| Topic: | Re:What steel?!!! | |
| Posted by: | John Whitworth | |
| Date/Time: | 05/12/14 13:11:00 |
| QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "It's not possible for two 1/4 mile high steel & concrete towers to disappear in 10 seconds as a result of fires on a few upper floors." That statement is true, but it does not describe the events at the WTC on 9/11. You have missed out many significant factors and added an unsupported claim. In other words, you are putting up a straw man. In fact, the WTC Towers were struck by fuel-laden aircraft travelling at high speed. The aircraft severed or damaged between 30 to 40 perimeter columns, penetrated the towers, and severed or damaged about 10 core columns. Impact debris stripped the fire protection from columns and floor trusses on the impact floors. Tens of thousands of litres of jet fuel exploded in a fireball blowing out windows and starting large fires instantaneously over wide areas on multiple floors. The fires raged uncontrolled for upwards of an hour. The heat of the fires weakened structural steel members causing sagging, buckling and creep. When the damaged towers could no longer support the gravity loads, they collapsed. They did not 'disappear'. QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "It's been scientifically proven, if commonsense isn't enough; ..." Please don't tell me that it is proved scientifically by the Judy Wood 'billiard ball' model, that she uses to derive the minimum time for a progressive collapse of the towers at a minute and a half? That model is fatally flawed. I'll just mention a few of the problems with it: the assumption of elastic collisions, the assumption of equal masses, the omission of momentum transfer and the omission of collection of mass. Her discussion of conservation of momentum presents an interesting scenario. In it she describes the collision between an object having zero mass with an object having zero velocity to prove that pulverisation cannot occur. What the heck is an object having zero mass? A ghost? This is most definitely NOT scientific. QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "... and a 'collapse' is not even what is seen to happen; ..." A collapse is exactly what is seen to happen. That is supported by video footage, still photography, eyewitness testimony and the condition of the site after the event. It is also validated by scientific analysis and modelling. QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "... they looked like they were blown to smithereens with weaponry of some kind and, unsurprisingly, because they were." Can you provide evidence of this 'weaponry'? QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "Then Building 7 also came down at the rate of free fall." WTC7 did not collapse 'at the rate of free fall'. QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "The official story is laughable and supported by no credible evidence whatsoever; ..." Judy Wood's theory is laughable. Her principal evidence includes 'dustification', 'fuzzballs', 'fuzzyblobs', 'silly string', 'unexplained waves', 'toasted cars', 'weird fires', 'Alka-Seltzer (or shaving cream) clouds', 'energised clouds', 'lathering up' and 'poofing'. The consensus narrative is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, but you just hand wave it away. QUOTE (MB, 03/12/14 20:18:00): "... so for you to state that it is correct makes you an idiot or a liar." I accept the description of events that is supported by facts, evidence and scientific analysis. I am not an idiot or a liar. This is the third time, at least, that you have insulted me. Why do you keep insulting me? |