Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan
The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives." Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.
C&EN: COVER STORY - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF A DISASTER
And what does weight have to do with figuring out how much SPACE something occupies?
Wow.
You and numan both...
are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??
Oh Jesus...
You, TakeAStepBack, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
So I asked that you explain, based on TakeAStepBack's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video I posted goes against TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
the typo was just the icing on the cake the meat of the statement was you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.that's funny! you know jack shit about physics (you can't even spell it )so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.assumption and imaginings are not a determination of the cause of the collapses..your scenario has nothing to do with physiscs
I have spelled physics many times..your jumping on a typo only further hi-lites the weakness of your hypothesis...and its not the physics of 9/11 that is false..it is NIST physics that is false
yes you can. http://physics.info/velocity/lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal
That 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.
Right you can tell the Air speed from a video
handy hint: when eot's is getting his ass handed to him, he says shit like the above.Right you can tell the Air speed from a video
Note the vapor fog above the wings of this B1-B when it turns after it makes a 500/mph pass. It takes high speeds to separate the air like that & create vapor.
[YouTube]13JGsr95wFo[/YouTube]
I guess decorated fighter pilots that went on to fly 757 commercially and NASA flight directors have never heard of your vapor maybe you should educate them..send them an e-mail ..lol
so shithead you're saying that the TT's were SOLID CONCRETE AND STEEL?15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.
.
The towers were about 95% air. Or can you refute that?
They were air..no I do not think so..the towers were concrete and steel no air was used in the construction of the towers
yes you can. Speed & Velocity - The Physics HypertextbookThat 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.
Right you can tell the Air speed from a video
wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .yes you can. Speed & Velocity - The Physics HypertextbookRight you can tell the Air speed from a video
that requires measurements its not done with "vapors"
wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .
that requires measurements its not done with "vapors"
the measuring( meaning math) is calculated (on video or film) by how fast an object moves past a given point.
give it up dude! you're wrong!
), ventilation to clear the smoke, disarming of the fire alarm system, no one noticing the "burning smell" from the cutting and a forensics clean up crew to remove all "evidence" followed by a crew to repair and repaint the walls that were removed/damaged to get access to the structure. What is more is that given the nature of the curtain walls these "pre cuts" would have been necessary on every single one of the vertical steel members. 
How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
I have no hypothesis I have facts
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.
How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
I have no hypothesis I have facts
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.
.
are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??
Oh Jesus...
You, TakeAStepBack, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
So I asked that you explain, based on TakeAStepBack's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video I posted goes against TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
in your video the top section is not blown into a dust cloud..the instant collapse initiation starts
There is no thermite evidence.
The Problem with Microspheres - Evidence based research
No one can tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel just be looking at them but given that there wasn't sufficient heat to melt the steel it was actually aluminum. (Melting point is half that of steel.)
In order to "pre cut" the steel beams in the WTC buildings there would have to be access to them, heavy equipment to do the cutting, people involved knowing exactly where to make the cuts (selecting floors 82 and 98
Even with all of that immense effort being done "in secret" there is still the problem of the concrete core. That cannot be "pre cut". That requires explosives to shatter the concrete. So now Eots has to arrange for another highly specialized team of demolition experts to get their explosive charges into the building (past the bomb detecting security) and into place with the same "stealth" and forensics and clean up crews sworn to "secrecy".
While all of is happening the normal maintenance crew somehow remains completely unaware of what is happening. No one notices anything at all unusual in buildings that have been previously targeted and attacked by terrorists with a bomb. No one sees something out of the ordinary. No smells, no question as to why the fire alarms are disabled, no security triggers set off, no strange wiring. Nothing at all.
But this is what conspiracy theorists like Eots expect us to believe was possible in the middle of some of the busiest buildings in the center of world's largest financial center. They babble on about doing "science" but don't apply it to their own conspiracy scenarios. Basically what Eots want us to believe is that somehow it was possible to prepare some of the largest and most secure buildings in lower Manhatten for total demolition over a period of months with a large crew of specialists who where sworn to total "secrecy". That level of "faith" would make saints envious if it wasn't more akin to paranoia rather than faith itself. The reality is that what Eots is proposing simply doesn't pass the LOL test as far as feasibility is concerned.
oh and the CIA has plants in government agencys and did that day with the cleanup crew obviously.The CIA had plants disguised as workers planting those explosives. an organization that brought in nazi criminals to carry out tasks for them after world war two ended. oh and your also ignorant to the fact that Bushs Brother and cousin were head of the security leading up to 9/11.Bushs brother wasnt there all the way up till 9/11,but his cousin was.
many said they heard very unusual activity and very unusual construction going on in the prior weeks. not only that.they used service elevaters that the regular workers did not have access to. Ever think of that possibility? ignoring that many witnesses that heard explosiosn were firefighters experienced in the sounds of explosives and detonations of buildings.How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
I have no hypothesis I have facts
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.
.
