The End of the 9/11 CT Movement

[Gamolon]

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

n0spam.

What are you using to define that a percentage of g results in the inverse percentage of weight of an object to be applied to an object beneath? Is it a formula? Where is this information?

Does your "formula" or "information" work as follows?
An object falling at 70% of g will apply 30% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 30% of g will apply 70% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 53% of g will apply 47% of its weight to an object below

Using your example above, explain to me the following.
1. When the 100lb weight is dropped, what rate of descent is it falling at?
2. When the 100lb weight impacts the shelf, what is the amount of force exerted? Show me the formula you used so we can see if you are understanding this process correctly
3. If I dropped a 100,000lb weight on the same shelf, what would the rate of descent be and would you visibly see a jolt the moment said weight impacted the shelf?

Here's another question. If your shelf in the above example was designed to support a STATIC load of 35lbs and I dropped a 35lb weight from 50 feet above said shelf, would it resist or would the weight break it? What is the impact force generated? How does this fit into your percentage of g = the inverse percentage of weight applied to an object below?

Let's see if you REALLY understand physics and if you can site your sources for your information.

Any answers n0spam?

 

[SAYIT]

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

n0spam.

What are you using to define that a percentage of g results in the inverse percentage of weight of an object to be applied to an object beneath? Is it a formula? Where is this information?

Does your "formula" or "information" work as follows?
An object falling at 70% of g will apply 30% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 30% of g will apply 70% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 53% of g will apply 47% of its weight to an object below

Using your example above, explain to me the following.
1. When the 100lb weight is dropped, what rate of descent is it falling at?
2. When the 100lb weight impacts the shelf, what is the amount of force exerted? Show me the formula you used so we can see if you are understanding this process correctly
3. If I dropped a 100,000lb weight on the same shelf, what would the rate of descent be and would you visibly see a jolt the moment said weight impacted the shelf?

Here's another question. If your shelf in the above example was designed to support a STATIC load of 35lbs and I dropped a 35lb weight from 50 feet above said shelf, would it resist or would the weight break it? What is the impact force generated? How does this fit into your percentage of g = the inverse percentage of weight applied to an object below?

Let's see if you REALLY understand physics and if you can site your sources for your information.

Any answers n0spam?

I am shocked ... shocked I tell you. Spammy usually hits this thread pretty regularly and he was here when you posted this "bump." As much as he likes to play "pretend physicists" I am truly shocked he slithered away without showing you his scientific "prowess."

 

[Gamolon]

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

n0spam.

What are you using to define that a percentage of g results in the inverse percentage of weight of an object to be applied to an object beneath? Is it a formula? Where is this information?

Does your "formula" or "information" work as follows?
An object falling at 70% of g will apply 30% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 30% of g will apply 70% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 53% of g will apply 47% of its weight to an object below

Using your example above, explain to me the following.
1. When the 100lb weight is dropped, what rate of descent is it falling at?
2. When the 100lb weight impacts the shelf, what is the amount of force exerted? Show me the formula you used so we can see if you are understanding this process correctly
3. If I dropped a 100,000lb weight on the same shelf, what would the rate of descent be and would you visibly see a jolt the moment said weight impacted the shelf?

Here's another question. If your shelf in the above example was designed to support a STATIC load of 35lbs and I dropped a 35lb weight from 50 feet above said shelf, would it resist or would the weight break it? What is the impact force generated? How does this fit into your percentage of g = the inverse percentage of weight applied to an object below?

Let's see if you REALLY understand physics and if you can site your sources for your information.

Any answers n0spam?

I am shocked ... shocked I tell you. Spammy usually hits this thread pretty regularly and he was here when you posted this "bump." As much as he likes to play "pretend physicists" I am truly shocked he slithered away without showing you his scientific "prowess."

As am I.

The problem is this. n0spam knows that if he answer my questions, it will bring about the fact that he has no clue about what he is talking about. He's probably trying to figure out the best possible way to answer and save as much face as he can.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.

Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??

 

[daws101]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.

Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??

kinetic energy and not hitting anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory..

 

[Gamolon]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.

Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??

You do realize that the corner columns that made up the angled edge were 6'-11" apart right? And that measurement is on the leg portion of the triangle created by the perimeter columns on the corner. That would make the face of each of the corners almost 9 1/2' wide right? How much space from floor to ceiling?

And you don't think any of the "substantial sized" objects could fit through that?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.

Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??

kinetic energy and not hitting anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory..

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away.

The windows are less than 19 inches wide, how does an engine piece 2 to 3 times that size (already damaged) not hit "anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory" (which would need to include the exterior wall of the building) -- without ripping a large hole in it? Same thing with the landing gear and the section of fuselage?
Where is the the damage to the building??

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

The vertical columns on the exterior wall panels were about 17 3/4" wide and spaced 3' 4" on center - the gaps were about 22 1/4" wide

 

[SAYIT]

The vertical columns on the exterior wall panels were about 17 3/4" wide and spaced 3' 4" on center - the gaps were about 22 1/4" wide

I can't believe anyone is still arguing what the definition of "is" is. This is so done to death ... in fact, it's been done to the death of the "Truther" Movement [R.I.P.].
If you have a problem with any of the substantive facts in the 9/11 OS, please don't beat around the bush. Just come out and say it for cryin' out loud so you can quickly be put out of your misery. Poor Spammy is going to need years of therapy following his complete and utter destruction and I don't think he is the only "Truther" in trouble these days.

 

[Gamolon]

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.

With large ta-tas.

Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??

kinetic energy and not hitting anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory..

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away.

The windows are less than 19 inches wide, how does an engine piece 2 to 3 times that size (already damaged) not hit "anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory" (which would need to include the exterior wall of the building) -- without ripping a large hole in it? Same thing with the landing gear and the section of fuselage?
Where is the the damage to the building??

Did you even read what I posted above CAPTCHATHIS?

The four corners of each tower was a "beveled" corner at 45 degrees. The distance between the two columns that made up this "beveled" corner when looking perpendicular at any face of the towers was 6'-11" center to center.

The angle of the plane lines up with these corners in that some debris would have smashed through this 6'-11" opening.



Here are the holes created by debris smashing through the opening between the columns on 6'-11" centers.


The red boxes in the photo below outline holes.

 

[Gamolon]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

 

[Gamolon]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

Hey Pigpen, are you going to address the 6' hole in the corner of the tower that I showed you as the exit point of the debris?

 

[SAYIT]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

Are you suggesting someone picked up that engine (unseen) 2 blocks from the WTC and dropped it off another 4 blocks away? And you think my response is ridiculous?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Former "Truther" Charlie Veitch

 

[daws101]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

Are you suggesting someone picked up that engine (unseen) 2 blocks from the WTC and dropped it off another 4 blocks away? And you think my response is ridiculous?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Former "Truther" Charlie Veitch

lol! no he will submit that after the fake planes did not hit the towers that an army of black ops agents planted or pre planted exact replica smashed broken and burned plane parts of the alleged crash planes while no one was looking..
or it'll be the hackneyed exotic silent explosives story!

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

Hey Pigpen, are you going to address the 6' hole in the corner of the tower that I showed you as the exit point of the debris?

For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.

PS. Can ya lend Sayit a nickel??

 

[SAYIT]

For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.

PS. Can ya lend Sayit a nickel??

I can't say (and neither can you) what is in that picture but I can see a large exit wound in that building. How do you know it's a column? It could be an air duct or something from the floor above just dangling. Obviously something large came out of there in a hurry. Can you say kinetic energy, Princess?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

No, I CAN say it's an intact structural member and you can deny it. Now go have your daddy apply some kinetic energy to your bottom, 'kay darling?

 

[SAYIT]

No, I CAN say it's an intact structural member and you can deny it. Now go have your daddy apply some kinetic energy to your bottom, 'kay darling?

Uh-huh, but I didn't deny it but rather said I can't tell from that picture what it is. So it's an intact structural member because you say so. No wonder the "Truther" movement died ... it was populated by ignorant yet pompous jackasses.
Any idea what left that gaping hole, Pompous One?

 

[Gamolon]

Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away

Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.

Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..." was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.

Hey Pigpen, are you going to address the 6' hole in the corner of the tower that I showed you as the exit point of the debris?

For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.

PS. Can ya lend Sayit a nickel??

That middle column IS every other floor. Maybe you should research a little more before opening your mouth.