9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
So you think a tank of kerosene designed to run jet engines is going to explode with 100% of energy efficiency?
I bet it would not even give 10%.
http://www.feature-fireplaces.co.uk/fire-efficiency-ezp-17.html
It is curious how we get this biased physics in favor of the official story but we don't even get discussion of the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the towers. The columns getting thicker would increase the weight and energy required to collapse them.
But we are supposed to get all excited because the 10,000 gallons of fuel contained so much energy.
YEAH RIGHT!
psik
I don't give a damn about your links that just provide another link to a 100 page PDF that I already have on my DVD if you are not going to say specifically what matters in that PDF.
I said the NIST does not specify the total amount of concrete or the "center of mass" of the tilted top portion of the south tower. If you say that data is there then specify the quote and page. I provided quotes with my links.
I am not going off on wild goose chases just because you provide a link.
psik
Bull. You claimed the blueprints were not publicly available- not only did I link you to them, with a whole lot of extra information, I have a copy on my computer.
I will look through and find the Materials Specs page.
But it doesn't matter. The figures won't help what you're trying to claim. They will help my claim.
You're trying to say the building tilted and should have toppled over like a felled tree. You're failing to grasp the sheer weight involved and the mechanics of it.
Lastly, you're suggesting Demolitions set to blow out the buildings beneath- yet, the video observation clearly shows the collapse happen at the point of impact. Way up topside.
Were the explosives hurriedly hauled up to the point of impact (They took the industrial elevator, I guess
), put in place and then set off at the top? If you say "yes" (which is the only answer you could give and save what little face you have) since it is there the collapse begins - that will only demonstrate the futility of what you're trying to claim as then the "controlled demolition at the high floors" would show the collapse just as it happened.Oh, yes you are.
I didn't say anything about demolition.
How the top 15% or less by height and weight of a tall vertical structure can destroy the mass and supports below must be explained on the basis of accurate data. If it can't then something else must have been involved even if we do not know what it was.
There is no such thing as freefall speed. There is freefall acceleration.
The freefall time would be 9.2 seconds. I said 26 seconds. What are you complaining about?
It is acknowledged that even the remains of the core came down in less than 26 seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
psik
Come now, let's not fight for his attention- we can take turns...
You can have it. He's arguing for a negative, he doesn't provide another solution. He doesn't want to mention demolition, but insists the building couldn't have come down without the supports below being destroyed. I don't even think he cares to find an answer, that would end his reason for ranting.
You are a LIAR. I have never used the word "blu____nt" in this thread. You will have a hard time finding where I have ever referred to them since I have done it so rarely I can't even remember. But I have not seen any that show the horizontal beams in the core so I think they are worthless anyway.
psik
You said;
"distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings"
Which is found in the __________.
Fill in the blank.
If the blue prints don't have the horizontal beams of the core then.....
Can you tell the thickness of the walls of the perimeter box columns from the floor plans.
DUH!
It is not my fault they you think you can think. I see what is blank.
psik
Ok, what Core are you talking about, anyway?
Are you telling me that after all this time... You were thinking....
LMMFAO
OMG Dude, you are FUN!
No wonder you couldn't find a copy of the blueprints that had what you were looking for!
When you said steel and concrete down the building- You meant central to the inside!
Oh... God... I'm dying here... You tell people you've been researching this all these years?!?! Really?
WTC 1 & 2 did not have cores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
Here, grab some popcorn.
This feature presentation brought to you by CoocooPuffs.
Last edited:
Oh... God... I'm dying here... You tell people you've been researching this all these years?!?! Really?
WTC 1 & 2 did not have cores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
Tell the NIST
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
Tell you what, I don't think I will waste my time reading your posts anymore.
psik
Blah blah blah....you've been posting the same shit for all the years I've known you. Surprise us....let us know what you think happened on 9/11 rather than just harping on...and on...and on...and on...about the steel and concrete distribution in the towers. That would be entertaining.
See...I know you...and I know you won't post a complete theory of what happened on 9/11... because you are mentally ill. For some reason, knowing that the NIST report doesn't have certain terms that you searched for gives you comfort that that they are wrong and you are right. It feels good to be right...so you won't admit anything else...because your pussy ass that doesn't want to feel stupid.
You're referring to a central Core which is common in highrises whereas that NIST report wording was specific: Core Columns. There's a difference you apparently don't know about and it's why you threw me for a loop. You had said core several times before I caught on to what you meant.
Heh, you don't anyway.
See...I know you...and I know you won't post a complete theory of what happened on 9/11... because you are mentally ill. For some reason, knowing that the NIST report doesn't have certain terms that you searched for gives you comfort that that they are wrong and you are right. It feels good to be right...so you won't admit anything else...because your pussy ass that doesn't want to feel stupid.
The NCSTAR1 report contains both terms "center of mass" and "center of gravity".
But it says nothing about the "center of mass" of the tilted top portion of the south tower. But then the physics profession does not discuss that subject either. So where has it been explained why the top 30 stories of the south tower did not fall down the side? But was the "center of gravity" still over the core or not? If its location is never explained then that question can't be answered.
So 9/11 is a joke because of the 11 year failure to address a simple physics problem.
Yeah, not being as dumb as most morons means being mentally ill.
psik
- Status