Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Fox Figures Out Mexico Gun Hoax

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...umber-claimed/


    There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one: It's just not true.

    In fact, it's not even close.

    By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent. What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
    Hopefully Van Susteren and O'Reilly can stop spouting the 90% figure as well. I couldn't find a similar article on the CNN or MSNBC websites for some reason.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Maybe someone there read this;

    http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw807.html




    Wow just got finish reading the whole thing. I've NEVER seen that kind of talk on FAUX news. Ever.

    SNIP >>
    The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

    In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

    Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

    "Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I don't think I'm the only one who wrote to FOX... Van Susternen and Rivera about the propagation of this lie. Even the local FOX Channel 11. 'Lets hope the principles of this false dissemination publicly recant their utterances.

    Of course the antis will dismiss this out of hand... and the fact it's comin' from FOX (Faux, as they like to call it) They will continue to gulp the Kool-Aide 'n rely on MSLSD and the Commie News Network... or the post menopausal chatterings of the View and Oprah.

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I don't think I'm the only one who wrote to FOX... Van Susternen and Rivera about the propagation of this lie. Even the local FOX Channel 11. 'Lets hope the principles of this false dissemination publicly recant their utterances.

    Of course the antis will dismiss this out of hand... and the fact it's comin' from FOX (Faux, as they like to call it) They will continue to gulp the Kool-Aide 'n rely on MSLSD and the Commie News Network... or the post menopausal chatterings of the View and Oprah.
    This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time a Federal or state government will use out right lies to deceit the general public.

    “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” - Joseph Goebbels.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time a Federal or state government will use out right lies to deceit the general public.

    Yep, for an earlier example, see: marijuana prohibition.

    Bonus conclusion: how successful have we been at reversing that?



  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States

    That's 83 guns an hour. If the cartels were smugglin' guns from the US 'n losin' 83 an hour... at oh... low side $900 ea for an 'AW'. That's a loss of $75K a day. Multiply that by 365... $27,375,000.00 per year 'loss'... plus the transport and transporter. no company is gonna entertain that sort of loss.

    Sarukhan is blowin' smoke up somebody's skirts. Nobody vetted this info with any sort of serious intel. Do they think the southern Mexican border drops off the planet? Most of these idiots dunno geography anyway... mo' better to blame America. Show's ya how little the talkin' heads that spew this nonsense even pause to 'think'. Put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion.

    'Course Hillary blathered on about the same... but that's no surprise. Anything this administration says or does is immediately suspect. They lie... period. All of 'em. BATF lies... no surprises there. BATF should change their title to JBT... ATF should be a convienience store.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    This seems like a perfect place to point out this is not the first time the government and MSM have colluded to lie to the American public.

    It's hard to convince yourself such evil exists; and even harder to admit that much of what you believe may be a huge hoax you have fallen for.

    You seem ready to accept there's a conspiracy to divest the American patriots of their weapons and ammunition. Is ittoo hard to fathom this conspiracy is larger and more ominous than you've yet realized?

    Accept for the moment that:

    1.) The people in the US federalgovernment lie, TO YOU.

    2.) The people in the MSM repeat, support and disseminate these lies, TO YOU.

    3.) This is not the first time they've worked in concert to lie, TO YOU.

    The next step is where I and others often fail. For though 'you can lead a man to ponder, you can't make him think'. The next step you must take on your own andit is a tall one. No one can make it for you, though I offer my hand in assistance.....

    The MSM colluding with theUS government to lie to we the people:

    This ain't the first time......

    Thanks for keeping secrets MSM. Love, David Rockefeller

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7K8iQAReXQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGW5St9vo0

    I merely offer the evidence, evidence which is backed by reason and science. You do the math.....

    Newton's Second Law of Motion


    http://www.patriotscorner.com/forums...f=1&t=8160

    Don't be fooled.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9jW_8ZCUmg



    A bomb you say?







    Indeed, it took more than one.....



    "But how does this all relate to our gun rights, Enoch?"

    I'll tell you.

    These lies are made WITH INTENT.

    Study that INTENT, for in it you'll find motive.

    Method, opportunity and motive.

    These are the three pillars of criminal investigation.

    The men who lie to you do so with a motive. That motive should be becoming clear for even the most stalwart defenders of the status quo. The reason they want your guns is not to make you safer, it's to render you defenseless in the face of their PLANNED tyranny.

    I suggest you catch up on the Security And ProsperityPartnership, North American Union, to understand how these un-American interests are planning to dominate you and your children's existences:

    http://www.patriotscorner.com/forums...f=1&t=2629

    Now understand that the events of 9/11 were a catalyst used to start a reaction.

    A means to an end.

    America has been lied to so many times, for so long, she now has trouble discerning the truth.

    Take your time, it will come to you.

    Do you see what I see?











  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    I really hope people will stop thinking of Fox News as the "conservative alternative". They haven't been conservative since they started hiring talent from other networks (like O'Reilly in '96, Geraldo in '01, Greta in '02).

    Please stop thinking the comparison is "liberal" versus "conservative". It's not: both ends of the spectrum are statists, and the real divide is freedom vs. statism.

    "Left" versus "Right" and "Liberal" versus "Conservative" are false dichotomies. One may be as socially conservative as Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney (I am!), yet fervently opposed to their big-government solutions (I am!)

    Stop thinking on the two-dimensional scale. Start adding the factor of small-government freedom, versus big-government statism. Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Do so with an open mind, answering the questions honestly rather than how you think the author might want you to respond, or with the goal of having a certain outcome.

    Liberty is a wonderful thing. You have to lose lots of old labels to pursue Liberty.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    A bomb you say?
    I've already debunked this conspiracy theory without a challenge the last time you brought it up, though it's very off topic. I abhor misinformation no matter what the source. If these people are going to use physics, they need to apply it correctly rather than try to confuse people like you. No offense.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...318262#p318262



  10. #10
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Why is it that whenever someone say the government lied, all the 9/11 conspiracy guys jump out of the wood work.

    Look, the so called evidence doesn't stand up.

    And either way, IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER!

    It distracts people from things that are a whole lot more important.

    Learn from the past and move forward.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Enoch Root wrote:
    Crazy rantings


    You know, in the Quicksilver Trilogy and Cryptonomicon, Enoch Root was someone of sound mind and wise thought. His responses were always well thought, and he influenced people through logical means, not angry rants implying some deep conspiracy (well, apart from being a part of a conspiracy himself).

    You're pretty much the polar opposite of your namesake. Is that intentional and meant as irony?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gladewater, Texas, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    They can lie all they want, I'm still not letting them in my pants!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States

    That's 83 guns an hour. If the cartels were smugglin' guns from the US 'n losin' 83 an hour... at oh... low side $900 ea for an 'AW'. That's a loss of $75K a day. Multiply that by 365... $27,375,000.00 per year 'loss'... plus the transport and transporter. no company is gonna entertain that sort of loss.



    Did you not read the rest ?
    In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.



  14. #14
    Regular Member MI-copperhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Anti-urban, Bible thumping, Tekonsha, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

    "Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."
    I call ******** on this A--hole's comment.
    "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death !" Patrick Henry

  15. #15
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    As I sit watching, waiting patiently, cleaning my weapons and chanting the Hari-Krishna (not really) I'm a Christian. I watch for the lights in the tower. One if by land... It will happen, and by the grace of God, we won't have to use the force of arms,,,but I think we all know different. Just me sayin' it.
    Keep your powder dry !
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Those tales of military grade weaponry being smuggled from the US into Mexico is silently going away. The public doesn't seem to be willing to accept the flawed numbers.

    Following this horrible slaughter in Binghamton on Friday, the Brady Bunch has a new war cry -- banning or restricted sales of hand guns in the US.

    I'm googling a list of important individuals who actively support gun control. I should have it this weekend. It's large list.

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Why is the public being fed flawed stats; well here's a list of some influential people who FAVOR gun control. Take note of the entertainment, media and corporate leaders.....

    http://hughesonthenet.blogs.com/seco...ff/AntiGun.htm

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Dom,

    The reason I ignored your prior debunking is that you refused to think.

    You merely dragged some non-truther website onto the porch and declared victory.

    The Laws of Motion do not lie, Dom.

    Our communication satellites rely on gravity & inertia to remain in orbit.

    Sturdy them, study the WTC collapse(s), and you will see the truth.

    Anyone will.

    _____

    As to your comment,
    Tawnos:



    Joined:
    Tue Jun 3rd, 2008

    Location:


    Posts:
    187

    Status:
    Offline
    Posted: Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 01:48 am

    Enoch Root wrote:
    Crazy rantings


    You know, in the Quicksilver Trilogy and Cryptonomicon, Enoch Root was someone of sound mind and wise thought. His responses were always well thought, and he influenced people through logical means, not angry rants implying some deep conspiracy (well, apart from being a part of a conspiracy himself).

    You're pretty much the polar opposite of your namesake. Is that intentional and meant as irony?
    First, you misquoted me. Or you spoke for me, I should clarify.

    Never judge a book by it's cover.

    That means read it, then comment.

    You didn't do the math or study the evidence thoroughly, and it shows, Tawnos.

    What part of mathematics and the laws of physicsdo you find illogical?

    And what specific part of my above post do you find 'angry'? Please be very specific.



    (This is where and when you use the quote function, btw.)

    _____

    I'm not here picking a fuss with you guys.

    It's funny how defensive people get over their preconceptions.

    I used to be like that over 9/ 11. Shouting people down, trying to silence them.

    Finally their 'rantings' got me perturbed enough to open my eyes, focus my attention and study the evidence. I merely show you what I found, and I have science on my side. The non-truthers don't. This is why they refuse to do the math, it speaks the truth they wish to hide.

    Freedom, out.






  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    You merely dragged some non-truther website onto the porch and declared victory.
    Not that it will make any difference to you, but I didn't plagiarize any website.
    Those are my own words and my own calculations and they're based on the very laws you say back up your point. Like you said the laws of motion do not lie, so there you have them. Please describe the mistakes in my calculations rather than accuse me of plagiarism.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Enoch Root wrote:
    Finally their 'rantings' got me perturbed enough to open my eyes, focus my attention and study the evidence. I merely show you what I found, and I have science on my side. The non-truthers don't. This is why they refuse to do the math, it speaks the truth they wish to hide.
    *phew* You're just trolling. For a second you had me going, thinking someone on this site had gone full retard. The "truther" term was a nice way to get yourself out - like someone who is trolling Christians to refer to himself as a bible thumper.

    That, and the blatant ignore of Dom's post.

    I'm going to give your troll a 9/10. If you'd dropped the truther line after one or two more posts you'd have gotten the 10, or if you'd been more blatant and somehow pulled me.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Enoch Root wrote:







    Do you see what I see?


    That is an appropriate question. The whole 9/11 conspiracy theory cracks me up.

    Look at the close up of the beam that has been cut. Anyone who has ever been around an acetylene cutting torch can recognize that the beam was torch cut, not cut by shaped charges. You caneven see where the slag ran down during the cutting. Does anyone really believe that shaped charges would leave slag running down from the cut line. This photo was obviously taken during the cleanup effort and the beam had been cut to clear debris.

    The cat with the bug was pretty cute though.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post



    Dom,

    First of all I'd like to apologize for an assumption I made. I stopped following the Patriotic Synergy thread for obvious reasons.

    I never saw your last post on it, and my assumption was that I had. Therefore, I didn't use the link you provided above to view your calculations. I made a mistake by not doing so. I therefore offer you my apology for any misunderstanding I caused with my last post.

    Dom Wrote:
    Not that it will make any difference to you, but I didn't plagiarize any website.
    Those are my own words and my own calculations and they're based on the very laws you say back up your point. Like you said the laws of motion do not lie, so there you have them. Please describe the mistakes in my calculations rather than accuse me of plagiarism.

    I am impressed, Dom.

    You are the first and only person to answer my challenge to review the facts for yourself, and do the math.

    I do have a few things to point out about your assumptions and some additional evidence for you to consider.

    I have been exposed to some engineering in my life, various places. I've worked in road & building construction, and heavy equipment manufacture. I understand steel and it's cutting and welding. That is my background, FYI.

    Let me point out some things I disagree with in your post.

    Dom Wrote:
    First, the topmost floor of the stable portion of the building has to hold the rest of the building above it up. We can ignore the rest of the building below that floor for the most part, it doesn't matter if it's 361 meters in the air or supported directly by the ground. Once the topmost floor collapses the rest of the building is doomed, which I will explain at the end.

    No, we can't 'ignore the rest of the building'!

    For as you state;
    "the topmost floor of the stable portion of the building has to hold the rest of the building above it up", the same holds true for each successive floor, all the way down to street level.
    You act as if the kinetic force of the falling upper floors totally negates the structural integrity and inertia of the entire remaining building.

    It does not. Inertia IS. "A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."

    The following is where I think you make an error. In fact, my entire physics argument rests upon this point:

    Dom Wrote:
    So since force is the momentum change over time, we can agree that in order for the stable floor to support the falling floor, the impact force has to be less than 3341.8 million Newtons. So we have Force = Momentum / Time, we have 588,409,262 kg-m/s divided by 0.16 seconds = 3,677,557,887 Newtons, or 3677 million Newtons. This is greater than the stable floor can support, with a safety factor of 5! Therefore, the stable floor collapses.

    Now to get back to why we only care about the topmost floor. We now have the added mass, which will accelerate due to gravity, and we also have the initial velocity when the floor failed (again the author ignored this, and calculated at rest). While we know the lower floors are designed to handle the large mass per floor, the velocity is increasing along with the added mass of each floor. Therefore the momentum is increasing and therefore the successive impact force. Once one goes, they all go assuming isotropic floors.

    It is true that gravity is continuously accelerating the crumbling, vaporized mass of concrete and steel. And velocity does increase mass. But there is another force at play here, and it deals with inertia. For as powerful as the collapsing mass may have been, the mass of the remaining 95 floors was greater (at the onset of collapse, at least). The Third Law of Motion states that when two masses make contact, an equal and opposite reaction occurs. So the top floors either topple over the side of the tower into the street below, or they decelerate slightly, as each floor buckled. The fact they didn't is indicative of demolition charges having been used to destroy the support columns.

    Newton's laws of motion



    First law


    There exists a set of
    inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. This law is often simplified as "A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.

    Second law


    Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle of constant mass is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear
    momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. This law is often stated as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma)": the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration.

    Third law


    Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified into the sentence, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."



    Therefore, the upper-floors may have had enough energy to damage the remaining structure, but not utterly destroy it. The tops of the towers should have toppled over into the street, had the structure underneath it not been destroyed by demolition charges.

    Dom Wrote:
    We could calculate the time of collapse here, but it's a much harder equation since we're steadily accelerating, the momentum is increasing, the impact time is decreasing as the building falls, and the impact force is increasing all the way down. I'll leave that calculation to the guy in the video, since he's such a genius.


    Don't you see, Dom?

    There is NO WAY the collapse could have occurred at free-fall speed. There were 95 floors of steel and concrete in the way. And the time of collapse is the smoking gun here, proving demolitions charges were used. It doesn't take a genius to understand the laws of motion. A study of Inertia reveals Treachery.

    Now, I'd like to look at few more aspects of this elaborate plot. Just a few' loose ends' I'm sure you can all tie up into a pretty package, since the 'truth' is in your corner. Ever wonder why this plot has so many 'loose ends' and they all point the same direction?

    Lets look at the premise of the 'official lie' on the unprecedented collapse(s) of steel framed buildings (three in one day, no less!): heat caused by jet fuel and burning paper caused the steel to MELT.

    The primary component of the collapse(s) is claimed to be jet-fuel, which is basically kerosene.

    Lets look at it's combustion temperatures, as opposed to the melting point of steel alloys:

    Jet A-1



    JET A-1

    Flash point:
    38 °C (100.4 °F)

    Autoignition temperature:
    210 °C (410 °F)

    Freezing point:
    −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)

    Open air burning temperatures:
    287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

    Density at 15 °C (59 °F):
    0.8075 kg/L

    Specific energy
    43.15 MJ/kg [3]







    [/suP]




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

    ~


    The simple facts of temperatures:

    1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron

    ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel

    ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

    Diffuse flames burn far cooler.

    Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

    The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.

    Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

    http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

    So, we've established some figures for the combustion temperature of hydrocarbons. Next we'll look at some evidence on the melting point of steel:

    Structural Steel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

    Thermal Properties

    The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

    The austenizing temperature, the temperature where a steel transforms to an austenite crystal structure, for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1% carbon (by mass) is approached, the austenizing temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C. Similarly, the melting point of steel changes based on the alloy.

    The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1130 °C. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1492 °C (2720 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1539 °C (2802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1130 °C (2066 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315 °C (2400 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.

    Seems these two temperature ranges don't match.

    Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough, even under ideal conditions, with any fuel/oxygen ratio to melt stuctural steel.

    But THERMATE does.

    Forensic Metallurgy

    Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRtVnenOkYg

    No loud boom, no explosive concussion, just a pool of molten steel .....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6fBlV9o-Y

    _____

    Towers' Design Parameters

    Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th'
    s

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
    _____

    Here's an interesting story.

    Meet Edna Cintron

    She seems unfazed by the heat that 'melted steel girders' yards away.
    One BASE jump from relative safety, poor lady.

    _____

    Gordie wrote:
    That is an appropriate question. The whole 9/11 conspiracy theory cracks me up.

    Look at the close up of the beam that has been cut. Anyone who has ever been around an acetylene cutting torch can recognize that the beam was torch cut, not cut by shaped charges. You caneven see where the slag ran down during the cutting. Does anyone really believe that shaped charges would leave slag running down from the cut line. This photo was obviously taken during the cleanup effort and the beam had been cut to clear debris.
    I've used a cutting torch quite a bit.
    I look at the cut on the photo below.
    I note the slag there and submit that cut was not made by an acetylene oxygen torch. That cut would have been made from outside of the tubular steel, the slag being blown inward.
    Oh, yeah.

    I'm not sure where you came by your information. So, if you can show me even one photo of a Dock Builder doing such a cut, I'd appreciate it. I want to see why such a cut would be made, when it would have made far more sense to cut the girder off at a 90° angle.
    (Length of cut, gas use, time spent, etc.) If you know when the photos were taken, there must be more of the men cutting the beams off at 45° angles.
    I'd like to see them.




    Note the slight channeling along the left side cut.
    That could be the result of an unsteady hand at the torch gouging the steel. I submit that the angle of those gouges follows the line of gravity more than the 90° angle a man operating a cutting torch would try for. I need to find an example of a thermate cut girder for comparison.
    I'm still curious how why a tubular beam was cut from the inside. Was a window cut into the beam for that cut?


    Know anything about welding?
    I know a little.


    Also note the strange semicircular cut at the rear of the beam.
    What could cause that?
    Was the Dock Builder who cut that beam drunk?
    Or did thermate pool there and melt it out?


    I'm still waiting for photographic evidence of workers cutting those beams off at angles with a cutting torch. Since 'ground zero' was so widely photographed, I'm surprised such evidence is impossible to produce.....

    So much for your 'obvious' assumption, eh, Gordie?

    _____

    Structural steel CAN NOT be melted with jet-fuel, period.

    I challenge the federal government to replicate this, as an 'experiment in truth'.

    _____

    New Laws Of Physics Noted

    In WTC Fires And Ignored

    Dr Cahill's Discovery of Anaerobic Chlorine Fueled Combustion

    By Ed Ward, MD

    http://www.rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm

    _____

    Molten Metal

    Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html

    All this scientific evidence that doesn't corraberate the 'official lie'. How can you ignore it?

    _____

    Now let's look at some other forms of proof that all is not as they would have you believe.

    Insider Trading

    Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge

    Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html





    They don't talk about it on TV anymore, but someone tried to make money with unusual stock trades right before the terrorist attacks of September 11. Who knew to bet that United Airlines would lose money?


    Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks
    CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed firm that handled “PUT” options on United Airline Stock
    by Michael C. Ruppert





    _____

    The total lack of a 'steel-girder melting blaze' and a hole far too small to fit a
    Boeing 757-223

    Pentagon, 9-11:

    The Seven Minute Fire

    Part V of "Pentagon RESCUE? Open, Bloody, Questions . . . "

    by Carol A. Valentine

    http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

    _____










    NORAD's 9/11 wargames
    http://www.oilempire.us/norad.html
    If 9/11 had been an "intelligence failure," it is likely that General Eberhart would have been court-martialed instead of promoted.





    Air Force wargames on 9/11
    "Vigilant Guardian" (NORAD exercise on 9/11/2001)
    Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide.















    [/suP]

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    My prior post was too long, some of it was erased by the forum software.

    I will post the last part here and make an attempt to patch the parts gone missing from the middle of this post by editing the post above.

    Here's somethings to study:

    Incriminating Images

    http://physics911.net/gallery/

    _____

    Read and learn:

    Free-Falling Bodies

    Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

    http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

    Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

    On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

    In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

    Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. So, right off the top, Gates' premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived. So let's just examine his other premise: whether or not it is true that people know what they saw.

    (The following must be said before we can get to the physics.)

    The government and the media told us what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government's, and PBS's, and Popular Mechanics', and Scientific American's theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. According to their "pancake theory", this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the floors falling from above.

    There are some problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity collapse times, nor the huge energy surplus, nor the nanosizes of the 'dust' particles. This article focuses on the second of these mentioned discrepancies, and just scratches the surface of the third.

    The scientists who've concocted the popularized "pancake theory" made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists -- that incredible pancake theory of theirs -- using simple, high-school physics!

    And that's what we're about to do here. We're going to check the work -- something every grade-schooler is taught to do -- of those "scientists".

    We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.

    How Gravity Acts

    Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty -- gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

    Of course, people didn't figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

    So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity's pull (ie, it's heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed (ie, when it's falling). Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.

    The Simplest Case

    From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

    What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

    After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

    After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.


    And so on.

    Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

    As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

    Velocity = Gravity x Time

    and

    Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

    So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

    Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

    So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

    Checking Our Work

    OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! Now let's check our work, using conservation of energy.

    We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

    In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

    So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

    It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

    Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

    It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

    Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

    So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

    The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608

    The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

    So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

    One Little Complication

    Air resistance.

    The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

    That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

    In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

    That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

    A Quick Recap

    Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

    It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

    There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

    And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

    If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?

    Free-falling from WTC heights

    The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

    Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

    or

    2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

    Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

    Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

    Time = 9.2

    So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

    Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

    But that can only occur in a vacuum.

    Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

    Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

    Observations from 9/11

    On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

    But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

    But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

    Air can't do that.

    Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

    It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

    Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

    Not even close!

    Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways and even upward ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually disintegrated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

    Conclusions

    In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

    The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse

    The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy

    On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity

    On 9/11, energy was not conserved

    However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

    Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

    It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down collapses reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.

    So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

    The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

    The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

    _____

    Architect Richard Gage "How the Towers Fell"

    _____

    There you go.

    You can trust Sir Isaac Newton and your own eyes, or believe the 'official lie', the choice is yours to make.

    9/11 Mysteries - Freefall

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_znfgHbu4

    WTC Free Fall Collapse

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ACXRGROK4

    Freefall Acceleration of WTC7

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

    4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

    Towers collapsed at free fall speed - 911

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUEnUJdcOA

    I personally don't give any murderers a break, irregardless of their nationality, service rank or elected political office. The American servicemen who've died in Afghanistan & Iraq are dead because of this attack on our soil, remember that. This attack was the excuse used to deploy those men into harm's way.

    I seek truth and justice.

