Doer
Well-Known Member
Good question. A bunch of idiots you mean? Oh, yes, elected and appointed, the hired and not fired, idiots. WE the People. Self rule.
In fact, these are the same sort of idiots that educated you, apparently!
9/11 what do you think?
- Thread starter smokermore
- Start date
Good question. A bunch of idiots you mean? Oh, yes, elected and appointed, the hired and not fired, idiots. WE the People. Self rule.
In fact, these are the same sort of idiots that educated you, apparently!
Mike Young
Well-Known Member
Doer, you live in a fantasy land. DO THE MATH! Only about 10% of everything you type actually makes sense. Only 5% of that is even relevant to what is being discussed. That make 95% of everything you say complete & utter minutia. DO THE MATH!
theleach
Active Member
Anybody here who isn't aware that it was an inside job:
They found thermite in the rubble. Scientists have samples and confirmed it. It was even on the evening news in Europe a while ago. Look it up. For me thats the smoking gun. That and:
-Building 7 collapsing after being hit by nothing.
-Pentagon. Plane burnt to dust with no trace, yet half a foot from the gaping hole is a stack of paper on a computer, unscolded on the second floor. HMMM?
-The thousands of reputable witnesses, mainly firemen and police officers witnessing and being injured by explosions in the basement of the WTC's
I could probably believe the official story if just ONE little bit of it made ANY sense, but none does. There literally isn't one thing that makes sense, from impossible physics to ridiculous stories, like finding a terrorists wallet blocks from theWTCs .
For those who believe the official story, think. Just fucking think for a second.
They found thermite in the rubble. Scientists have samples and confirmed it. It was even on the evening news in Europe a while ago. Look it up. For me thats the smoking gun. That and:
-Building 7 collapsing after being hit by nothing.
-Pentagon. Plane burnt to dust with no trace, yet half a foot from the gaping hole is a stack of paper on a computer, unscolded on the second floor. HMMM?
-The thousands of reputable witnesses, mainly firemen and police officers witnessing and being injured by explosions in the basement of the WTC's
I could probably believe the official story if just ONE little bit of it made ANY sense, but none does. There literally isn't one thing that makes sense, from impossible physics to ridiculous stories, like finding a terrorists wallet blocks from theWTCs .
For those who believe the official story, think. Just fucking think for a second.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Boring. Read back in the thread. I already covered it. Did you read their paper? No. I did. Sit down.
So here's my question then. When the plane struck the building, there was a huge fireball. This was mostly from the jet fuel, wasn't it? Why is it implausible that the fireball would have traveled down the elevator shafts? Wouldn't gravity push the jet fuel downward?
Go about 9 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcr2hh9RQRw. Would you not describe that sound as an explosion...?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey, yom-yom, I left a simple equation for you there. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. It's math.
Give numbers, mega joule.
TERMINAL VELOICTY in meters per second of
UPPER STRUCTURE AIR RESISTANCE and its
MASS
Math with me.
bigriddik
New Member
As I said before, how do u explain the absolute smooth collapse of a structure that size with upper damage? Never in the history of modern man has this happened. If u have some math or footage to prove this I am salivating to c it. Plz enlighten us brother. Physics will not allow for mass to simply move aside because something less mass is moving. In other words it would have slowed or tipped in a direction. But not smoothly straight down. Lemme guess...u didn't c the angular cut steel beams found in the rubble either?
Doer
Well-Known Member
And to say nothing of other weird echoing of the day, all over.
bigriddik
New Member
As I said before, how do u explain the absolute smooth collapse of a structure that size with upper damage? Never in the history of modern man has this happened. If u have some math or footage to prove this I am salivating to c it. Plz enlighten us brother. Physics will not allow for mass to simply move aside because something with less mass is moving. In other words it would have slowed or tipped in a direction. But not smoothly straight down. Lemme guess...u didn't c the angular cut steel beams found in the rubble either?
Explain it for us then. It seems pretty simple to me: when critical columns can no longer hold the building up, they fail and the thing comes down.
Mike Young
Well-Known Member
I never said anything about terminal velocity. I did however see your post going on & on about someone misusing the term. You ignore the points you cannot debunk, and focus on a small portion you fell you can. There is too much that stinks about this whole thing, and for anyone to deny every single anomaly is literally a Moran.
Doer
Well-Known Member
We need a number that you don't have. We need to do math against reality, not what I call, no offense, Fools Logic.
We need some numbers that are not there. No data capture.
We don't know but we can get very close.
Weight per floor, estimated from gross weight of building. How many floors above, 20 something? Again that is a close guess.
OK, mass of that, in kilograms?
But, terminal velocity depends on two things and not the mass at all. It is shape and width...in this case a flat panel. Easy.
The other thing is the atmospheric density and altitude, humidity even.
So, get numbers, that you like, even rough guess and you will see.
Yommie, free fall and TermV? Same thing.
bigriddik
New Member
The terminal velocity statement wasn't at u sir. And ur exactly right, too much does stink. That's my point ...pay attention to big brother cause he's payin attention to u. N ps spell check before u insult someone
Because the firefighter knows what molten steel likes like compared to any other molten material? Because the steel was actually molten and not just heated? No pictures? No videos? This was going on for weeks at this huge site and there's nothing?
The fact that steel is red does not mean that it is molten. The first one is molten steel; the second is merely heated:
Your video suggests that the "World Trade Center cross" resulted from two pieces of steel melting together. Please substantiate this. My understanding is that the World Trade Center was full of t-beams and that the cross was just a t-beam. I have never heard anyone claim that it was two previously unrelated pieces of steel that melted together. Sure makes for a better story, though--much better than mentioning that the building was full of t-beams (which would make this cross not particularly special).
bigriddik
New Member
What ur forgetting is how can somthing go from zero to free fall that quickly if the supports r still there? Check the footage again. Nearly instant acceleration with an intact base. How is this possible? It isn't unless u remove its supports. No comment on angle cut steel beams I c. Must have been burnt that way lol
fireballs only travel down elevator shafts 1000 feet down in the movies. The initial impact would have burned up the majority of what fuel was left, and we know it wasn't full. Most of the fuel was used up in the big fireball on impact, maybe 1,000 gallons could survive for more than a minute or 2, it wasn't dumped into a single pool, the plane crashed into the building at 500 MPH, so did the fuel.
Random fuel load would not all be forced just down an elevator shaft, it would be ALL OVER the place. Even if you literally dumped 10,000 gallons of fuel down the elevator shaft, it still wouldn't explode, its JP-5, its not a highly volatile fuel, you can put burning cigarettes out with it.
Mike Young
Well-Known Member
I should've probably quoted him, as this comment was intended for doofer. So much tension in here.
echelon1k1
New Member
he also ASSumes, going from a single engine prop, to commercial airliner, is comparable to the transition from driving a car to a truck... I don't know kids these days...
How could there be evidence? Are you suggesting that the hypothesis should find confirmation in the debris?
The steel beams actually weren't covered with asbestos, at least in the impact sites. New York City required the World Trade Center's builders to stop using asbestos at the 64th floor, and they had to substitute other materials from that point on. The fireproofing in the World Trade Center was known to be deficient before 9/11 happened. You can find pictures and videos that show large sections of fireproofing already missing--it was a well-known and well-documented problem. See this article, for example: http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html.
bigriddik
New Member
Then I appoligize brother. Let's all just roll one n agree to disagree. We can get back to this after lmaoI should've probably quoted him, as this comment was intended for doofer. So much tension in here.