave like frustrated children who've just been told > the Santa isn't real. Actually, they're even worse, because in addition > to their baby fits, they spew very silly lies. At least the children > only throw baby fits... <g> I don't agree with every point you've made either but at least you've tried to engage in discussion and offered positions. I, too, have grave doubts to the veracity of the 9-11 commission report on issues quite different than yours. Earlier, *before* the WTC impact there were events which required not just a suspension of credulity but the participation of so far unnamed people high up in our own government. The one issue no one has ever explained adequately: it is impossible for a jet airliner to cruise for a half hour in the Washington-New York air corridor without being intercepted by fighter aircraft. Many years ago, in the 1960's in fact, Air Traffic Control (both tower and radar) were linked with NORAD for precisely this event. Notification is automatic and multiple air bases in, and around, that corridor have 24/7 fighter interceptors ready to launch. That system failed. Despite regular tests, despite multiple redundancies, not a single interceptor was launched for almost 45 minutes. That is an absolute impossibility without interference *within* the chain of command. Not unlike the Reichstag Fire or Operation Northwoods. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lest we forget: Scott McInnis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: * US on 19 Jul 2010 10:06 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:47:41 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:20:33 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Curly Surmudgeon wrote: >>> (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> More proof that you're a crazy dumbass. >>> Stand back and look at what you've just posted. If you're hoping to >>> portray Henry as a wacko you just shot yourself in the foot. >> >> What's really quite telling, is that these folks can't seem to >> see how foolish they look when they run and hide from any and all >> challenges to address the evidence, defend their impossible conspiracy >> theory, or show us where any of the 9-11 Truth research is misleading or >> inaccurate. They behave like frustrated children who've just been told >> the Santa isn't real. Actually, they're even worse, because in addition >> to their baby fits, they spew very silly lies. At least the children >> only throw baby fits... <g> > >I don't agree with every point you've made either but at least you've >tried to engage in discussion and offered positions. I, too, have grave >doubts to the veracity of the 9-11 commission report on issues quite >different than yours. > >Earlier, *before* the WTC impact there were events which required not >just a suspension of credulity but the participation of so far unnamed >people high up in our own government. The one issue no one has ever >explained adequately: it is impossible for a jet airliner to cruise for >a half hour in the Washington-New York air corridor without being >intercepted by fighter aircraft. > >Many years ago, in the 1960's in fact, Air Traffic Control (both tower >and radar) were linked with NORAD for precisely this event. Notification >is automatic and multiple air bases in, and around, that corridor have >24/7 fighter interceptors ready to launch. > >That system failed. > >Despite regular tests, despite multiple redundancies, not a single >interceptor was launched for almost 45 minutes. That is an absolute >impossibility without interference *within* the chain of command. > >Not unlike the Reichstag Fire or Operation Northwoods. Astute observations.
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Jul 2010 11:44
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: > >>> From the bleachers it appears that you and Ray are the wackos. >>> Henry sticks to the issues, you two engage in character assassination. > >> In one post he claimed that the building couldn't not collapse as fast >> as it did because stell columns were designed to support "several >> times [their] own weight". > > I said the steel frame was designed to support several times the >weight of the structure, and that's exactly correct. And you're too stupid to figure out how it could fall down, even though you refer to the melted beams in the wreakage. >> The her referred to the "melted and >> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. > > Right. That was the result of demolition. No demolition, kook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |