Which doesn't matter, because the pancake theory is not upheld by the official report.
As shown previously:
1) You don't know whether those are rescuers.
2) That isn't steam.
3) Firemen work in hot conditions as part of their job. They even have clothing for it.
4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.
You don't really have anything new to offer at this point. All you are doing is repeating arguments previously disproven and debunked. It has nothing to do with "the laws of physics" which you don't even understand anyway. You just want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
There is nothing left for this thread. It is time to close it.
Even if I was still a mod I wouldn't lock the thread. I think it's important to meet these fables and fabrications head-on. I don't think that anyone who still tries to perpetuate these stories that have been thorougly and repeatedly debunked is particularly interested in the truth, and the posts of the "truthers" in these threads when confronted with the facts or even a request for a coherent alternate theory support my claim constantly and consistently.
The sooner Americans let go of their thermite-coated fantasies of 9/11, the sooner they can deal with the real problems this country faces that caused and resulted from 9/11. If I can help that along in a limited way here, I'm glad to do it. These fantasies aren't difficult to dispell at any rate. Just a couple of mouse clicks.
Would you STFU? You sound like you're accepting an Oscar or something.
Not unlike CD, I'd also like to thank everybody and anybody who ever had anything at all to do with the making of this thread. And I especially want to thank Kori for allowing me to become a member of this forum, thereby giving me the opportunity to possibly help others by presenting my humble opinions to this international audience.
Thank you.
I'm guessing whottt's comment was directed at me. Having him on ignore is a treat. I just wanted to explain why I have given so much attention to the "truthers" and their speculations. I'll put it in terms he might be able to understand. They piss me off.
Now, back to the topic:
Look at all the thermite cuts!
Look at this one! The government had the audacity to write "save" on these beams like they were going to examine them. But everyone knows diagonal cuts on steel beams can be attributed only to thermite. The evidence is right in front of you sheeple! Wake up!
good pictures of those beams
that proves it
You can do anything with thermite.
Look -- Silverstein left his calling card on one of the beams using thermite!
Of course he ordered the crosses to be cut later to cover it up and make it look like someone was making memorials, but it's obvious he did it for the insurance money. And of course the insurance industry paid him without even questioning his involvement. It's worldwide, sheeple!
Here are some simple questions for anybody who thinks the buildings were brought down by demolition:
Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?
If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?
How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)
What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?
Yes, Random Guy is back for a spell.
The questions above are simple questions, but I expect them to be met with evasive answers on the part of the "truthers", because CTers generally aren't really interested in truth so much as they are in sensationalism that sells t-shirts on their websites.
I would love to be proven wrong about that, really I would. All you have to do is give honest answers to these starting questions, and we can go from there on to more advanced ones.
Regards,
RG
Great questions RandomGuy. And you're right, they'll be ducked, or rationalized away.
I can't believe this thread has gone on 13 pages, but I can't blame ChumpDumper for his continued posting. He's owning all the conspiracy dumbasses.
They are very simple questions, and you would be surprised at how hard they are for CTers to answer.
This is the pattern of responses I have gotten in other forums:
RG: Are rubber ducks yellow?
(notice a simple, easy to answer, yes or no format)
CT: The giant conspiracy hates ducks and here are the links with pictures of ducks being sacrificed on satanic altars.
(notice that nowhere here is the question actually answered)
They have a disturbing habit that mirrors a politician in a news interview: instead of answering a straight, honest question, they go off and talk about what they want to talk about.
Remember these questions are just starting points. I am perfectly willing to follow them where they go, and even give a few points to CTers. They just won't even be halfway honest and try. Hopefully I will get some intellectual honesty here, but I doubt it.
Just so we can see this at the top of the next page.
How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
I'll even give you another hint.
Remember to put miles per hour into either feet per second, or meters per second. RG likes metric, so I will do any converstion needed, if you want.
yes
yes
yes
yes
what do you mean brought down at free fall?
?
?
damage
all that still cant explain what a pisspoor excuse for an investigation the 911 commission report was
it was a joke
there is no explaination for building 7, the investigation was a sham, and all the evidence was destroyed
how many news stories have you seen in last couple of years about september 11th?, not about the firemens wifes, the heroes of ladder 4765, charlie sheen questioning september 11th, rudy gulianis leadership on sep 11th, the 911 commission report (gospel)
actual stories about the planes hitting, the structure, the collapse, the hijackers, the hijackers history, the fires
zero to 1?would not the liberal media give us a theory?I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failedWhat level of news coverage do you expect for an event that happened over five years ago?
yay. Some honest answers.
We know a plane affects a buildings ability to bear weight now.
Does it increase its ability to bear weight, not affect it, or reduce it?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-23-2007 at 11:48 PM.
You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.
Behold the power of thermite
Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....
Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.
So your going with the firemen-rescuers-heros, what ever you want to call them, bringing a arc-welder, likely running off a big gas tank, to a raging fire? Idiot.As shown previously:
1) You don't know whether those are rescuers.
2) That isn't steam.
3) Firemen work in hot conditions as part of their job. They even have clothing for it.
4) Thermite cannot cut at an angle. It cuts vertically.
You don't really have anything new to offer at this point. All you are doing is repeating arguments previously disproven and debunked. It has nothing to do with "the laws of physics" which you don't even understand anyway. You just want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
There is nothing left for this thread. It is time to close it.
For once I agree with Whott. Chumpy knows that his argument, much like the original FEMA and NIST reports of the WTC7 tower collapse, don't add up under the scrutiny of the scientific method. So it's much safer to label anyone who questions the sheeple story as a CT loon and declare premature ideological victory.
I'm still waiting for you to show us an example, any example, of "thermite charges" used to slice through steel columns. Heck, just give me an example of a thermite reaction being used in building demolition at all.You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.
Behold the power of thermite
Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....
Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.
What Chumpy's not telling you is that the devil is in the details...look at one of the pics that he keeps posting again...
Look closely....
Now look at the pic I posted again...
Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.
These conspiracy threads are so old. And predictable.
a) Here I'll make something up to advance my view point, knowing nothing about the exact mechanics of metalworking, but I did check google and wikipedia.
b) And here I make some random comment that ties to point A.
c) Despite the fact that this grey colored assumed gas could be 38,267 different substances, I'll single one out as definative proof of my view.
Either way, in 13 pages, nothing has been proven except trash-talking and question-dodging skills.
When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
Subs uting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
