The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: kirb on 13 Jan 2007 15:28 Henry wrote: > Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14. > > http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 Listen, you CANNOT claim a building was demoed without some idea of how to actually do it. There is no way to explain how your theories could be pulled off. You can come up with whatever method to prove your theory, but the reality of making it happen is impossible. Quit deflecting, henry. Just come up with more wild theories. Kirb
From: kirb on 15 Jan 2007 23:20 Henry wrote: > kirb wrote: > > Henry wrote: > > >> Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14. > > >> http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 > > > Listen, you CANNOT claim a building was demoed without some > > idea of how to actually do it. > > Controlled demolition destroys support structures with precision > placement and timing of varying types of explosives. That causes > the structure to drop straight down at close to free fall speed. OK, now how much and where do you put these? You state that the support structures are VERY stout, but how much explosive would be required. Answer- Too much without being noticed by anybody. That is trucks and trucks of explosives placed in a very well thought out manner and somehow synced to go off in the exact moment to bring the building down and do so undetected. Tall order. > That's exactly what we saw in WTC7. It was a pictire perfect > demolition. If the best demolition team on the planet contracted > to drop WTC7, they could not possibly have dropped it better. I think that is the problem. Your statement says it all "the best demo team on the planet could not have possibly have dropped it..." (do you enjoy the post edits like your bowel movement buddies like to do?) Kirb
From: David Johnston on 17 Jan 2007 21:07 On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:24:46 -0500, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: > > Also, physics has proved that a gravity collapse is impossible >anyway. The massive steel frames, especially the central cores, >were far too strong to collapse under their own weights. See Gordon >Ross' paper on momentum transfer on this page: And this of course establishes that the towers didn't fall at all. It was all an optical illusion. They're really still there. After all, a gravity collapse is impossible. That's why the delay in rebuilding. You can't build a new building when the old one is still there, and they can't figure out how to demolish it without anyone noticing.
From: Henry on 18 Jan 2007 18:44 David Johnston wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:24:46 -0500, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: >> Also, physics has proved that a gravity collapse is impossible >> anyway. The massive steel frames, especially the central cores, >> were far too strong to collapse under their own weights. See Gordon >> Ross' paper on momentum transfer on this page: <link restored because we can't let terrorists or their apologists conceal the truth> http://worldtradecentertruth.com/ > And this of course establishes that the towers didn't fall at all. Reading and thinking don't come easily for you, do they? <chuckle> The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross' excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/ As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression, the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics. The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including the 47 interconnected central core columns: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible, is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in the bottom photo. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That, of course, is not physically possible. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed via demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, they're being pulled apart. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that is being compressed? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse on this page: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos That certainly isn't the gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel frame. Those are clearly very powerful explosions. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Mitchell Jones on 20 Jan 2007 02:07
In article <mjones-35DE98.19120319012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > In article <45B00EE6.72699481(a)insidejob.gov>, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> > wrote: > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: > > [snip] > > I hope you don't actually believe that. I work with various > > metals for a living. The increase in temperature even if it's > > bent quickly 180 degrees is barely detectable. > > ***{Every pound of steel at the top of the tower had 1368 foot pounds of > potential energy, and at the bottom, that potential energy had been > reduced to zero. The implication: all of that potential energy was > transformed into heat by the hammering and bending that took place as > the material made its way into the debris pile at the bottom of the > tower. Whether enough of that heat accumulated on any specific piece of > steel to render it molten, of course, depends on details of the > situation that would be difficult to know about. The situation inside > the zone of disintegration was rather chaotic, with the likely result > that some of the falling metal, by chance, accumulated less heat, while > other pieces accumulated more. How wide the range was, and whether any > of the stuff melted due solely to impacts and bending, I can't say. ***{I could have said, of course, if I hadn't been too lazy to do a calculation. So let's do it now. A kilogram of steel would weigh 9.8 Newtons, and the work required to raise it 1368 feet would be��[(1368)(12)/(39.37)](9.8) = 4086 Joules. The specific heat of steel is about 486 Joules/kg/K, so if all the potential energy in a kg of steel at a height of 1368 feet were converted to heat, its temperature would rise by a mere 4086/486 = 8.4 K.�Thus I can say for sure that none of the steel came anywhere near to its melting point due solely to the effects of converting its potential energy into heat, irrespective of how chaotic the environment might have been that it fell through on its way to the ground. The implication: a hell of a lot of heat had to come from somewhere, if there was a significant amount of molten steel pooled in the basement of the Tower after the collapse occurred. But does that require the use of thermite or some similar material? Or could not the same effect be achieved by merely burning the various combustibles that wound up in the debris pile? Offhand, the odds look rather slim, as I think about it. I'll have to do some research into this particular point to decide, but this particular conspiracy theory is suddenly beginning to interest me more than a little bit. --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |