Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #521543 > unrolled thread

Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-16 17:40 -0500
    Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 22:56 +0000
      Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 05:54 +0200
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:24 +1000
          Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 06:50 +0200
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:26 +1000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 08:26 +0200
                Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 17:25 +0200
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 16:18 +0000
            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-17 17:43 +0000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-17 13:30 -0500
                Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 19:29 +0000
                  Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 23:03 +0200
                    Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 21:30 +0000
                      Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-19 03:19 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 01:40 +0000
                          Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 22:54 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-24 21:12 +0000
                            Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-24 17:03 -0500
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:31 +0200
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:59 +0200
                              Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 09:46 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 12:34 +1000
              Re: Rocky's latest brain fart Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-17 20:48 +0200
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-17 04:22 +0000
        Re: Rocky's latest brain fart "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:04 -0500
    Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 04:03 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#521543 — Re: AE911 Truth & Firefighters for 911 Truth Demonstrate at NY Times (9-11-15)

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs

Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.

Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground 
Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call 
it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was 
a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#521551 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
> 
> Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
> 
> Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground 
> Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call 
> it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was 
> a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.
> 
> Rocky 

It was your beloved media that first called it ground zero, raving lunatic.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.

A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.

Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.

Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.

Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
governmental agency.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

Be sure to follow all the links in the above links.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521585 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 00:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
> In sci.physics Rocky<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>
>> "Bast"<fakename@nomail.invalid>  wrote in message
>> news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
>>
>> Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
>>
>> Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground
>> Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call
>> it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was
>> a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.
>>
>> Rocky
>
> It was your beloved media that first called it ground zero, raving lunatic.
>
> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>
> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>
> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>
> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>
> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>
> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
> governmental agency.
>
> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

But what was used then?

I actually think, that Judy Wood is right and unusual weapons had been 
used, that utilize the so called 'Hutchison effect'.

Hutchison is a 'little' strange guy from Canada. He found certain 
effects in the early 70th.

Those effects he presented to US and Canadian officials and military 
contractors. Later some 'Canadian officials' destroyed his lab, because 
they didn't wanted this knowledge to leak out to Germany and Japan 
(where Hutchison wanted to go).

Since Canada is a British colony, someone should ask the Brits, whether 
or not they had such a weapon.

other possibilities: aliens did it or so called 'fallen Angels'...

Also the USA could have attacked themselves. But in a way I don't think 
so, since this would had required a certain degree of smartness, the 
then president did not posses.


TH

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521592 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:54:17 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 17.09.2015 00:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
>> In sci.physics Rocky<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bast"<fakename@nomail.invalid>  wrote in message
>>> news:mtc94l$me2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> The 9/11 official lie is not going to be allowed to go unchallenged
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOB5PkaaNs
>>>
>>> Thanks for the video and it is all so simple.
>>>
>>> Only our government would call a place where nukes were detonated Ground
>>> Zero and then poke fun at those who figured out our government meant to call
>>> it Ground Zero for the original meaning of the phrase because it really was
>>> a place where nukes, yes nukes with an 's' were detonated.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> It was your beloved media that first called it ground zero, raving lunatic.
>>
>> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
>> signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
>>
>> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
>> seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
>> as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
>> by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
>> Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
>>
>> A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
>> fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
>>
>> Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
>> has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
>>
>> Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
>> on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
>>
>> Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
>> governmental agency.
>>
>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
>But what was used then?

Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and gravity.

Shill #2
--
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a shit whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now? 
-- Dennis Miller 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521599 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 06:24, schrieb Government Shill #2:
...
>>>
>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>
>> But what was used then?
>
> Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and gravity.
>

ookeeyy..

Momentum... You know, what that is?

momentum is mass times velocity


this gives a certain 'punch' and the punched object shakes according to 
this formula:

mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b

'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

The WTC towers had a mass_b of roughly 500,000 tons (each tower).

