Reply With Quote
Relegated? Why would I even want to try to act black like you are trying to do? It's ridiculous.
You'd have to be a Mormon so there wold be bigger issues there.
Relegated? Why would I even want to try to act black like you are trying to do? It's ridiculous.
Putting aside your apparent bigotry, would it be okay for me to talk black if I were black?
I didn't say you wanted to act black. You do however apparently prohibit yourself from doing and saying things that your black superiors do.
Awesome; we can get to the business of getting rid of the uncons utional hate speech laws, then.
It's such an impossibility I can't even imagine the hypothetical.
Nah, I just avoid being a try hard idiot.
You see the world through a gimpy filter, though. Two words triggering you.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 08-23-2017 at 10:51 AM.
Pavlov
No denial of the fact that you prohibit yourself from acts reserved for your black superiors, cuck.
I don't see any evidence in this post either.
It's almost like you don't have any.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-23-2017 at 12:38 PM.
You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.
Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.
You do understand that an aluminum plane traveling at more than 200MPH slamming into a brick and concrete buildings will sort of make the plane turn in to much smaller pieces, right?
There are hundreds of pictures of plane debris. Hundreds of witnesses that saw American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
That is one of the most thoroughly debunked things that people have said about this event.One of the most thorough analyses of conspiracy theories about 9/11 was by Popular Mechanics which debunked all claims which deviated from the 9/11 Commission findings.
To those who claimed that there was never any wreckage at the scene, they quoted blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer, who was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash.
Mr Kilsheimer, who is chief executive of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D.C. said: 'I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.
'I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?'
No, they don't, not really.
The towers are simple physics. Once the collapse starts, there is more than enough kinetic energy to collapse the entire structure, as the top 20-30 stories started crashing into the parts below. Feel free to check my math.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.jod911.com/
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.
References to the tensile or compressive strength of steel relate either to the yield strength or ultimate strength. Figure A-5 shows the stress-strain curves for a structural steel (ASTM A36) at room temperature and elevated temperatures. As indicated in the figure, the yield and ultimate strength decrease with temperature as does the modulus of elasticity. Figure A-6 shows the variation of strength with temperature (ratio of strength at elevated temperature to that at room temperature) for hot rolled steel such as A36.
As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature.
The modulus of elasticity, E0, is about 210 x 103 MPa for a variety of common steels at room temperature. The variation of the modulus of elasticity with temperature for structural steels and steel reinforcing bars is presented in Figure A-7.
As in the case of strength, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the modulus of elasticity is reduced to approximately half of the value at ambient temperature.
Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.
Photgraphic evidence.
Verifiable physics.
Testible scientific data.
This is what evidence looks like.
Bull , on the other hand, usually comes wrapped in smileys and short -posts.
I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.
Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.
Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.
Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.
Bull , on the other hand, comes with your pseudo science and willingness to pretend the govt. explanations are not .
Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.
(slow clap)
If only the government had studied WTC 7 for years and published a publicly available report dealing solely with WTC 7. That'd sure show you.I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.
Dude, you've presented no evidence to defy the facts that bely the facts. It's one big blanket denial. But if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, then explain away Larry Silverstein saying he gave the order to detonate building 7. Explain why the WTC Commission completely ignored a ing building falling out of the blue. Go ahead; you ain't got .
Oh, they put out an obscure report away from public scrutiny? Sorry, bro, but the 911 Commission Report was where that should've been. That's a glaring omission.
Even in cases of much lesser buildings collapsing, it was done in chunks. The way the towers fell were completely consistent with detonations. "SIMPLE PHYSICS"
Actually no.
You haven't scrutinized it?
You haven't researched it?
You haven't studied it?
You haven't seen it?
You didn't know it existed?
lol
Why would the core remain after the rest of the buildings collapsed around them? Does that look like an controlled demolition?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
