space_geek
Registered Member
i think the planes were missiles and the plane that crashed in the field in penn was shot down by US air force.
oops, it seems i made a mistake.
https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/2008-April/018269.htmlWhat did the available potential energy need to accomplish? First, it needed to accelerate the entire mass of the tower to near-free-fall speeds. That used up approximately 90% of the available energy. Second, it needed to smash through all the supporting structures over the entire 416 meter height of the tower. Third, at each level of the tower, it needed to overcome the inertia of that level. This is an important point. It was not enough for the falling upper levels of the tower to smash through the supporting structures at each new level, with the new level then falling from rest due to the force of gravity. The new level needed to immediately start moving with the same velocity as the falling upper levels. Overcoming the inertia of the stationary lower levels is estimated to use up about 50% of the available potential energy. Fourth, it was necessary to pulverize the 90,000 tons of concrete in each tower. That is estimated to use up more than 100% of the available potential energy. Fifth, it was necessary to shoot the pulverized concrete out in all directions. You can see these clouds of pulverized concrete in the videos.
So the estimate of the energy required to cause only some of the observed processes is about 250% of the maximum available gravitational potential energy.
This is what the official story would have us believe.
It would be like the second coming. If the physics of collapsing buildings is such that you can get that much free energy, we would be able to meet all our energy needs forever.
on what basis?i think the planes were missiles and the plane that crashed in the field in penn was shot down by US air force.
don't patronize me psikey.Really!
I am surprised, shocked, astounded and really upset.
I may never recover.![]()
in your opinion psikey how was all this concrete pulverized?
on what basis?
don't patronize me psikey.
in your opinion psikey how was all this concrete pulverized?
Really!
I am surprised, shocked, astounded and really upset.
I may never recover.
It does seem that there are people on the planet capable of comprehending the fundamentals of physics however:
https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/2008-April/018269.html
#1 and #3 seem somewhat redundant to me but it is the thought that counts.
I have never seen Steven Jones say anything like that. Doesn't he know something about physics?
psik
and why wasn't any found in the rubble scott?I know you asked psikey, but I couldn't resist, as my answer is only one word long:
explosives.
scott3x said:I know you asked psikey, but I couldn't resist, as my answer is only one word long:
explosives.
and why wasn't any found in the rubble scott?
.and why wasn't any found in the rubble scott?Originally Posted by scott3x
I know you asked psikey, but I couldn't resist, as my answer is only one word long:
explosives.
and once more not a single person that arrived on the scene after hearing "it almost looked like one of those controlled demolitions" thought about looking for any.Once more; they didn't analyze the debris for it.
and once more not a single person that arrived on the scene after hearing "it almost looked like one of those controlled demolitions" thought about looking for any.
so without any evidence to support the "bomb hypothesis" you are convinced it was explosives.
well i guess unexpolded bombs still bolted onto the girders?Leopold, as for obviously visible evidence for explosives it sounds like you are naive in saying nobody saw any evidence for it. Just what do you think would be left over to see from radio controlled explosives?
what is so misleading about stating "unexploded bomb debris wasn't found in the rubble"?The statement that explosives weren't found is misleading since their possible use was not investigated and the steel was not analyzed for any residues of exotic accelerants, which is a requirement of NFPA 921.
well i guess unexpolded bombs still bolted onto the girders?
what is so misleading about stating "unexploded bomb debris wasn't found in the rubble"?
the facts of the matter are:
1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.
now tell me tony, what does the above facts suggest to you?
assumption?First, I think it is a gigantic assumption that bombs would remain unexploded.
also an assumption.In addition, if a demolition was done covertly only the most reliable explosives would be used and redundancy employed.
most likely?Second, on the low chance that some did not explode, the collisions of all of the rubble would have most likely have pulverised any explosive which did not detonate. They aren't like steel columns you know.
i have no idea, but you can bet that the cops and firemen that were there would know what to look for.Other than fully intact unexploded devices, which would have been extremely unlikely, what would you have been looking for in the rubble?
assumption?
isn't it an assumption that it was thermite that was seen coming out of one window of one floor in one corner?
isn't it an assumption that radio controlled detonators was used?
all 6 of my points are facts tony.
also an assumption.
most likely?
why on earth would a government take that kind of chance.
"let's plant bombs and hope they all detonate"
and to top it off:
"we'll even let professional civilians and nosy reporters crawl all over the pile"
especially after hearing the phrase on TV.
i have no idea, but you can bet that the cops and firemen that were there would know what to look for.
because this is part of a cops and firemens job, to ascertain the cause of accidents. to state these devices wouldn't be recognizable suggests a new method of making explosives which adds to the unreliability factor.I think you are making a huge assumption that there would have been unexploded charges and an even greater assumption that if they did that they would have been recognizable. What basis do you have for it?
What basis do you have for believing cops and firemen would know what to look for?
which should tell you something tony.Usually these things need to be determined through lab testing, which curiously did not occur.
wasn't this stuff analyzed at freshkills?Why wasn't at least the steel from the fire affected zones of the twin towers saved for test and analysis?
because this is part of a cops and firemens job, to ascertain the cause of accidents. to state these devices wouldn't be recognizable suggests a new method of making explosives which adds to the unreliability factor.
which should tell you something tony.
why test for something when nobody has found any evidence to test for it.
wasn't this stuff analyzed at freshkills?
don't forget that the debris was sifted like flour looking for body parts tony.
if any type of bomb material was in the rubble they would have found it.
It is naive to think that there would have been anything left over but residues, and cops and firemen can't determine the constituents of a residue on a piece of steel. This is a job for a lab and it is why the National Fire Protection Association code 921 calls for testing for exotic accelerants in any fire investigation. The fact that this was not done is a huge red flag that those supporting the present official explanation for the collapses are ignoring.
Nothing more than visual examination of random pieces of steel was done at Freshkills. It was not a systematic analysis linking pieces of steel to one another to come up with a failure sequence and no testing was done there. To me it appears that it was simply window dressing to make it look like there was analysis being done.
Tony Szamboti said:As for your contention that bomb parts would have been found in the sifting process, do you really think that large pieces of charges would have remained and that those doing the sifting would have known what to look for?
it isn't at all naive to think cops and firemen would know what to look for.It is naive to think that there would have been anything left over but residues, and cops and firemen can't determine the constituents of a residue on a piece of steel.
and you seem to be ignoring that FIREMEN were at that pile, people that have solid experience at this kind of thing.This is a job for a lab and it is why the National Fire Protection Association code 921 calls for testing for exotic accelerants in any fire investigation. The fact that this was not done is a huge red flag that those supporting the present official explanation for the collapses are ignoring.
i wasn't there so i have no idea but i'm positive they did more than "look at it".Nothing more than visual examination of random pieces of steel was done at Freshkills. It was not a systematic analysis linking pieces of steel to one another to come up with a failure sequence and no testing was done there. To me it appears that it was simply window dressing to make it look like there was analysis being done.
yes, i do.As for your contention that bomb parts would have been found in the sifting process, do you really think that large pieces of charges would have remained and that those doing the sifting would have known what to look for?
publish in december 2008? hardly a first hand account.Excellent points. It's backed up by this article from Paul Conant, a former newspaperman who has written for the New York Times and other large dailies:
9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests
taken out of context.Even WTC 7 investigator Jonathan Barnett, who last I checked believes the official story, had this to say concerning his investigation:
"We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7".
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Here's a video of him saying it:
Jonathan Barnett - forensic engineer for WTC7 collapse
i have no idea what this has to do with explosives or even if it's true.Exactly. There's also the fact that atleast 250 tons of the debris was stolen from the site, as reported by the Telegraph:
250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins and most of the rest was shipped off to China to be melted down for recycling post haste.
It is naive to think that there would have been anything left over but residues, and cops and firemen can't determine the constituents of a residue on a piece of steel. This is a job for a lab and it is why the National Fire Protection Association code 921 calls for testing for exotic accelerants in any fire investigation. The fact that this was not done is a huge red flag that those supporting the present official explanation for the collapses are ignoring.
Nothing more than visual examination of random pieces of steel was done at Freshkills. It was not a systematic analysis linking pieces of steel to one another to come up with a failure sequence and no testing was done there. To me it appears that it was simply window dressing to make it look like there was analysis being done.
As for your contention that bomb parts would have been found in the sifting process, do you really think that large pieces of charges would have remained and that those doing the sifting would have known what to look for?