The momentum of the jets would cause the tower to shake with a velocity of

  velocity_b=(mass_a * velocity_a)/ mass_b

velocity_a I don't know, but was allegedly as high as possible, like 800 
km/h. This is 222.2 m/s

So we get

velocity_b 	= 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
		= 0.026 m/s
		= 26 mm/s

This is only a little more than the slight tremble, with what you could 
hold a cup of coffee.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521607 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:50:31 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 17.09.2015 06:24, schrieb Government Shill #2:
>...
>>>>
>>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>>
>>> But what was used then?
>>
>> Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and gravity.
>>
>
>ookeeyy..
>
>Momentum... You know, what that is?
>
>momentum is mass times velocity
>
>
>this gives a certain 'punch' and the punched object shakes according to 
>this formula:
>
>mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
>
>'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
>
>The WTC towers had a mass_b of roughly 500,000 tons (each tower).
>
>The momentum of the jets would cause the tower to shake with a velocity of
>
>  velocity_b=(mass_a * velocity_a)/ mass_b
>
>velocity_a I don't know, but was allegedly as high as possible, like 800 
>km/h. This is 222.2 m/s
>
>So we get
>
>velocity_b 	= 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>		= 0.026 m/s
>		= 26 mm/s
>
>This is only a little more than the slight tremble, with what you could 
>hold a cup of coffee.

You must be the most stupid person who can type at a keyboard.

"...momentum, fire, and gravity".

Shill #2
--
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
one of us is a moron,
I think that it's you. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521608 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 07:26, schrieb Government Shill #2:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:50:31 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>  wrote:
>
>> Am 17.09.2015 06:24, schrieb Government Shill #2:
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> But what was used then?
>>>
>>> Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and gravity.
>>>
>>
>> ookeeyy..
>>
>> Momentum... You know, what that is?
>>
>> momentum is mass times velocity
>>
>>
>> this gives a certain 'punch' and the punched object shakes according to
>> this formula:
>>
>> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
>>
>> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
>>
>> The WTC towers had a mass_b of roughly 500,000 tons (each tower).
>>
>> The momentum of the jets would cause the tower to shake with a velocity of
>>
>>   velocity_b=(mass_a * velocity_a)/ mass_b
>>
>> velocity_a I don't know, but was allegedly as high as possible, like 800
>> km/h. This is 222.2 m/s
>>
>> So we get
>>
>> velocity_b 	= 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>> 		= 0.026 m/s
>> 		= 26 mm/s
>>
>> This is only a little more than the slight tremble, with what you could
>> hold a cup of coffee.
>
> You must be the most stupid person who can type at a keyboard.
>
> "...momentum, fire, and gravity".

Since you brought up the subject of momentum, you cannot complain 
afterwards, once I figured out this momentum.


If you don't trust me you could eventually believe what Wikipedia has to 
say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Quote:
"In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl. 
momenta; SI unit kg m/s, or equivalently, N s) is the product of the 
mass and velocity of an object."


Momentum is regarded as 'conserved'. This means, that momentum is given 
by one object and taken by the other object, against what the previous 
one is smashed.

Since large objects could take more momentum, smaller objects had to hit 
faster. (roughly)


Now we could compare the masses and estimate the amount of 'punch' 
applied by a flying plane upon such a skyscraper.


But possibly you miss a calculation about gravity...

Well, maybe I should do that.

Gravity is actually easy. Acceleration is 'a' and the value for Earth 
gravity at ground level

a_Earth_gravity = 9.81  m/s²

(This acceleration is also called '1 g'.)


A (non-moving) mass of 1kg applies a force of 9.81 N upon its support.


The upper level of WTC 1 had maybe 40 floors above the impact zone, 
hence a force of roughly 10% of the buildings mass of 500,000 was 
pushing downwards.

that is about 440,500,000 N  pushing on the remains of the steel still 
present in these floors.

Sound like a lot. But think about all the steel and concrete, upon what 
this force was distributed.

The exact dimensions I don't know. But lets assume, that about 5% of a 
floor-level was actually build from steel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%281973%E2%80%932001%29#/media/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg


So we have 208 by 208 ft or 63.4 × 63.4 Meter as floor level.

That is 4019 m² or 4,019,560,000 mm²

4,019,560,000 mm² * 5% = 200,978,000 mm²

as cross section of the steel columns.

This is only 2.2 N/mm² as pressure upon the steel.

This is not very much, since steel has a MUCH higher ability to 
withstand pressure.

Depends on the kind of steel, of course, but that resistance is about 
200 to 2000 N/mm². Or: about 100 times more than there is actual pressure.

