WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It ain't worth it anymore. No matter how much evidence we could find, or how many experts that had nothing to gain from this we talked to, it would never be a good enough explanation.
................


I understand what you are saying, although you should have said, "we are going back to blindly believe everything that every conspiracy theorists tells us without proof, disregarding science (in this case "real" physics), engineering or common sense."......

Deny Ignorance......i guess for some people ATS' motto means something entirely different.....


[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
muaddib, i am not wrong. i'm not going to bother giving you any more physics lessons, though, because you're a rude student that doesn't know how to listen.

the law of consveration of energy is simple, like i said. you have the gravitational potential of the towers, plus the relatively small energy from the plane impact and fuel(RELATIVELY small. the towers were MASSIVE). any WORK that is done, has to utilize one of these sources of energy.

there was molten steel in the basement five weeks later. it's a fact. look it up yourself. it's been postsed and reposted here enough.

i'm not even going to respond to your post. i stand by my original post. it seems most everyone else is able to understand it.

p.s. you can call me hillbilly boy all you like. it won't change history. or your science grade.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
muaddib, i am not wrong. i'm not going to bother giving you any more physics lessons, though, because you're a rude student that doesn't know how to listen.


Really?.... i am a student huh?...well in part you are right, we are all students of life....

BTW, instead of continuing to make claims, can you please excerpt from any scientific journal, or scientific website which corroborates your "claim" that I am wrong?....


Originally posted by billybob
p.s. you can call me hillbilly boy all you like. it won't change history. or your science grade.


you are questioning my science grade?.... Really?.... i have a "science" degree in engineering, not a "science grade".... (all engineering degrees are in science of course...i was making a point.)

BTW, can you please debunk this?...since you keep claiming it is not true...


Wave-Particle Duality
Publicized early in the debate about whether light was composed of particles or waves, a wave-particle dual nature soon was found to be characteristic of electrons as well. The evidence for the description of light as waves was well established at the turn of the century when the photoelectric effect introduced firm evidence of a particle nature as well. On the other hand, the particle properties of electrons was well documented when the DeBroglie hypothesis and the subsequent experiments by Davisson and Germer established the wave nature of the electron.


Excerpted from.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Please, do enlighten us and debunk that...



[edit on 30-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
............
there was molten steel in the basement five weeks later. it's a fact. look it up yourself. it's been postsed and reposted here enough.
............


If it is a fact why can't you post a credible site that has this proof?

Where are the pictures?, why is it that the man that is supposed to have said this, does not mention anything at all about molten pools of steel in his main site? which coincidentally has a description of what they did to remove the debris they found in ground zero?......



[edit on 30-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
this disinfo crap is tiring. it's like having a puppy that keeps peeing on the floor after you just wiped it up.

the wave vs. particle debate has nothing to do with this topic. if i am missing some particular application of quantum theory that is relevent here, please enlighten me as to what that is. (frankly, i think you're embarassing yourself even mentioning it)

the molten steel in the basement is a fact. i don't need to prove facts. you want a worse case of foot in mouth disease than your already suffering, you go right ahead and call me out on it. call loud and proud. scream it from the rooftops. or just do a quick search on ATS, using the handy search feature, and find out for yourself that it is a fact. you might try the fema report.
or keep frothing at the mouth. whatever floats your boat. i'm not giving you anything more than this response.

a successful 'debunking' of the demolition story must PROVE that there was sufficent energy available to do all the work that was done. period. no amount of attempted herding of quantum cats will change that FACT.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I already posted the explanation in one of my responses in the last page.

If it is disinfo as you claim, why can't you debunk it excerpting scientific journals, or scientific websites?.....

i am not seeing any facts being posted about the molten pools of steel which were kept in a molten state for 5 weeks....all i see are claims....


XL5

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I agree with Muad and I have to say that any thing that heavy will make a sound, even if it falls at 1cm per day. As for the molten steel, I think it was seen as a hardend pool that HAS been molten but is now solid.
As for the charges that had to cut (blow appart) the massive supports and make little puffs of air out one window, they would have blowen out many other windows just from the shrapnel and bits flying off the supports. Even if there was no shrapnel, why would the air just go out one window, was there a massive support in one office room?