    This thread is about lies being told to the American people by members of the federal government and the MSM shills who promote their lies.

    It is time to wake up America
    .

    Peto Dollar Motive Part 1 Nothing Lasts Forever 9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_tDhmE2ms

    Motive: The reason why the perpetrator wants to commit the attack


    Petro Dollar Opportunity Part 2 Nothing Lasts Forever 9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ag0h_uUDOc

    Oppotunity: The time, access and circumstances that allow for the attack

    Petro Dollar Method Part 3 Nothing Lasts Forever 9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GImeCL786OQ

    Motive: The reason why the perpetrator wants to commit the attack

    Petro Dollar Result Part 4 Nothing Lasts Forever 9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr8GfjsZN_0

    _____



    Ron Paul: The PetroDollar - Part 1/4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxVZ945JR5g

    Ron Paul: The PetroDollar - Part 2/4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWNzlWrzTY

    Ron Paul: The PetroDollar - Part 3/4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekdln_NZ-P4

    Ron Paul: The PetroDollar - Part 4/4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgEfvi2sHQM

    _________________________

    I thank you for your time.

    If you would like to read more of the debates that led to my research of this topic, please use the following links:

    http://www.patriotscorner.com/forums...f=1&t=8160

    http://www.patriotscorner.com/forums...pic.php?t=6470


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    No, we can't 'ignore the rest of the building'! .....You act as if the kinetic force of the falling upper floors totally negates the structural integrity and inertia of the entire remaining building.
    Yes we can actually. The 1st floor lends no structural integrity whatsoever to the 95th floor. Certainly, for the 1st floor, it keeps the higher floors from falling, i.e. it bears the weight. Your statement would be true if the entire building collapsed at the same time, each floor collapsing simultaneously but we know that didn't happen from the videos.

    If I put a can of soda on my desk then your statement means the desk gives the can structural integrity....it doesn't. It just provides an opposing force to gravity. Putting the can on my desk doesn't make it harder to crush. If anything it makes it easier because the desk provides a very nice opposing force keeping the can from moving as I press down with my hand.

    If you still don't believe that, the best way I can illustrate it is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=713Cc...eature=related. It's not exactly the same as a building collapse but the same principle holds. The guy wouldn't be able to do that without air between the bricks and air between the bottom brick and the floor.


    But there is another force at play here, and it deals with inertia. For as powerful as the collapsing mass may have been, the mass of the remaining 95 floors was greater (at the onset of collapse, at least). The Third Law of Motion states that when two masses make contact, an equal and opposite reaction occurs. So the top floors either topple over the side of the tower into the street below, or they decelerate slightly, as each floor buckled. The fact they didn't is indicative of demolition charges having been used to destroy the support columns
    Again, the mass of the 95 remaining floors doesn't matter one bit. The only thing that matters is the 95th floor collapses and has enough momentum to collapse the 94th floor, the combined falling mass has enough momentum to collapse the 93rd floor, and so on. The 95th floor doesn't have to collapse floors 94 through 1 all at the same time for the building to fall down. If the WTC was a solid your statement would make sense. Again, we can look at the film of the collapse and see it was a successive collapse.


    The tops of the towers should have toppled over into the street, had the structure underneath it not been destroyed by demolition charges
    I'm not sure why they would topple in the street, I assume you mean like slide off the side? There would need to be a force to push them sideways because gravity is directed down.

    There is NO WAY the collapse could have occurred at free-fall speed. There were 95 floors of steel and concrete in the way. And the time of collapse is the smoking gun here, proving demolitions charges were used. It doesn't take a genius to understand the laws of motion. A study of Inertia reveals Treachery.
    There is no such thing as "free fall speed'. Anything in a free fall accelerates, which means the speed is always increasing until terminal velocity. There certainly was air resistance in the floors since they're a big area, but they still accelerate. You are ignoring the acceleration due to gravity which is strange for someone quoting Newton. Once again, to beat a dead horse, there's not 95 floors in the way, there's only one floor. Then one floor after that, then another, and so on to the ground.


