World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

wrote in message
ups.com...

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

Me included.

You intend to apologise?

Your grammar and spelling are as poor as your conspiracy theories. At least
find an interesting / realistic one.

wrote:
Dan, Griessel, Orval

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html

I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?

Some of the water does not make it through the steel.

But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html

It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, you and the others:

I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.

HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!

Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.

Of course, right now, you just don't care.

3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.

But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
"mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
physics. My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
_vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
and objective thought and analysis. The responses and feedback from
this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
the current state of affairs.

That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
its realization.

Me included.

You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.

There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
also, causing decelleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
tailplane.
The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
towers.
And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
Easy- they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
But it's not new.
The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
Prescot Bush.
So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com,
shared some strawberry ice cream with a Grey at Area 51,
boarded the Mothership, beamed down next to a Sasquatch, avoided a
Chupacabra, inhaled some chemtrails, wet the bed and howled at the Moon:

Dan, Griessel, Orval

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
Some of the water does not make it through the steel.

But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.

The planes were Klingon/Romulan holograms timed to coincide with the
disrupter fire.

The WTC buildings were essentially open shells, with a central core and
a thin outer skin. Certainly, large, massive parts would go through or
disrupt the central spine of the building.

Just look at the momentum of 250,000 lbs at 500 kt.

The structure of the planes worked just like a high-pressure water jet
and cut through most things in their path.



http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, you and the others:

I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.

HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!

Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.

Of course, right now, you just don't care.

3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.

But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

Don't you mean "youse guys"?

Me included.

I do not intend to apologize for stating the obvious: the self-styled
"9/11 'Truth' Movement" is composed of a bunch of hare-brained kooks,
who make a lot of bald assertions with zero evidence to back them up.

I suggest that you conspiracy loons go over to Afghanistan, look up Bin
Laden and see how long you survive.


I guess I don't see why I should apologize for pointing out anyone
can see wing spars are flexible as opposed to "hard and brittle" as the
cite claims.

For anyone who doesn't believe me take a flight in rough weather.
Select a window seat where you can see the wing flex. I don't know what
the numbers are on B-767 are, but on KC-135 the wing tips could flex as
much as 14 feet without damaging the wing. I saw a show on Dicovery
where they tested a B-777 wing to destruction. It flexed something like
28 feet, if memory serves, without failing. A "hard and brittle" wing
spar couldn't do that.

I guess I also don't see why I should apologize for pointing out it
makes no sense for a building to be designed to "pulverize" in order to
save it's foundation. as the cite claims.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

wrote:
wrote:
Dan, Griessel, Orval

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
Some of the water does not make it through the steel.

But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, you and the others:

I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.

HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!

Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.

Of course, right now, you just don't care.

3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.

But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
"mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
physics.

If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.

My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
_vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
and objective thought and analysis.

In other words you do not understand scientific method or higher
level science and math.

The responses and feedback from
this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
the current state of affairs.

That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
its realization.

You mean like the deception set forth by the OP that the subway
wasn't damaged?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 18 Oct 2006 01:16:49 -0700, wrote:

I know I know...

you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
were not destroyed?

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
has all you need to know.

But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
fantasies.

Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
and those you count as your peers...

On 18 Oct 2006 16:06:15 -0700, wrote:

You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.



stupid crap deleted

You clearly don't have a hint of a clue what the hell you are talking
about.

Since it is ALL crap from start to finish - I'm not going to waste
several hours refuting all your wrong conclusions proceeding from
wrong premises and wrong "facts".

Go get a degree in engineering and you might - maybe - figure out how
far you are into LA LA land - but I seriously doubt it.

wrote:
You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.

There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where
planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.

Not only is the physics there but all the video showing impact into
the towers show penetration.

For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must
assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to
pieces and fall into the street.

The only way for that to happen is if the wall was completely
indestructible.

I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will
be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to
break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force
recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through
all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you
would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did
not break up.

No, it means that the aircraft MASS remained great enough to
maintain inertia into the building. It does NOT mean it remained
"intact," just that, as the aircraft was destroyed on impact it imparted
enough force to damage the buildings.

I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what
it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained
intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force
that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane
also, causing decelleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum
though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble,
in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.

See above. If you want to argue terminal ballistics you have to be
able to define which parts of the airplane struck which structural and
non structural member.

AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and
tailplane.

That would be a function of torque, not aerodynamics.

The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss
of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top
surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact
to determine the direction of tumble.

Think of inertia at that point.

And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the
tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving
us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.

Are you saying that an aircraft MUST gain altitude when banking? What
about banking when descending or maintaining altitude? Pilots do it
every day.


Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a
wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have
been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong
number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the
aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was
custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the
back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why
would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the
towers.
And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
Easy- they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
But it's not new.
The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
Prescot Bush.
So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same
pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to
the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS
ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their
intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op
agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?


Well, I guess I don't want to try whatever you are on. I prefer reality.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 18 Oct 2006 00:52:53 -0700, wrote:

I know I know...

you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

---
You just may be the dumbest man/woman/thing on Earth.

T. Bloompaster Weatherford

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dan wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dan, Griessel, Orval

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
Some of the water does not make it through the steel.

But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
engines.

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/ju...w-heroine.html
It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, you and the others:

I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
researched oneselves.

HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!

Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
searchable.

Of course, right now, you just don't care.

3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.

But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.

And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.

They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
"mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
physics.

If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.


If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.

PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

PROPOSITION 2:
A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:

Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a
constant)

Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds





My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
_vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
and objective thought and analysis.

In other words you do not understand scientific method or higher
level science and math.

The responses and feedback from
this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
the current state of affairs.

That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
its realization.

You mean like the deception set forth by the OP that the subway
wasn't damaged?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired