100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/17/12 11:25 AM
|
|
Well, it is semantics anyway. The government didn't initially do a formal report on "why the buildings fell" because it was obvious that fully fueled planes hit the buildings, caused a huge fire, and less than an hour later they fell.  Okay now that I am up off of the floor over THAT statement, do you want to talk about what is "obvious?" Really? The formal report later issued by the folks associated with ASCE and peer reviewed and "accepted by the government" stated that it was a combination of the impact of the plane and the fire. The damage by the plane itself was not adequate to bring the buildings down but the crash knocked off a lot of fireproofing which allowed the steel structure to heat up more quickly. So what caused the steel structures to TURN INTO DUST? Subsequent analysis by other ASCE members and submitted for peer review showed that the fire would have taken the building down by itself. This fact was surprising to many scientists but not to practicing structural engineers since they already knew that is how it works. It does not explain everything turning to dust, or hundreds of cars that rusted and had melted engine blocks that were blocks away. So the argument is moot. The fire could not have existed without the planes since the planes were the source of the fire. The overall argument is not moot. Do you have any idea how much melted steel there should have been left over if that is what happened to it? Where was it? There was very little steel, melted or otherwise left to account for those two buildings. It turned to dust and dust was all over the streets and in the upper atmosphere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/17/12 11:31 AM
|
|
Does this look like a steel beam melting?
  These things were not small. A few survived. It takes a semi just to move just one of the larger beams ones across the country. The twin towers were like a small city, each one of them There was not enough debris left for a them to have just melted and fallen. That's what is "obvious." No need for physicists. Here is one:  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, i see nothing melting there....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 04/17/12 01:10 PM
|
|
There was no melting. Also you point about how big it was saying there should be more debris is backwards. You obviously don't even know highschool physics. The bigger the mass of the object the more force is it has. Also the taller it is the longer it falls and the more momentum it has thus the more force it has. The more force on an object the more it is destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is semantics anyway. The government didn't initially do a formal report on "why the buildings fell" because it was obvious that fully fueled planes hit the buildings, caused a huge fire, and less than an hour later they fell. Okay now that I am up off of the floor over THAT statement, do you want to talk about what is "obvious?" Really? The formal report later issued by the folks associated with ASCE and peer reviewed and "accepted by the government" stated that it was a combination of the impact of the plane and the fire. The damage by the plane itself was not adequate to bring the buildings down but the crash knocked off a lot of fireproofing which allowed the steel structure to heat up more quickly. So what caused the steel structures to TURN INTO DUST? Subsequent analysis by other ASCE members and submitted for peer review showed that the fire would have taken the building down by itself. This fact was surprising to many scientists but not to practicing structural engineers since they already knew that is how it works. It does not explain everything turning to dust, or hundreds of cars that rusted and had melted engine blocks that were blocks away. So the argument is moot. The fire could not have existed without the planes since the planes were the source of the fire. The overall argument is not moot. Do you have any idea how much melted steel there should have been left over if that is what happened to it? Where was it? There was very little steel, melted or otherwise left to account for those two buildings. It turned to dust and dust was all over the streets and in the upper atmosphere. ok, i'll bit on this... how much steel did they use to build it, and how much did they haul off? i know you have the figures, because you keep saying there was less.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 04/17/12 02:11 PM
|
 All the scientific evidence makes it crystal clear that the buildings fell for one reason - because they were hit by Islamic terrorists from Al-Qaida piloting two huge planes full of fuel and innocent victims. Planes hit at full speed resulting in impact damage and fire damage which damaged buildings so severely that they could not support themselves and collapsed also damaging nearby buildings which also were destroyed. There is no disagreement any longer among the scientists and engineers who have meticulously studied 911. There is no dispute as to the cause of the disaster at all. That is hilarious, and a bald faced lie. The humorous part of it is the utter disregard for the evidence and analysis by the irrational conspiracy theorists who desperately try to concoct one cockamamie unsupportable theory after another to attempt to invent a conspiracy... When the facts and the analysis is presented in detail showing that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida did it, Bin Laden and Al-Qaida openly took credit and bragged about it and all evidence points to them and the ties they had with all the terrorists AND no credible evidence has been given to support even in the slightest way any other explanation!