    Lets look at the premise of the 'official lie' on the unprecedented collapse(s) of steel framed buildings (three in one day, no less!): heat caused by jet fuel and burning paper caused the steel to MELT.

    I think this is your best argument so far. There is no way jet fuel will melt steel. I'm not a metallurgist and I haven't seen a proven explanation of what initiated the collapse at a mirco level. I've seen theories including heat related stresses, a magical combination of ingredients that caused the melting point to lower (eutectic reaction), and of course the consipiracy theory favorite shape charges. The only thing I can say is it wasn't shape charges. We can see the collapse started at the impact point, where no one contradicts there was a fire fueled by Jet-A that burned for quite a while. While steel can survive those temperatures, how did the shape charges not ignite until someone was ready to "push the button" and bring the whole building down?


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Dom,

    I'm rather tired from editing that mess, but I'll reply briefly.

    I can't believe you totally ignore the inertia of the mass of the remaining 95 floors. I truly respect your arguments up to that point. I'll point out a contradiction:
    Enoch Root wrote:
    No, we can't 'ignore the rest of the building'! .....You act as if the kinetic force of the falling upper floors totally negates the structural integrity and inertia of the entire remaining building.
    Dom Wrote:

    Yes we can actually. The 1st floor lends no structural integrity whatsoever to the 95th floor. Certainly, for the 1st floor, it keeps the higher floors from falling, i.e. it bears the weight. Your statement would be true if the entire building collapsed at the same time, each floor collapsing simultaneously but we know that didn't happen from the videos.
    Sir, you do not understand INERTIA.

    Let alone the structural integrity of the WTC steel framework.

    It would never allow the WTC towers to collapse at the speed of a falling stone, as you claim; Unless, the WTC was a falling stone, with no base to support it.

    Again, the mass of the 95 remaining floors doesn't matter one bit. The only thing that matters is the 95th floor collapses and has enough momentum to collapse the 94th floor, the combined falling mass has enough momentum to collapse the 93rd floor, and so on. The 95th floor doesn't have to collapse floors 94 through 1 all at the same time for the building to fall down. If the WTC was a solid your statement would make sense. Again, we can look at the film of the collapse and see it was a successive collapse
    The thing you miss, ignore, or try to hide is that this would SLOW the collapse to well below the free-fall velocity of a stone falling freely, with only air-resistance to slow it. The WTC collapse(s) had to pulverize &crush the mass below and gravity had to take TIME to accelerate that mass earthward.

    There is no such thing as "free fall speed'. Anything in a free fall accelerates, which means the speed is always increasing until terminal velocity. There certainly was air resistance in the floors since they're a big area, but they still accelerate. You are ignoring the acceleration due to gravity which is strange for someone quoting Newton. Once again, to beat a dead horse, there's not 95 floors in the way, there's only one floor. Then one floor after that, then another, and so on to the ground.


    Agreed. And each successive collapse takes a moment to reaccelerate the mass it just encountered. And the entire sequence is SLOWER than a free falling stone in open atmosphere.

    ~

    While steel can survive those temperatures, how did the shape charges not ignite until someone was ready to "push the button" and bring the whole building down?

    I've burned dynamite in campfires before, it takes concussive force to ignite most HE materials. THERMATE I've never worked with, but it seems to be made fromfairly inert materials.

    http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Pate...amp;id=6766744
    Not true... aluminothermics require a VERY hot ignition source for the reaction to start... usually burning magnesium or an "electric match"

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread280635/pg
    I also had a formerDHS employee ask me how the airline crashes kept from cutting the ignition wires. I told him, "if you know where the planes will strike, you route your wires so they're safe from impact." Or, you could use radio controlled detonators, as the Iraqi insurgents do with their IEDs.

    Study the article in my last post, Dom. That rebuttal of the 'collapse theory' is fairly succinct, see if you can find a flaw in his reasoning. I'm interested in what you think about it.

    If you wish, study my posts here and on the Patriot's Corner Forum. My research into this topic changed my opinion about it. I'll view your links with a clearer mind tomorrow, and thencomment on them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •