Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 22, 2018 17:43:06 GMT -5
A "pyroclastic flow" that didn't burn or kill anyone on the ground? Interesting. I'm pretty certain that polymath David Ray Griffin wrote a comprehensive report about that, a report you clearly have not yet studied, but that, luckily, is available on his website, 9/11clickbaitsuckers.com Not surprising, though that you haven't studied such a well-written, thorough and extremely well-referenced technical document...what with you being a longtime CIA dupe and all.  
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 21:07:55 GMT -5
I'm pretty certain that polymath David Ray Griffin wrote a comprehensive report about that, a report you clearly have not yet studied, but that, luckily, is available on his website, 9/11clickbaitsuckers.com Not surprising, though that you haven't studied such a well-written, thorough and extremely well-referenced technical document...what with you being a longtime CIA dupe and all.
Was it completely pulverized by that jet kerosene, or merely blasted into high pressure pyroclastic dust clouds* by gravity?
You're on... It's time for the Hairy Chicken and Cheese Burgher Daleko Show in Wally World!!!  
*Concrete PulverizationTwin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air
 A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. 2 Some idea of the volume of the dust clouds can be obtained by examining photographs taken shortly after each tower collapsed. The thoroughness of the destruction is incompatible with the official government explanation. In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses. The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs. Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete. Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed? Evidence indicates that the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the Twin Towers was converted almost entirely to dust. Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories: Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.
Pyroclastic Flows Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage: The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures. 4 * 15 seconds is a much more accurate estimate of total collapse time than 9 seconds. (See this time analysis of the North Tower collapse.) Yet the 9-second figure is widely repeated in the literature of both detractors and supporters of the official story. References 1. Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site, WasteAge.com, 11/1/01 [cached] 2. World Trade Center Dust Analysis Offers Good News For New Yorkers, sciencedaily.com, 12/24/02 [cached] 3. Sifting Through the Dust at Ground Zero, EnviroNews.com, [cached] 4. Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not Ground Shaking, Seismologists Report, columbia.edu, 11/16/01 [cached] page last modified: 2013-03-20 |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Apr 22, 2018 21:14:05 GMT -5
LMAO... Wait...is this "expert" on recent middle east history the same David Ray Griffin who is also a high rise structural engineering expert who can tell us about what really happened on 9/11? And is this the same DRG who is a retired professor of philosophy and religion, an expertise that neither qualifies him to pontificate on engineering or history and international relations? THAT DAVID RAY GRIFFIN? Right on cue, you invoke Daleko's old goofball "logic" that scholars can only be knowledgeable in one specific field. No polymaths allowed, eh? Who are Griffin's historical sources? Naiman? Wikileaks? Diplomatic cables? But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Griffin is writing outside of his specific academic area of expertise. What about Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia-- the Harvard wunderkind? Was he adequately informed when he told MSNBC that CIA Operation Timber Sycamore has "DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE IN SYRIA," and we need to get OUT? Explain. Is 600,000 deaths and 12 million refugees enough damage, or should we keep destroying what's left of Syria? |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 21:54:07 GMT -5
Right on cue, you invoke Daleko's old goofball "logic" that scholars can only be knowledgeable in one specific field. No polymaths allowed, eh? Who are Griffin's historical sources? Naiman? Wikileaks? Diplomatic cables? But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Griffin is writing outside of his specific academic area of expertise. What about Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia-- the Harvard wunderkind? Was he adequately informed when he told MSNBC that CIA Operation Timber Sycamore has "DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE IN SYRIA," and we need to get OUT? Explain. Is 600,000 deaths and 12 million refugees enough damage, or should we keep destroying what's left of Syria?
Griffin's work on the subject has been a logical, sequential progression from his original, highly precise analysis of 9/11 as PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor."
See if you can figure out how the professor got from his deep analysis of 9/11 and PNAC to understanding the true history of Timber Sycamore.
Pretend that you are logical. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 23, 2018 0:23:57 GMT -5
Polymath = ADHD, Pravda Boy. I knew guys like that. They spent 10-12yrs to get a BA with 7 majors, 18 minors in a variety of disciplines but graduated only once. It's called the Peter Pan syndrome. A professional student. DRG isn't one of those guys. Like you he reads a cpl of books and he's a Polymath? LOL
Griffin's work on the subject has been a logical, sequential progression from his original, highly precise analysis of 9/11 as PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor."
See if you can figure out how the professor got from his deep analysis of 9/11 and PNAC to understanding the true history of Timber Sycamore.
Pretend that you are logical.Here is how. DRG: "How can I make money getting rubes to click on my links? I know. I will just make outrageous shit up!" |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 23, 2018 12:39:21 GMT -5
A "pyroclastic flow" that didn't burn or kill anyone on the ground? Interesting. I'm pretty certain that polymath David Ray Griffin wrote a comprehensive report about that, a report you clearly have not yet studied, but that, luckily, is available on his website, 9/11clickbaitsuckers.com Not surprising, though that you haven't studied such a well-written, thorough and extremely well-referenced technical document...what with you being a longtime CIA dupe and all.
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 14:11:40 GMT -5
I'm pretty certain that polymath David Ray Griffin wrote a comprehensive report about that, a report you clearly have not yet studied, but that, luckily, is available on his website, 9/11clickbaitsuckers.com Not surprising, though that you haven't studied such a well-written, thorough and extremely well-referenced technical document...what with you being a longtime CIA dupe and all.
Come on, Harry. Tell us where all of those tons of WTC concrete went. It's one of a thousand technical questions about 9/11 that you, Wally, and Cheese Burgher have never been able to answer. |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Apr 23, 2018 15:48:19 GMT -5
A pyroclastic flow is really a cloud of super heated dust and ash traveling at a high rate of speed. It will kill you instantly, and that did not happen at WTC. Gee, wonder why?
Come on, Harry. Tell us where all of those tons of WTC concrete went. It's one of a thousand technical questions about 9/11 that you, Wally, and Cheese Burgher have never been able to answer. |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 16:51:11 GMT -5
Come on, Harry. Tell us where all of those tons of WTC concrete went. It's one of a thousand technical questions about 9/11 that you, Wally, and Cheese Burgher have never been able to answer. 800,000 cubic yards x (y) tons/cubic yard = ? Do the arithmetic. Then tell us where it all went. |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Apr 23, 2018 16:54:23 GMT -5
800,000 cubic yards x (y) tons/cubic yard = ? Do the arithmetic. Then tell us where it all went. |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 23, 2018 17:37:51 GMT -5
800,000 cubic yards x (y) tons/cubic yard = ? Do the arithmetic. Then tell us where it all went. At roughly 40,000 per floor X .40' thick, we get 16,000 cf x 130lbs (assuming ltwt fill) = roughly a thousand tons per floor, x 110 floors = 110,000 tons. As for "where it went", you'd be saddled with the same question if it was professionally demolished, so the actual mechanics isn't relevant. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 19:14:58 GMT -5
800,000 cubic yards x (y) tons/cubic yard = ? Do the arithmetic. Then tell us where it all went. At roughly 40,000 per floor X .40' thick, we get 16,000 cf x 130lbs (assuming ltwt fill) = roughly a thousand tons per floor, x 110 floors = 110,000 tons. As for "where it went", you'd be saddled with the same question if it was professionally demolished, so the actual mechanics isn't relevant. But the "official" government story-- as we all know-- is that the WTC towers were NOT professionally demolished," right? They, allegedly imploded after being hit by Boeing jetliners. Hence, the importance of my question. What pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete? The exact tonnage (requested by Cheese Burgher) is not the issue. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 23, 2018 19:52:54 GMT -5
At roughly 40,000 per floor X .40' thick, we get 16,000 cf x 130lbs (assuming ltwt fill) = roughly a thousand tons per floor, x 110 floors = 110,000 tons. As for "where it went", you'd be saddled with the same question if it was professionally demolished, so the actual mechanics isn't relevant. But the "official" government story-- as we all know-- is that the WTC towers were NOT professionally demolished," right? They, allegedly imploded after being hit by Boeing jetliners. Hence, the importance of my question. What pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete? The exact tonnage (requested by Cheese Burgher) is not the issue. The same thing that pulverized it if it had been professionally demolished. Potential energy transformed in a matter of seconds into kinetic energy. Go ahead and calculate the potential energy of 110K tons of concrete hundreds of feet in the air. What do you think happened to that energy during the collapse? Any ideas, Mr. 'I tutored physics in college'? Concrete fill like that likely could not have withstood more than roughly 2500psi of force without deformation (cracking). How much force was exerted on each floor as the floors above it crashed into it? Any idea what the force per sq. in might have been? Colossal, my friend. That's what...Freakin' colossal. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 20:58:34 GMT -5
But the "official" government story-- as we all know-- is that the WTC towers were NOT professionally demolished," right? They, allegedly imploded after being hit by Boeing jetliners. Hence, the importance of my question. What pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete? The exact tonnage (requested by Cheese Burgher) is not the issue. The same thing that pulverized it if it had been professionally demolished. Potential energy transformed in a matter of seconds into kinetic energy. Go ahead and calculate the potential energy of 110K tons of concrete hundreds of feet in the air. What do you think happened to that energy during the collapse? Any ideas, Mr. 'I tutored physics in college'? Concrete fill like that likely could not have withstood more than roughly 2500psi of force without deformation (cracking). How much force was exerted on each floor as the floors above it crashed into it? Any idea what the force per sq. in might have been? Colossal, my friend. That's what...Freakin' colossal. Nice try, Troy Boy, but no cigar. Not even close. If you study the film, you will see that the WTC concrete was not pulverized by the kinetic energy of collapsing "pile drivers." On the contrary, it was atomized and blasted into the atmosphere by a visible series of highly unusual explosions. These explosions can also be seen causing high velocity, lateral propulsion of steel girders, and streams of molten steel. Use your empirical faculties, and turn off the government "soundtracks" that tell you what ISN'T happening. Most people will believe that shit is shinola if they see an "authority" figure on television shining his shoes with a can of crap. |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Apr 23, 2018 21:10:27 GMT -5
At roughly 40,000 per floor X .40' thick, we get 16,000 cf x 130lbs (assuming ltwt fill) = roughly a thousand tons per floor, x 110 floors = 110,000 tons. As for "where it went", you'd be saddled with the same question if it was professionally demolished, so the actual mechanics isn't relevant. But the "official" government story-- as we all know-- is that the WTC towers were NOT professionally demolished," right? They, allegedly imploded after being hit by Boeing jetliners. Hence, the importance of my question. What pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete? The exact tonnage (requested by Cheese Burgher) is not the issue. |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