The rest of the steel was used to compensate earthquakes, hurricanes, 
rust or miscalculations.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521642 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 08:26, schrieb Thomas Heger:
..
>
> But possibly you miss a calculation about gravity...
>
> Well, maybe I should do that.
>
> Gravity is actually easy. Acceleration is 'a' and the value for Earth
> gravity at ground level
>
> a_Earth_gravity = 9.81 m/s²
>
> (This acceleration is also called '1 g'.)
>
>
> A (non-moving) mass of 1kg applies a force of 9.81 N upon its support.
>
>
> The upper level of WTC 1 had maybe 40 floors above the impact zone,
> hence a force of roughly 10% of the buildings mass of 500,000 was
> pushing downwards.


This was an obvious error. I wanted to say, that there were 40 m above 
the impact zone, not 40 floors.

But this number seem s a little too small and the are had been more 
meters of the upper floors. (will try to find out the correct numbers).


> that is about 440,500,000 N pushing on the remains of the steel still
> present in these floors.
>
> Sound like a lot. But think about all the steel and concrete, upon what
> this force was distributed.
>
> The exact dimensions I don't know. But lets assume, that about 5% of a
> floor-level was actually build from steel.

5% is too much. But - unfortunately - I don't have the correct numbers. 
Maybe this area ( you would get, that is steel only, if you make an 
imaginary cut through the building) is less then 5% of the entire floor 
area.

Sorry, but I don't know this figure. 5% was a rough guess.

In any case, this is only a demonstration about how such a calculation 
could be made, not a proper calculation.

This is an own profession (calculation of the steel frames for 
skyscrapers). But certainly there are a few of these professionals, who 
could actually make such a calculation.

In any case: the steel frame of the WTC-towers seemed to be more than 
sufficient to keep the buildings upright.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521652 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2015 06:24, schrieb Government Shill #2:
> ...
>>>>
>>>> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>>>
>>> But what was used then?
>>
>> Aeroplanes. Four honking great big aeroplanes, momentum, fire, and gravity.
>>
> 
> ookeeyy..
> 
> Momentum... You know, what that is?
> 
> momentum is mass times velocity
> 
> 
> this gives a certain 'punch' and the punched object shakes according to 
> this formula:
> 
> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
> 
> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
> 
> The WTC towers had a mass_b of roughly 500,000 tons (each tower).
> 
> The momentum of the jets would cause the tower to shake with a velocity of
> 
>  velocity_b=(mass_a * velocity_a)/ mass_b
> 
> velocity_a I don't know, but was allegedly as high as possible, like 800 
> km/h. This is 222.2 m/s
> 
> So we get
> 
> velocity_b      = 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>                = 0.026 m/s
>                = 26 mm/s
> 
> This is only a little more than the slight tremble, with what you could 
> hold a cup of coffee.
> 
> 
> TH

The momentum of the airplanes allowed them to penatrate the building
walls wherein the nearly full load of fuel on board was dumped into
the building damaged by the momentum, whereupon the fuel caught fire
which caused a reduction in strength of the building support structure
and gravity caused the ultimate collapse.
 
Idiot.

 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521658 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> ookeeyy..
 
> Momentum... You know, what that is?
 
> momentum is mass times velocity
...
> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
 
> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
...
> So we get
 
> velocity_b      = 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>                = 0.026 m/s
>                = 26 mm/s

What you have proved is that, had the towers been mounted on frictionless
wheels, they would have been rolling along at 26 mm/s (about an inch per
second) after impact.  That's actually quite a bit.

All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521665 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:mteu3a$bos$1@pcls7.std.com...
> In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> ookeeyy..
>
>> Momentum... You know, what that is?
>
>> momentum is mass times velocity
> ...
>> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
>
>> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
> ...
>> So we get
>
>> velocity_b      = 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>>                = 0.026 m/s
>>                = 26 mm/s
>
> What you have proved is that, had the towers been mounted on frictionless
> wheels, they would have been rolling along at 26 mm/s (about an inch per
> second) after impact.  That's actually quite a bit.
>
> All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
> cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
> than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.

But real steel would put up a fight but they used thermate to make those 
funky roadrunner type holes to get all the roadrunner fanatics to enjoy 
their show.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521685 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
> news:mteu3a$bos$1@pcls7.std.com...
>> In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> ookeeyy..
>>
>>> Momentum... You know, what that is?
>>
>>> momentum is mass times velocity
>> ...
>>> mass_a * velocity_a = mass_b *velocity_b
>>
>>> 'a' means: an air-plane. Such a jet had a mass of roughly 60 tons:
>> ...
>>> So we get
>>
>>> velocity_b      = 222*60 / 500,000 m/s
>>>                = 0.026 m/s
>>>                = 26 mm/s
>>
>> What you have proved is that, had the towers been mounted on frictionless
>> wheels, they would have been rolling along at 26 mm/s (about an inch per
>> second) after impact.  That's actually quite a bit.
>>
>> All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
>> cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
>> than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.
> 
> But real steel would put up a fight but they used thermate to make those 
> funky roadrunner type holes to get all the roadrunner fanatics to enjoy 
> their show.

Little to no steel in the outside walls which were largely ordinary
glass, raving lunatic. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521873 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 17.09.2015 21:29, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:

>>> All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
>>> cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
>>> than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.
>>
>> But real steel would put up a fight but they used thermate to make those
>> funky roadrunner type holes to get all the roadrunner fanatics to enjoy
>> their show.
>
> Little to no steel in the outside walls which were largely ordinary
> glass, raving lunatic.
>

Do you mean the WTC-towers???

You certainly have heard about the specific construction of these towers:

there were large core core-columns in the centre. There were also 
elevators and stairways.

The outside was build from a network of steal-beams called 
perimeter-columns.

The floors were build between the perimeter-columns and the core-columns 
on steel constructions, that carried the concrete floor of the actual 
office area.

In short: the towers had a LOT of steel inside and a lot of that steel 
was used to build the perimeter columns.

This construction had the benefit of large undivided office areas, since 
a great part of the strength was provided by the outside construction of 
those perimeter columns.

Glass was used in the windows only, while the fassade was made from 
aluminium.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521880 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 17.09.2015 21:29, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
> 
>>>> All that momentum/energy applied to a relatively small area (the frontal
>>>> cross section of a 767) is why the jets blasted into the towers rather
>>>> than bouncing off or exploding on impact or something.
>>>
>>> But real steel would put up a fight but they used thermate to make those
>>> funky roadrunner type holes to get all the roadrunner fanatics to enjoy
>>> their show.
>>
>> Little to no steel in the outside walls which were largely ordinary
>> glass, raving lunatic.
>>
> 
> Do you mean the WTC-towers???
> 
> You certainly have heard about the specific construction of these towers:
> 
> there were large core core-columns in the centre. There were also 
> elevators and stairways.
> 
> The outside was build from a network of steal-beams called 
> perimeter-columns.
> 
> The floors were build between the perimeter-columns and the core-columns 
> on steel constructions, that carried the concrete floor of the actual 
> office area.
> 
> In short: the towers had a LOT of steel inside and a lot of that steel 
> was used to build the perimeter columns.
> 
> This construction had the benefit of large undivided office areas, since 
> a great part of the strength was provided by the outside construction of 
> those perimeter columns.
> 
> Glass was used in the windows only, while the fassade was made from 
> aluminium.
> 
> 
> TH

I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
area is ordinary window glass.

The point being that the outer walls were not built to withstand the
impact of anything much bigger than a large bird much less a large,
fully loaded airliner at cruise speed.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521930 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 18.09.2015 23:30, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:

>>> Little to no steel in the outside walls which were largely ordinary
>>> glass, raving lunatic.
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean the WTC-towers???
>>
>> You certainly have heard about the specific construction of these towers:
>>
>> there were large core core-columns in the centre. There were also
>> elevators and stairways.
>>
>> The outside was build from a network of steal-beams called
>> perimeter-columns.
>>
>> The floors were build between the perimeter-columns and the core-columns
>> on steel constructions, that carried the concrete floor of the actual
>> office area.
>>
>> In short: the towers had a LOT of steel inside and a lot of that steel
>> was used to build the perimeter columns.
>>
>> This construction had the benefit of large undivided office areas, since
>> a great part of the strength was provided by the outside construction of
>> those perimeter columns.
>>
>> Glass was used in the windows only, while the fassade was made from
>> aluminium.

> I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
> area is ordinary window glass.
>

Yes, I know. But what you think is not true. E.g. this is a webpage 
about these walls:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

There had been 59 perimeter columns at each side, with each column 13.5 
by 14.0 " .

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Perimeter_Column_Data

These are connected by horizontal beams and are bolted and welded together.

> The point being that the outer walls were not built to withstand the
> impact of anything much bigger than a large bird much less a large,
> fully loaded airliner at cruise speed.
>

As far as I know, the buildings had been designed to withstand car-bombs 
and the impact of a plane.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Towers_Design_and_Construction

Quote:
"A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the 
towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without 
collapsing."


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521933 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 18.09.2015 23:30, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
> 
>>>> Little to no steel in the outside walls which were largely ordinary
>>>> glass, raving lunatic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean the WTC-towers???
>>>
>>> You certainly have heard about the specific construction of these towers:
>>>
>>> there were large core core-columns in the centre. There were also
>>> elevators and stairways.
>>>
>>> The outside was build from a network of steal-beams called
>>> perimeter-columns.
>>>
>>> The floors were build between the perimeter-columns and the core-columns
>>> on steel constructions, that carried the concrete floor of the actual
>>> office area.
>>>
>>> In short: the towers had a LOT of steel inside and a lot of that steel
>>> was used to build the perimeter columns.
>>>
>>> This construction had the benefit of large undivided office areas, since
>>> a great part of the strength was provided by the outside construction of
>>> those perimeter columns.
>>>
>>> Glass was used in the windows only, while the fassade was made from
>>> aluminium.
> 
>> I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
>> area is ordinary window glass.
>>
> 
> Yes, I know. But what you think is not true. E.g. this is a webpage 
> about these walls:
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
> 
> There had been 59 perimeter columns at each side, with each column 13.5 
> by 14.0 " .

The majority of the area was not steel as is shown in your own links.
 
> http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Perimeter_Column_Data
> 
> These are connected by horizontal beams and are bolted and welded together.
> 
>> The point being that the outer walls were not built to withstand the
>> impact of anything much bigger than a large bird much less a large,
>> fully loaded airliner at cruise speed.
>>
> 
> As far as I know, the buildings had been designed to withstand car-bombs 
> and the impact of a plane.

Which means take the impact of a plane and not immediately collapse, not
that airplanes will bounce off, as in your own quote below.

> http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Towers_Design_and_Construction
> 
> Quote:
> "A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the 
> towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without 
> collapsing."

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523003 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

Am 19.09.2015 03:40, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:

>>> I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
>>> area is ordinary window glass.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I know. But what you think is not true. E.g. this is a webpage
>> about these walls:
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
>>
>> There had been 59 perimeter columns at each side, with each column 13.5
>> by 14.0 " .
>
> The majority of the area was not steel as is shown in your own links.
I have to agree, that the majority of the area was not steel, but glass.


So you are in fact correct and the outside 'wall' of the twin towers was 
predominantly glass.

But that is common practise in steel-framed buildings: they are not made 
from steel alone, only the frame is.

In the case of the twin towers, the outer 'shell' (if you like to call 
the walls like this) was composed of 59  13" by 14"  steel-columns, the 
horizontal bars, the support for the floors, the aluminium cladding, 
gipsum cardboard, window frames and glass.

The floors were made from a steel-construction, into what concrete was 
casted.

Throw all of this the planes went like a hot knife through butter.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523015 — Re: Rocky's latest brain fart

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 19.09.2015 03:40, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
> 
>>>> I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
>>>> area is ordinary window glass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I know. But what you think is not true. E.g. this is a webpage
>>> about these walls:
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
>>>
>>> There had been 59 perimeter columns at each side, with each column 13.5
>>> by 14.0 " .
>>
>> The majority of the area was not steel as is shown in your own links.
> I have to agree, that the majority of the area was not steel, but glass.
> 
> 
> So you are in fact correct and the outside 'wall' of the twin towers was 
> predominantly glass.
> 
> But that is common practise in steel-framed buildings: they are not made 
> from steel alone, only the frame is.
> 
> In the case of the twin towers, the outer 'shell' (if you like to call 
> the walls like this) was composed of 59  13" by 14"  steel-columns, the 
> horizontal bars, the support for the floors, the aluminium cladding, 
> gipsum cardboard, window frames and glass.
> 
> The floors were made from a steel-construction, into what concrete was 
> casted.
> 
> Throw all of this the planes went like a hot knife through butter.

Which was my original point, i.e. the claim by some of the delusional
nut jobs that the buildings were designed so that a thin skinned
aluminum airplane would have bounced off is ridiculous nonsense.

The buildings were in fact designed such that they would not be
destroyed or collapse if hit by an airplane, which was what in
fact happened.

The buildings only collapsed AFTER the fires had been raging for
over an hour.

QED



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523029

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:d6j695F7b0oU1@mid.individual.net...
> Am 19.09.2015 03:40, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com:
>
>>>> I was refering to the outer walls, where a large percentage of the
>>>> area is ordinary window glass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I know. But what you think is not true. E.g. this is a webpage
>>> about these walls:
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
>>>
>>> There had been 59 perimeter columns at each side, with each column 13.5
>>> by 14.0 " .
>>
>> The majority of the area was not steel as is shown in your own links.
> I have to agree, that the majority of the area was not steel, but glass.
>
>
> So you are in fact correct and the outside 'wall' of the twin towers was 
> predominantly glass.
>
> But that is common practise in steel-framed buildings: they are not made 
> from steel alone, only the frame is.
>
> In the case of the twin towers, the outer 'shell' (if you like to call the 
> walls like this) was composed of 59  13" by 14"  steel-columns, the 
> horizontal bars, the support for the floors, the aluminium cladding, 
> gipsum cardboard, window frames and glass.
>
> The floors were made from a steel-construction, into what concrete was 
> casted.
>
> Throw all of this the planes went like a hot knife through butter.
>
>
> TH

And yet the three parts of the exoskeleton that were thrown free of the 
vaporization area stuck into the ground so hard they could not be pulled out 
on the first try.

In reality the exoskeleton was very strong and held up 40% of the weight of 
the Twin Towers.

Even if jets really could fly through the exoskeleton they didn't even slow 
down or loose any parts so that tells us the jets used in Nuke York City 
were really just CGIs.  See:

07 - The Key
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

BTW do you happen to know of any photos or videos that prove the basements 
of the Twin Towers were not filled with debris?  TIA  I've seen a good one 
by WCBS in Nuke York City but I can't find it again.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523082

Am 25.09.2015 00:03, schrieb Rocky:

>> So you are in fact correct and the outside 'wall' of the twin towers was
>> predominantly glass.
>>
>> But that is common practise in steel-framed buildings: they are not made
>> from steel alone, only the frame is.
>>
>> In the case of the twin towers, the outer 'shell' (if you like to call the
>> walls like this) was composed of 59  13" by 14"  steel-columns, the
>> horizontal bars, the support for the floors, the aluminium cladding,
>> gipsum cardboard, window frames and glass.
>>
>> The floors were made from a steel-construction, into what concrete was
>> casted.
>>
>> Through all of this the planes went like a hot knife through butter.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> And yet the three parts of the exoskeleton that were thrown free of the
> vaporization area stuck into the ground so hard they could not be pulled out
> on the first try.
>
> In reality the exoskeleton was very strong and held up 40% of the weight of
> the Twin Towers.


59 of these large steel tubes are also a significant barrier, especially 
if they are connected by horizontal steel-beam to some sort of net.

Such a net would withstand tremendous tensions, since the forces 
distribute over a large area.

And also the floors are significant, since they are a horizontal sheets 
of steel and concrete (both a lot of). And a plane penetrating the 
building would have to fly into these sheets.

The floors also support the 'net', since they take forces and distribute 
them to the even larger core columns and the other walls of that building.


The building is designed like two VERY large tubes, that have connecting 
sheets every four meters. So the entire building reacts as one hole 
thing, until the steel beams actually break.

And these beams and columns are extremely large steel structures and 
hardly any force is imaginable, that would cut through these columns.


> Even if jets really could fly through the exoskeleton they didn't even slow
> down or loose any parts so that tells us the jets used in Nuke York City
> were really just CGIs.  See:
>
> 07 - The Key
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds
>
> BTW do you happen to know of any photos or videos that prove the basements
> of the Twin Towers were not filled with debris?  TIA  I've seen a good one
> by WCBS in Nuke York City but I can't find it again.
>

Sorry, but no, I don't have a link to such photos.

I've seen some pictures of the subterranean garage. This seemed to be 
empty, but totally void of any debris. There were hardly cracks in the 
walls and the paint was still in place.

Also the so called 'bath-tub' remained intact. This was the huge 
construction, that kept out the waters of the Hudson river.

And the PATH trains in the WTC station looked a little dusty, but not 
destroyed.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web