Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Forcing air out of the building below??? Kind of like an accordion????Perhaps this will help:
How many people that swear by the "official" story are scientists? How many are engineers? Civil enginners? Applied physicists? Stochastic modelers? Operations research scientists? Seriously, how many people know how to interpret the "data" put out by "scientists"?
When you can do your own laboratory analysis, "expert" analysis is trite. An aluminum tube filled with air (mostly) crashes into a steel-reinforced concrete skycraper. Aluminum wins? The density of aluminum vs steel reinforced concrete says the concrete should have won. Look at the stress, strain, and normals of steel-reinforced concrete vs. aluminum. Even aluminum going at 500 mph; do the math. It is no match for steel-reinforced concrete.
The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.
Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.
Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.
People still obsess over this?
I suppose people still believe in the 'New World Order' and illuminati as well.
The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.
Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.
Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.
Exactly.
The plane did lose, initially, but it came in with such speed, the damage it caused from the collision and the fire is well understood.
The planes were shredded on impact by the steel frame the way an empty beer can would disintegrate if you fired it at an anvil.
The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.
Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.
Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.
No, an anvil is solid all the way through, a building is not.
That is true. Given the construction of the core a better analogy is an empty beer can shot through a big steel cheese grater. If you have doubts you can look at the remains of plane below cut up like a sardine can. That means the steel frame won (steel is 3x denser than aluminum.)
Metals and Alloys - Densities
Twin Tower core backbone under construction
Illustration of main support columns
Shredded plane
With regard to the video, it's two years old and thus this thread is in the wrong forum.Please use this thread only to discuss the documentary, state a time-mark for part you are referring to. No personal attacks or posts off-topic. Off-topic posts will be labeled as such.
Broadcast on PBS Colorado. Film sponsored by 9/11 families, produced by 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 90 minutes.
[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]
With regard to the video, it's two years old and thus this thread is in the wrong forum.
If you have a current video, let's see it.
Then why didn't the outside frame crumble into dust only, instead of the entire 110 story building by means of an aluminum tube fulled with air and water (humans)? Even the narrative my friend told me when it happened would have made more sense: she said WTC1 fell over on its side at the height the plane hit, into WTC2. If there was no magical physics (or lies,) that would be a very likely scenario. And, at that time that was outrageous, because I know aluminum tubes shread when hiting concrete - and even if they pierce concrete, they do not pulvarize them into dust and cause them to fall on their own footprint at the speed of free fall.
They do? So you have accounted for density of materials, moments of inertia, center of mass, chemical energy, explositivity of fuels, velocity, atmospheric fluxuations, sheer, stress, strain, angle of impact, etc. yourself to be able to tell me that it hit with enough force to measure on seismometers? Or, the potential kinetic energy (I will assume you don't know, and are saying "possible/potential" kinetic energy) was over 200 tons of TNT?
Or, are you parroting what someone else has said, and have never even done the calculations to confirm yourself? Ask me; I will provide you with the math to why an aluminum tube wouldn't pulverize a steel-reinforced 110 story building (in the middle of skyscrapers over 50 stories.) As a bonus, I will even converse about why a 40 story building several hundred yards away would not fall at the speed of gravity on its own footprint from embers in the building, and no plane impact (WTC7.) I will even show you the BBC segment with WTC7 still in tact, but they report it as being collapsed completely. It's the BBC - "reputable," so there should be no qualms about trusting what you see, right?
No, I am my own capable scientists (literally, physics.) I have seen the mathematical "data" and stories, especially plagued/insulted with "Popular Mechanics" and "Wired" articles my colleagues and professors have written. In the alternative world it is called "yellow science," but it is common in academia. There is plenty of independent scientific study that debunks the debunkers on 9/11. Ask me for that too (I compel you to ask me, since no matter if you agree or if it is right, you are responsible for whatever you receive, and whatever you do with it.)
Or, you can do your own research and forget about me. Start with integrating the mass of a 110 building with different densities (according to your assumption.) You can get the length, width and height, densities, and conversion factors online in this age of google. You may even be able to derive, or find online the integral formula for finding the total mass of an object with varying density. Honestly, I just don't care for ignorance and parroting. Just be totally complete about your arguments and "evidence." As I said, that article is an example of a debunker that has been debunked.
Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.
Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.
[Professor Steven E. Jones] called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government.[19] Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department website, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.
Jones subsequently defended the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.
On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.
Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.
Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.
Some folks, will choose conspiracy over reality every single time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?