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is semantics anyway. The government didn't initially do a formal report on "why the buildings fell" because it was obvious that fully fueled planes hit the buildings, caused a huge fire, and less than an hour later they fell. Okay now that I am up off of the floor over THAT statement, do you want to talk about what is "obvious?" Really? The formal report later issued by the folks associated with ASCE and peer reviewed and "accepted by the government" stated that it was a combination of the impact of the plane and the fire. The damage by the plane itself was not adequate to bring the buildings down but the crash knocked off a lot of fireproofing which allowed the steel structure to heat up more quickly. So what caused the steel structures to TURN INTO DUST? Subsequent analysis by other ASCE members and submitted for peer review showed that the fire would have taken the building down by itself. This fact was surprising to many scientists but not to practicing structural engineers since they already knew that is how it works. It does not explain everything turning to dust, or hundreds of cars that rusted and had melted engine blocks that were blocks away. So the argument is moot. The fire could not have existed without the planes since the planes were the source of the fire. The overall argument is not moot. Do you have any idea how much melted steel there should have been left over if that is what happened to it? Where was it? There was very little steel, melted or otherwise left to account for those two buildings. It turned to dust and dust was all over the streets and in the upper atmosphere. It is really sad that you are unable to make anything approaching an intelligent remark on the this subject. It is moot whether the plane caused the building to fall or the fuel in the plane burning caused the building to fall since the plane brought the fuel to the building. In either case it is the action of the plane. Only an idiot would think the steel turned to dust. It did not. And the steel did not melt. What did turn to dust was thousands of tons of sheetrock and concrete; not to mention anything that got caught between thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete. This really isn't a topic you have the ability to understand. The only information you will allow in your mind is "truther". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dust you saw was concrete. I posted a link explaining everything and it even explains how the debris field is the proper size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is semantics anyway. The government didn't initially do a formal report on "why the buildings fell" because it was obvious that fully fueled planes hit the buildings, caused a huge fire, and less than an hour later they fell. Okay now that I am up off of the floor over THAT statement, do you want to talk about what is "obvious?" Really? The formal report later issued by the folks associated with ASCE and peer reviewed and "accepted by the government" stated that it was a combination of the impact of the plane and the fire. The damage by the plane itself was not adequate to bring the buildings down but the crash knocked off a lot of fireproofing which allowed the steel structure to heat up more quickly. So what caused the steel structures to TURN INTO DUST? Subsequent analysis by other ASCE members and submitted for peer review showed that the fire would have taken the building down by itself. This fact was surprising to many scientists but not to practicing structural engineers since they already knew that is how it works. It does not explain everything turning to dust, or hundreds of cars that rusted and had melted engine blocks that were blocks away. So the argument is moot. The fire could not have existed without the planes since the planes were the source of the fire. The overall argument is not moot. Do you have any idea how much melted steel there should have been left over if that is what happened to it? Where was it? There was very little steel, melted or otherwise left to account for those two buildings. It turned to dust and dust was all over the streets and in the upper atmosphere. ok, i'll bit on this... how much steel did they use to build it, and how much did they haul off? i know you have the figures, because you keep saying there was less.... Martin Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal, New York Department of Sanitation states in an article on the AWPA website: “200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer).” Phillips & Jordan, Inc. reported: “The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed, 35,000 tons of steel had been removed(165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero).” Thus the total amount of debris is 1,662,000 tons. Comparison of Calculated Mass to Recovered Mass The calculated debris mass (1.6 million tons) seems to correspond well with the reported debris mass (1.66 million tons). http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send the sself proclaimed engineers back to high school.
Gravity From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec. And so on. http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml Do we agree? The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. It took them ten seconds and that free fall speed is with no resistance at all. I cant imagine for one second that the undamaged floors below gave allmost less resistance than thin air would. Its fairly simply if the explanation is absurd you need to find an alnternative explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send the sself proclaimed engineers back to high school. Gravity From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec. And so on. http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml Do we agree? The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. It took them ten seconds and that free fall speed is with no resistance at all. I cant imagine for one second that the undamaged floors below gave allmost less resistance than thin air would. Its fairly simply if the explanation is absurd you need to find an alnternative explanation. Please tell me that you aren't trying to pass this off as your own work.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floors don't support a building. What do you thin the 40th floor is supported by the 39th floor? I am sorry that is not how it works. So the support structure further down the building is weakened. Then you get an increased instantaneous force on the building from the moving mass. As it continues to collapse the mass and velocity continue to grow and so does the force. That is why it collapsed so fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send the sself proclaimed engineers back to high school. Gravity From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec. And so on. http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml Do we agree? The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. It took them ten seconds and that free fall speed is with no resistance at all. I cant imagine for one second that the undamaged floors below gave allmost less resistance than thin air would. Its fairly simply if the explanation is absurd you need to find an alnternative explanation. Please tell me that you aren't trying to pass this off as your own work.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floors don't support a building. What do you thin the 40th floor is supported by the 39th floor? I am sorry that is not how it works. So the support structure further down the building is weakened. Then you get an increased instantaneous force on the building from the moving mass. As it continues to collapse the mass and velocity continue to grow and so does the force. That is why it collapsed so fast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iam not at all suprised you didnt see the link Your slipping up on this thread as well Invictus  Pay Attention Young Man 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conspiracy Theorists are geniuses. They form the most amazing segment of Earth's population. Profound researchers all, they dive into the very fabric of reality uncovering the grim truths concealed beneath all which is held true by today's modern population. Sadly, the number of conspiracy theorists is believed to have declined in recent years. This is widely believed to have been the work of the CIA, or possibly the dark forces of Zionism. Seriously! Open your eyes! We have pictures, and some of them look only slightly blurred! Becoming a Conspiracy Theorist Not an easy task. First, not everyone is cut from the right thread to become a conspiracy theorist. A particular mix of rapid analytical ability must combine with a phenominal talent for creative deduction. (See Creativity ). Second, an aspiring conspiracy theorist must be a vehement individualist. You have to truly know inside that your ideas are inherently more valid than everyone else's. Science, public education, religion, and your teachers telling you that you're a ****ing psycho... all this must be tossed to the side in favor of the truth you know is within you. It's easiest to start small. Begin with something already established. The Kennedy assassination is a good choice, and an entry-point for the burgeoning conspiracy theorist. Kennedy was a great president. Why would he be shot? The answer is simple. A world leader of his talent might very well have caused world peace to flood o'er the lands. If there was peace, we'd have no-one left to kill. Ah yes, we can easily see that the Kennedy Assasination was a set up. Never mind that thousands of people took tens of thousands of pictures, and captured virtually every single angle of the motorcade procession, from every conceivable point. The CIA had already guessed that NOBODY would be looking at that grassy knoll, or the book suppository. Ignore all that "factual evidence" crap. You've seen the movie 13 Days. The Joint Chiefs hated that ****ing hippie in the oval office. They set it all up. Locating Existing Conspiracy Theorists Conspiracy Theorists are EVERYWHERE! And We are being WATCHED! I tell you it's the CIA! They are watching over us because they see the threat WE present! Or, the threat they present. Yeah, 'cause I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe everything that the government tells me, because America is run by good and honest people who only hide important military secrets, and even then, only when absolutely necessary... Yeah... Conspiracy theorists are notoriously hard to locate. They aren't on Uncyclopedia, that's for sure. If you do a websearch on conspiracy theorists, all you'll find are historic documentation unearthed by government researchers tracking down filthy terrorists... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iam not at all suprised you didnt see the link Your slipping up on this thread as well Invictus Pay Attention Young Man who the hell adds a link in the middle of the copied page? it either goes at the top or bottom of the copied material.. I knew it wasn't his anyway... There were consecutive sentences that had no misspelled words.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iam not at all suprised you didnt see the link Your slipping up on this thread as well Invictus Pay Attention Young Man who the hell adds a link in the middle of the copied page? it either goes at the top or bottom of the copied material.. I knew it wasn't his anyway... There were consecutive sentences that had no misspelled words.. Its verry difficult to have an honest discussion with people who claim to be educated yet have such closed minds and jump to such hasty conclusions. For the record though I will never win a spelling bee or a typing contest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr conrad please provide your link. It sure as Hell isn't his own work
|
|
|
|
|