Heres what COULD have happend, the plane crashed and the concrete was hammerd off the steel supportsand weakend them. Then there was the fire that mad them a dull red colour and a bit softer, heating steel takes the hardend properties out of it (if it had it in the first place).
All the weight on the softer steel made the steel expand/squish out to the sides and blew the unbroken concrete of the floors/supports above and below the fire, appart. If the heavy plane(s) had not been added to the weight, the buildings may have still stood.

Match sticks and milk cartons bend and flex and absorb the force of something falling on it. Make it out of 3mm hardend clay slabs and supports.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I already posted the explanation in one of my responses in the last page.

If it is disinfo as you claim, why can't you debunk it excerpting scientific journals, or scientific websites?.....


man, that's sad. your media mommy's milk won't pour from my cup.
let's clear something up, though. i never said the wave/particle duality was bunk. i said it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to this discussion. newtonian physics are quite sufficient for analysing such a large scale event. please stop talking about the wave/particle duality.
what i am calling disinfo, is the whole official story, and disinformationalists are those who support it. some are paid, and some are just media marionettes that can't think for themselves. which one are you?



Originally posted by Muaddib
i am not seeing any facts being posted about the molten pools of steel which were kept in a molten state for 5 weeks....all i see are claims....


that's because you didn't look. it's in the public record, and i'm not your secretary, so please stop demanding things from me. i'm already giving you more time than you deserve.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Sound, is a form of energy, and just like any other form of energy, it cannot be either created nor destroyed, it already exists in a constant wave spectrum, which changes when an opposite vibrating force is applied to this constant wave spectrum, or when the interaction is between two waves.


i gotta say. that's classic. if i was howard, that would SOOOO be in my signature, now. ah, heck, maybe i'll put it there anyway, if you don't start behaving. it's DAMN funny! "this constant wave spectrum". HOOT!


say, howard, why don't you help poor muaddib the engineer out, here. he's very confused. i thought you loved ridiculing people who have no idea what they're talking about.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I guess it's too much to ask ANYONE in ANY conspiracy thread for the TINIEST modicum of RESPECT. I'm SICK of being told that I'm a blind sheep, or an idiot, or mindless just because I don't agree with you. Even though I have NEVER insulted ANYONE that believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, and tried to have a CIVIL debate about ANY conspiracy I have ever debated, I always get told that I'm STUPID because I don't believe it. Why is it that ANYONE that doesn't agree with you is an idiot, or not as smart as you are, or just retarded? Is it too much to ask that you show some RESPECT to people anymore? THIS is why I'm dropping out of these arguments like flies. I'll stick to the weapons, and aviation forums where people have RESPECT for each other.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'll stick to the weapons, and aviation forums where people have RESPECT for each other.


yeah, let's respect each other with weapons and fighter jets and bombers. spread the love, baby. (sorry, i just hate mass murder)

muaddib and i have a history of not liking one another. we always fight. it's hard to put aside a hard-earned disrespect.

trust me on this, i'm being a lot nicer than i feel like being.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
"what i am calling disinfo, is the whole official story, and disinformationalists are those who support it. some are paid, and some are just media marionettes that can't think for themselves. which one are you?"

That sure doesn't sound like you were just talking to him. And I said the FORUMS. What do the forums have to do with actual weapons other than talking about them? I've had several disagreements with people in those forums that remained prefectly civilized no matter how we felt about the issue. Why is that so hard here? Is it too much to ask to get even a little respect even though I disagree with you?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Yeah, ya know this one's gone about as far as it can go. If observers haven't already left the thread because of the constant repetition and going round in circles, then they have done so because of the constant flippant bickering. No one but those involved in the debate are reading anymore, I'm quite sure. I've had enough of this thread. The jury's out and people can make up their own minds based on the small amount of information here, and use that as a reference point for seeking further investigations of their own on the great www. The whisper of the truth is muffled by the cacophony of war and the corporate whore media, but it's getting louder every day and will soon become a shout. The disinformation and distraction tactics are luckily also very transparent, even right here from certain "engineers" *cough cough BS cough* who curiously sit around posting on ATS all day and even stranger than that have an, at best, rudimentary, and at worst, completely erroneous grasp of physics.

Glaringly obvious from the myriad cover-ups, countless inconsistencies and stupendously unnatural events that surround every, single aspect of the events leading up to and on that day, the truth will come out...it always does. Just as it did about the fore-knowledge of Pearl Harbor which dragged the U.S. into WWII. Just as it did about the completely fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident which dragged the U.S. and her allies into the Vietnam War. Just as it did about the non-existent 100s of thousands of Iraqi troops and tanks along the Saudi border after the Kuwait invasion. Just as it did about Saddam's non-existent WMDs and the collusion between the Blair and Bush administrations...

It's a mixed blessing though sometimes, the way that time heals, because it means that only a few years have to pass and revelations of crimes against humanity become "old news", "in the past, man", and fail to stir our hearts and minds. And I fear that once the truth of this event is finally revealed and accepted, it too will be old news and once again, we will have been tricked. We're victims of the Hollywood generation, where if it isn't flashing, exploding and bleeding before our very eyes, we can't seem to feel outrage. Maybe it's the Fluoride in the water.


Earlier in the thread, someone said in response to a theory about the collapse, "You have got to be kidding....". I didn't post what I wanted to in response because it wasn't relevant, but I will now, which is that it would be positively HILARIOUS, if there were not people who were, be it wittingly or unwittingly, paid or unpaid, assisting a gang of murderers in or behind the government to cover up the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of their own countrymen. I'm sorry, but I personally don't find that funny in the slightest. In fact, I think it's a crying shame. I'm seeking the truth and I sleep great at night...how about you?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
"what i am calling disinfo, is the whole official story, and disinformationalists are those who support it. some are paid, and some are just media marionettes that can't think for themselves. which one are you?"

That sure doesn't sound like you were just talking to him. And I said the FORUMS. What do the forums have to do with actual weapons other than talking about them?


'kay. sorry. that's just what i call disinformationalists and disinfo. because, 911 was an inside job, you know?

back on topic, now......

thank you wecomeinpeace for noticing that our engineer guy is DEFINITELY misleading the ATS community, and spreading disinfo, ie. BAD science.
i guess, to be fair, a chemical engineer wouldn't have to know much about physics. or a train engineer. or a stationary engineer. but the thing is, he is louding touting nonsense as sense. yet, as wecomeinpeace said, he seems to have not even a rudimentary grasp of physics.
zaphodnumber, if you really want to help, why don't you help cool the ire of the maddib, and gently tell him he's wrong about sound, wrong about the wave/particle duality having any signifigance in the argument, wrong to say that my premise is wrong(energy available at input cannot exceed energy output, ie. the law of conservation of energy). why are you defending his honour instead of helping educate the poor fellow?
i called him messiah of dune. that was my first 'insult'. 'muaddib' was the messiah of dune, a character made up by frank herbert. it wasn't really meant as an insult. maybe a slight dig, but RELAX, people are dying in the streets by the thousands as a result of 911. it is a very emotional topic.
i definitely stoked muaddib's ire(that's reallly east to do, BTW. he's angry man.) but, that is no reason for this thread to get hijacked into a discussion of board etiqeutte. i believe i am within the rules and regs. if not, i will recieve a u2u(it would be hypocritical to send me one, without sending muaddib one, too) warning me to stop doing that thing that's not allowed here.

so, once again.....
the only energy available for the collapse comes from the gravitational energy, the plane impact and the fires. this total available amount of energy must; make all the noise, do all the breaking and smashing, make all the heat, pulverise the concrete, furniture, computers and people into dust, create a cloud that big, and melt a big enough quantity of steel to such a great temperature that it makes molten pools which don't cool for WEEKS, etc....
the molten steel in the basement really is literally a smoking gun.

other people have played with the calculations, but the official bodies, nist and fema, have not PUBLISHED any such study, nor will they(because it is a FORGONE CONCLUSION that there was no external source of energy, and therefore, measuring the total energy output is a moot point to 'them'). however, it IS a simple physics equation. getting accurate numbers to plug into it is a very different story. i think a good fuzzy argument will eventually wring out the truth, though.

it's too bad there's no evidence from the crime scene, eh? isn't removing evidence from a crime scene illegal? how come noone's been arrested?

[edit on 30-6-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
man, that's sad. your media mommy's milk won't pour from my cup.
let's clear something up, though. i never said the wave/particle duality was bunk. i said it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to this discussion.


I am getting tired of the crap you people keep posting as if it was science. The wave-particle duality of electrons has everything to do with this topic....since you, and some other member/s, are claiming that energy would be lost to be transformed into sound....which is not true, because a) energy is never lost, it continues transforming, and b) because of the wave-particle duality that has been confirmed in electrons, we know that no amount of energy is transformed into sound, because the wave form of electrons already exists naturally. The only thing that occurs is because of the wave properties of electrons, when the mass of two objects crash, they produce vibrations, which are sounds...the faster and the bigger the mass of the objects that crash, the bigger the vibration/sound will be....

You can't debunk what i said by corroborating from scientific websites, simply because what I am saying is true.

If you want to check if I have a degree in engineering, you can go to your nearest library and request a copy of The National Dean's List (2002-2003)

In page 59 you will find that I, Luis R. Cardenas, have a degree in Engineering. I am allowing, whoever has the power in this site, to confirm that my name is Luis R. Cardenas.

BTW, last night i sent an email to Mr. Tully. It seems they are getting tired of getting emails about this bs. The following is the response i got from an assistant of Mr. Tully.



I already forwarded this e-mail to him several weeks ago..

No more forwards from now on'

Thx,
Moises



-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@aol.com [mailto:xxxxxx@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:41 AM
To: Moises Perez
Subject: Internet User...

Mr. Tully,

There have been some "rumors" going around the internet, mostly in
conspiracy sites, that you have made claims that you found "pools of
molten steel at ground zero which were kept in a molten state for up to
5 weeks."

I am contacting you, trying to find out whether these claims are true,
and if the claims are true, what exactly was it that you found, and how
is it possible for the steel to be kept in a molten state so long
without a source of power to keep it in that liquid state.

I thank you for your time, and await your response.

Sincerely

Luis R. Cardenas.


Do note the sarcasm in the email from the response of Mr Tully's assistant. I sent him another email explaining that i have never sent an email to him, and i want this matter to be solved directly with the intervention of Mr. Tully, who is supposed to have made these claims of "pools of steel being found at ground zero which were kept in that molten state for 5 weeks."

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
If he sends back a response stating that he did indeed see pools of molten steel, or what used to be, will you still think otherwise, and will you posted it? Will you submit it unaltered?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
luis. i'm honestly trying to be patient with you, but you make it oh so hard.
once again, .....

the only energy available for the collapse is the potential energy from gravity, and the impact, and the subsequent fires.
if indeed, the calculations are correct which show that the dust cloud was far too dusty and large to have been made by the potential energy that was available for the collapse, (and indeed, once again, if it fell at near the acceleration of gravity, there would be no energy left for even this massive pulverisation and subsequent dust cloud, NEVERMIND the molten metal), then the numbers just don't add up anymore, and an additional source of energy must be found to explain the collapse.
it takes an energy input to make a sound. the energy to produce sounds made from the collapse of the towers would be drawing on the same energy sink that was 'pushing' them down, and the same energy sink that pushed out the cloud of dust, and the same energy sink that caused any increases in temperature, and the same energy sink that pulverised EVERYTHING. for every different transfer of energy from one form to another, there is less available for the other tasks. because time is a factor, when time= nearly zero(as it does if the towers fell at the rate of the acceleration of gravity,) then the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy has used up all the energy in the energy sink, and there is no energy left over to do work like make sounds, melt steel, pulverise EVERYTHING, break every single load bearing support, overcome the resistance from the air trapped between floors, ......
if'n the tower had actually taken more time to get to the ground, the pancake theory would hold a little more seawater, but as it is, it looks like the tower collapse was a cold fusion cell putting out more energy than was stored in it.

i'm sorry you published your real name. you didn't really have to do that.

you may want to read what's in my signature regarding any historical revisionism by eye witnesses.
what they said then counts. if they say something completely different now, then there is a good chance that they have been threatened with suiciding.
if the conspiracy theory is true, it's an obvious given that the american secret cabal has no qualms about knocking whole families off, left and right. it's called, 'terrorism', and the dictionary definition can also be viewed in my signature.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Congratulations Muadibb. You've just used the last resort weapon of disinfo artists everywhere. The BTWBS technique, or "Baffle Them With Bull".
We've been trying to avoid it so far because we gave you the benefit of the doubt to be able to understand basic precepts so that we can move on with the debate. Alas we have to waste bandwidth with repeating high school physics which you so loved to accuse Subz of not knowing.


The wave-particle duality of electrons has everything to do with this topic....


It has exactly zero to do with this topic and you know it. Or maybe you don't...


since you, and some other member/s, are claiming that energy would be lost to be transformed into sound....which is not true, because a) energy is never lost, it continues transforming,


Nobody claimed that the energy is lost. Potential energy from the tower's falling section is transformed into sound, heat, and lateral vectored kinetic energy of debris and powder as it collides with each floor below it. The use of the term "lost", as you have either consistently failed to grasp, or attempted to Baffle Them With Bull, was used to describe how the tower loses potential energy as it is transferred to other elements in the system, i.e. the surrounding air, the structure below, and the ground it is connected to. The total energy in the system, comprised of the tower, the ground, and the air around it does not change, it is transformed from one form to another. If you took time out from typing the bollocks you do here and went for a jog, your body would lose energy as radiated heat, sound on the pavement, and kinetic energy against the ground as you ran. The energy in the system, that is, you, the air and the ground remains constant, but you yourself have lost energy and the air and ground have gained energy. You will then have to go and have a snack to add to the size of you probably fair-sized butt, and to replenish that energy. Don't believe me? Do us all a favour and stop eating for a month and see how much energy you have left in you, then come back and tell us how your "engineer" degree saved you life. So, do you get it yet?? No? Okay, no worries. Pay attention now and we'll try this:


This is a pendulum. The system here is comprised of the pendulum, the air, and we'll add your hand. Raise the pendulum up with your hand and you have lost some chemical potential energy by working your muscles, but the pendulum has gained that energy in potential energy. Still with me? Good. Now let the pendulum go. It swings back and forth, back and forth, just like your posts, but each time it swings a little lower. Why is that Mr. Engineer? Can you figure it out? Doesn't all the energy stay in the system? How can the pendulum stop? Here's a clue: if the system didn't include air, it would swing forever. Take five minutes then come back and read the answer:

A: Friction. Potential energy in the pendulum is lost to the air as it is transformed into radiated heat energy. The energy in the system has remained constant, but the pendulum has lost energy.

End of Year 8 Physics Lesson 1.

Lunch Break.

Lesson 2.


and b) because of the wave-particle duality that has been confirmed in electrons, we know that no amount of energy is transformed into sound, because the wave form of electrons already exists naturally. The only thing that occurs is because of the wave properties of electrons, when the mass of two objects crash, they produce vibrations, which are sounds...the faster and the bigger the mass of the objects that crash, the bigger the vibration/sound will be....


Even my 13 year old nephew knows that sound is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material. This material is usually air, but sound will travel through anything, even concrete. Sound has nothing to do with sub-atomic wave-particle duality, apart from the fact that sound travels in waves. You just remembered "wave-particle duality" from your Year 7 science class and decided to spin it into here as a BTWB technique. Nice one.



You can't debunk what i said by corroborating from scientific websites, simply because what I am saying is true.


No, okay, try this:

nobel.scas.bcit.ca...
Law of Conservation of Energy
states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another (ie - from kinetic energy to potential energy or vice versa).


See how it says energy cannot be created or destroyed? That's where you got confused with the "lost" part, Mr Engineer. No one said energy was destroyed, we said it is lost by one element in the system and gained by another. Get it? I didn't think so...


You can't debunk what i said by corroborating from scientific websites, simply because what I am saying is true.


Really? What about this?

www.drgdiaz.com...
First, it is important to understand the definition of sound. Let's see two definitions of sound:

1. Simple definition: Sound is the perception of vibrations stimulating the ear
2. Scientific definition of sound: sound is a periodic disturbance in fluids density, or in the elastic strain of a solid, generated by a vibrating object. These waves (vibrations) propagate in two basic ways: longitudinal waves and transverse waves.

See anything about sub-atomic wav-particle duality in there? Not me.



If you want to check if I have a degree in engineering, you can go to your nearest library and request a copy of The National Dean's List (2002-2003)

In page 59 you will find that I, Luis R. Cardenas, have a degree in Engineering. I am allowing, whoever has the power in this site, to confirm that my name is Luis R. Cardenas.


We don't need to confirm that you're not an engineer, ducky, you just did it for us.


[edit on 2005/6/30 by wecomeinpeace]

edit: Removed circumvention of censors

[edit on 2005/6/30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Another canned response: This is the News Forum, please don't circumvent the censors.


Man, I need a "I'm tired of this smiley".



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
If he sends back a response stating that he did indeed see pools of molten steel, or what used to be, will you still think otherwise, and will you posted it? Will you submit it unaltered?


First, I am not going to alter any responses he might give me. I have no reason to do this.

Second, why is it that you keep thinking something else must have happened after some other members and i, proved that those claims you are making, and those came claims from those websites you gave, are false?

We know for certain that there were firefighters close to WTC 7 at least until 4:10 pm, because a) we know that the visual confirmation of fires in WTC7 were given at 4:10pm, and b) because we can see in the pictures in those links i gave, that firefighters were close to WTC 7 when the fires in floors 11th and 12th were raging at WTC7, and the fires are clearly seen in those pictures. This makes the story that all firefighters were told to leave the area at around 11 or 12 that morning is a false claim.

Anyways, I want to ask a couple of things to all of you people, claming that something else happened in 9/11.

First, since you keep claiming that there was a controlled demolition, can you explain exactly how this "controlled demolition was done?

Second, as I have asked several times what explosives have the power to melt steel in a few seconds?

Third, why is it that some of you keep claiming that the wtc "fell too straight" because "according to you" it was a controlled demolition, yet we don't see the effects used in controlled demolitions that make certain a building falls straight down.

Again, the following photo shows the effects from the explosives used in controlled demolitions, to make sure buildings fall straight down. Or as straight as possible.



Do notice that the squibs produced by the explosives in the higher floors do no make large clouds of pulverized concrete...the large clouds of dust are produced when the total mass of the building hits the ground.

Now, some people keep claiming that explosives were the ones to have pulverized the concrete, the furniture, the "exotic metals", the carpeting, etc, etc. I guess they can't fathom that most of the furniture, carpeting and other burning materials were burnt out. Even when some of these same people gave pictures of fires still burning at ground zero up to almost a weeks after the buildings collapsed. I wonder what was burning since according to these people all furniture, all carpeting, and flammable materials were instantly pulverized...

Let's see what force is powerful enough to have pulverized large amounts of concrete in a picture. Since we are relying on pictures to tell us what happened.



We can see in the picture above the begining of how hundreds of thousands of tons of material, from the top portion of the tower, crash against the rest of the tower. That's the power that pulverized large portions of concrete. As the mass of falling debris keeps adding up, the more power this falling mass of debris has.

BTW, i made certain that you can verify that I do have an engineering degree. I expect all these people claiming they know what they are talking about to do the same. Let's see what degrees you all have that, according to you, makes the evidence and information i have provided as junk and false science. Or as the phrase goes, "put your money where your mouth is."


[edit on 30-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, i made certain that you can verify that I do have an engineering degree. I expect all these people claiming they know what they are talking about to do the same. Let's see what degrees you all have that, according to you, makes the evidence and information i have provided as junk and false science. Or as the phrase goes, "put your money where your mouth is."


[edit on 30-6-2005 by Muaddib]


You came back to edit that post but wouldn't and couldn't "put your money where your mouth is" to refute the junior high school physics that I posted above, let alone the more complex system that billybob explained to you for the thousandth time. We don't need to check up on some name that you googled from alumni lists to confirm that you know diddly-squat.


Anyway how many engineers are going to be silly enough to post their name and personal details on a public website?? Answer: none. Don't tell us what non-existent degrees you don't have - let your arguments here show us what you know.

edit to add: Funny how when you talk about the top section, it's always "hundreds of thousands of tonnes" of super heavy material, but when you talk about the floors below, it's always "only four inch thin floors and the rest mostly air." So which is it?


[edit on 2005/6/30 by wecomeinpeace]





top topics
 
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join