Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Aug 11, 2019 17:01:38 GMT -5
Answer the questions, Wally. You're starting to sound like Mutt and pFredd. Nope. Addressing nonsense does not improve it. For instance, if nobody analyzed beams cut by thermite, why do you think there are any? What analysis would lead NIST to conclude that beams were cut? It's like asking a doctor why he did not test for cancer on a patient who broke his arm. The beams were cut on the ground in order to transport them. So much for the great mystery. 🤦♂️ |
|
|
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 Aug 11, 2019 20:54:05 GMT -5
Nope. Addressing nonsense does not improve it. For instance, if nobody analyzed beams cut by thermite, why do you think there are any? What analysis would lead NIST to conclude that beams were cut? It's like asking a doctor why he did not test for cancer on a patient who broke his arm. The beams were cut on the ground in order to transport them. So much for the great mystery. 🤦♂️
Hardly the case. How did the entire massive steel substructures collapse in virtual free falls in the first place?
What severed and liquefied portions of the steel beams? Certainly not kerosene. (See the physics questions above that Walt won't answer.)
You two clowns can't even begin to explain that physical phenomenon.
P.S. What if I told you guys that someone at Ground Zero was a former patient of mine?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 9:32:01 GMT -5
I thought you were a hot shot at physics. Apparently not. Do you comprehend the notion of the shear force Vmax in the structural cross-section of any part of a framing system? Oh, now you finally want to talk about physics, eh? That's progress for you. Excellent. So, let's begin by talking about the total gravitational force (weight) exerted by the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 on the lower floors of those steel skyscrapers on 9/11. Since there was clearly no visible "pancaking" of upper floors onto lower floors -- no "pile driver" effect -- did the total force compressing the lower floors of the explosively pulverized buildings... A) increase B) decrease, or C) remain constant as the buildings collapsed in a near free fall? Ready, go!! Uh, no. Let us keep it simpler than that. You suggested beams cut with thermite. Is it possible that a beam could have been sheared clean by a perpendicular force exerted against its cross-section? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 10:40:56 GMT -5
I thought you were a hot shot at physics. Apparently not. Do you comprehend the notion of the shear force Vmax in the structural cross-section of any part of a framing system? Oh, now you finally want to talk about physics, eh? That's progress for you. Excellent. So, let's begin by talking about the total gravitational force (weight) exerted by the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 on the lower floors of those steel skyscrapers on 9/11. Since there was clearly no visible "pancaking" of upper floors onto lower floors -- no "pile driver" effect -- did the total force compressing the lower floors of the explosively pulverized buildings... A) increase B) decrease, or
C) remain constant as the buildings collapsed in a near free fall? Ready, go!!
The correct answer to the Wunderlich WTC physics quiz question above is B)
Let's begin the analysis by noting that the massive steel substructures of the WTC towers had been supporting the entire weight (M x a) of the upper floors of the building for decades. They were extremely strong, as even Donald Trump indicated on 9/11.
There would have been a slight, negligible percentage increase in M from the mass of the aluminum airplane fuselage + cargo. (Most of the kerosene (fuel) exploded on impact.)
BUT, as a careful visual analysis of the WTC demolition videos clearly shows, massive amounts (900,00 tons per tower) of WTC concrete were explosively pulverized as the buildings were entirely demolished in a near free fall.
Massive steel beams were also explosively ejected from the upper floors of the towers at very high velocities.
Molten steel is also clearly seen streaming from the towers before free fall collapse. (Yet, the melting point of steel is significantly higher than the maximum temperatures generated by burning jet fuel.)
Ergo, the total mass (M) and downward force (M x a) of the upper floors of the WTC towers (mostly concrete + steel) was actually decreasing significantly during the demolition process !
The correct answer is B)
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 11:27:18 GMT -5
Oh, now you finally want to talk about physics, eh? That's progress for you. Excellent. So, let's begin by talking about the total gravitational force (weight) exerted by the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 on the lower floors of those steel skyscrapers on 9/11. Since there was clearly no visible "pancaking" of upper floors onto lower floors -- no "pile driver" effect -- did the total force compressing the lower floors of the explosively pulverized buildings... A) increase B) decrease, or
C) remain constant as the buildings collapsed in a near free fall? Ready, go!! The correct answer to the Wunderlich WTC physics quiz question above is B)
Let's begin the analysis by noting that the massive steel substructures of the WTC towers had been supporting the entire weight (M x a2) of the upper floors of the building for decades. They were extremely strong, as even Donald Trump indicated on 9/11.
There would have been a slight, negligible percentage increase in M from the mass of the aluminum airplane fuselage + cargo. (Most of the kerosene (fuel) exploded on impact.)
BUT, as a careful visual analysis of the WTC demolition videos clearly shows, massive amounts (900,00 tons per tower) of WTC concrete were explosively pulverized as the buildings were entirely demolished in a near free fall.
Massive steel beams were also explosively ejected from the upper floors of the towers at very high velocities.
Molten steel is also clearly seen streaming from the towers before free fall collapse. (Yet, the melting point of steel is significantly higher than the maximum temperatures generated by burning jet fuel.)
Ergo, the total mass (M) and downward force (M x a2) of the upper floors of the WTC towers (mostly concrete + steel) was actually decreasing significantly during the demolition process !
The correct answer is B)
LOL...I feel sorry for those kids you were allegedly tutoring... Can you explain that pesky "a2" thingie as it regards force exerted on beams below. Thanks in advance. Now answer my question. Could that (Ma2) force shear a steel beam if the force was exerted perpendicular to the cross-section? Yes or no? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 12:43:05 GMT -5
The correct answer to the Wunderlich WTC physics quiz question above is B)
Let's begin the analysis by noting that the massive steel substructures of the WTC towers had been supporting the entire weight (M x a2) of the upper floors of the building for decades. They were extremely strong, as even Donald Trump indicated on 9/11.
There would have been a slight, negligible percentage increase in M from the mass of the aluminum airplane fuselage + cargo. (Most of the kerosene (fuel) exploded on impact.)
BUT, as a careful visual analysis of the WTC demolition videos clearly shows, massive amounts (900,00 tons per tower) of WTC concrete were explosively pulverized as the buildings were entirely demolished in a near free fall.
Massive steel beams were also explosively ejected from the upper floors of the towers at very high velocities.
Molten steel is also clearly seen streaming from the towers before free fall collapse. (Yet, the melting point of steel is significantly higher than the maximum temperatures generated by burning jet fuel.)
Ergo, the total mass (M) and downward force (M x a2) of the upper floors of the WTC towers (mostly concrete + steel) was actually decreasing significantly during the demolition process !
The correct answer is B)
LOL...I feel sorry for those kids you were allegedly tutoring... Can you explain that pesky "a2" thingie as it regards force exerted on beams below. Thanks in advance. Now answer my question. Could that (Ma2) force shear a steel beam if the force was exerted perpendicular to the cross-section? Yes or no? Walter, The main point of my WTC physics quiz question was this. The total gravitational force (1) exerted on the lower floors (and beams) by the upper floors of the WTC towers was actually LESS than the force that those lower floors had sustained for DECADES. Why would a REDUCED gravitational force (i.e., weight) have abruptly caused a complete, near free-fall collapse of th steel sub-structures? (1) That gravitational force of any mass is a function of the acceleration of gravity. For example, the WTC towers would exert less force on their sub-structures if they were built on the moon. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 14:02:40 GMT -5
LOL...I feel sorry for those kids you were allegedly tutoring... Can you explain that pesky "a2" thingie as it regards force exerted on beams below. Thanks in advance. Now answer my question. Could that (Ma2) force shear a steel beam if the force was exerted perpendicular to the cross-section? Yes or no? Walter, The main point of my WTC physics quiz question was this. The total gravitational force (1) exerted on the lower floors (and beams) by the upper floors of the WTC towers was actually LESS than the force that those lower floors had sustained for DECADES. Why would a REDUCED gravitational force (i.e., weight) have abruptly caused a complete, near free-fall collapse of th steel sub-structures? (1) That gravitational force of any mass is a function of the acceleration of gravity. For example, the WTC towers would exert less force on their sub-structures if they were built on the moon. That is so F-ing wrong it doesn't warrant a serious response. Willie....Trust me when I tell you this. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. "A high-velocity collision (an impact) does not provide sufficient time for these deformations and vibrations to occur. Thus, the struck material behaves as if it were more brittle than it would otherwise be, and the majority of the applied force goes into fracturing the material. Or, another way to look at it is that materials actually are more brittle on short time scales than on long time scales: this is related to time-temperature superposition.."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics) |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 14:16:24 GMT -5
Walter, The main point of my WTC physics quiz question was this. The total gravitational force (1) exerted on the lower floors (and beams) by the upper floors of the WTC towers was actually LESS than the force that those lower floors had sustained for DECADES. Why would a REDUCED gravitational force (i.e., weight) have abruptly caused a complete, near free-fall collapse of th steel sub-structures? (1) That gravitational force of any mass is a function of the acceleration of gravity. For example, the WTC towers would exert less force on their sub-structures if they were built on the moon. That is so F-ing wrong it doesn't warrant a serious response. Willie....Trust me when I tell you this. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. "A high-velocity collision (an impact) does not provide sufficient time for these deformations and vibrations to occur. Thus, the struck material behaves as if it were more brittle than it would otherwise be, and the majority of the applied force goes into fracturing the material. Or, another way to look at it is that materials actually are more brittle on short time scales than on long time scales: this is related to time-temperature superposition.."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics)Walter, You are regressing back to the long-debunked, "pancake" theory for the WTC demolitions. It's dead wrong. Get a clue. Any idiot can easily see that there was no pancaking of floors. Go study the film, puh-leeze! If a pile driver/pancaking effect had caused the massive steel towers to collapse, the process would have been assymetrical, partial, and gradual-- not symmetrical, complete, and abrupt. You get an F in the basic physics of 9/11. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 14:32:54 GMT -5
That is so F-ing wrong it doesn't warrant a serious response. Willie....Trust me when I tell you this. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. "A high-velocity collision (an impact) does not provide sufficient time for these deformations and vibrations to occur. Thus, the struck material behaves as if it were more brittle than it would otherwise be, and the majority of the applied force goes into fracturing the material. Or, another way to look at it is that materials actually are more brittle on short time scales than on long time scales: this is related to time-temperature superposition.."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics)Walter, You are regressing back to the long-debunked, "pancake" theory for the WTC demolitions. It's dead wrong. Get a clue. Any idiot can easily see that there was no pancaking of floors. Go study the film, puh-leeze! If a pile driver/pancaking effect had caused the massive steel towers to collapse, the process would have been assymetrical, partial, and gradual-- not symmetrical, complete, and abrupt. You get an F in the basic physics of 9/11. Like I said...you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seriously...you need to read this. ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101366 |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 15:15:14 GMT -5
Walter, You are regressing back to the long-debunked, "pancake" theory for the WTC demolitions. It's dead wrong. Get a clue. Any idiot can easily see that there was no pancaking of floors. Go study the film, puh-leeze! If a pile driver/pancaking effect had caused the massive steel towers to collapse, the process would have been assymetrical, partial, and gradual-- not symmetrical, complete, and abrupt. You get an F in the basic physics of 9/11. Like I said...you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seriously...you need to read this. ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101366Walter, Read the damned abstract. The NIST fraudsters are claiming, incredibly, that the potential energy of the upper floors PANCAKED the entire, massive steel sub-structures of these buildings-- causing an abrupt, symmetrical, total, near free-fall collapse into their own footprints!! No one with two eyes, two ears, and a knowledge of basic physics and chemistry would believe such nonsense!! You have, obviously, never observed (and listened to) the serial explosions that demolished these buildings-- pulverizing an estimated 1.8 million tons of concrete, liquefying massive steel beams, and even hurling massive steel girders away from the buildings at high velocities. Wake up!! You've been brainwashed by the Bush-Cheney 9/11 propaganda... |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 15:18:32 GMT -5
Walter, Read the damned abstract. The NIST fraudsters are claiming, incredibly, that the potential energy of the upper floors PANCAKED the entire, massive steel sub-structures of these buildings-- causing an abrupt, symmetrical, total, near free-fall collapse into their own footprints!! No one with two eyes, two ears, and a knowledge of basic physics and chemistry would believe such nonsense!! You have, obviously, never observed (and listened to) the serial explosions that demolished these buildings-- pulverizing an estimated 1.8 million tons of concrete, liquefying massive steel beams, and even hurling massive steel girders away from the buildings at high velocities. Wake up!! You've been brainwashed by the Bush-Cheney 9/11 propaganda... What part of the sequence of collapse do you question? Start on page 305 of the linked report and tell us, specifically, what part you dispute and why. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 18:15:33 GMT -5
Walter, Read the damned abstract. The NIST fraudsters are claiming, incredibly, that the potential energy of the upper floors PANCAKED the entire, massive steel sub-structures of these buildings-- causing an abrupt, symmetrical, total, near free-fall collapse into their own footprints!! No one with two eyes, two ears, and a knowledge of basic physics and chemistry would believe such nonsense!! You have, obviously, never observed (and listened to) the serial explosions that demolished these buildings-- pulverizing an estimated 1.8 million tons of concrete, liquefying massive steel beams, and even hurling massive steel girders away from the buildings at high velocities. Wake up!! You've been brainwashed by the Bush-Cheney 9/11 propaganda... What part of the sequence of collapse do you question? Start on page 305 of the linked report and tell us, specifically, what part you dispute and why.
Time for the Wunderlich WTC 9/11 physics quiz Question II for Wally and the Wing Nuts...
Will Wally ever pass 9/11 Physics 101?? 
Put on yer thinking caps, Wally, Harry, and Dung-head!! 
II. If a steel skyscraper completely collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetrical, near free-fall, which of the following MUST have been true?
A) The collapse was caused by the gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors-- Boom-boom-crunch! -ouch! - boom -- boom, etc... (e.g., per the belated Bush-Cheney NIST Report "simulation")
B) The collapse of upper floors caused step-wise, sequential perpendicular "shearing" of the steel beams on the lower sub-structures (e.g., per Wally's beloved Bush-Cheney NIST Report) Boom! Shear...BOOM! Shear...Boompity-boom-boom...Shear, etc.
C) The resistance to total collapse caused by the steel beams of the lower sub-structure was progressively destroyed by the weight of the upper floors (per the NIST Report.) "Look! It could possibly go...GEEZ!...Boom!...OUCH!..all..the...way...down...floor after..floor...after another .. BOOM!...floor...CRUNCH!...look, Wally... boom...boom! Still crumbling slowly down! Boom!"
D) Jet fuel (kerosene) dripping from high level floors simultaneously liquefied all of the lower steel girders (Look, Wally! It's molten steel pouring from the floors right after those serial explosions!)
E) The resistance to total, symmetrical, near free fall collapse was close to ZERO -- i.e., the steel beams of the lower sub-structure were rapidly demolished by something other than gravitational force, to the extent that they caused ZERO resistance to free fall collapse.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 18:24:03 GMT -5
What part of the sequence of collapse do you question? Start on page 305 of the linked report and tell us, specifically, what part you dispute and why. Time for the Wunderlich WTC 9/11 physics quiz Question II for Wally and the Wing Nuts...
Will Wally ever pass 9/11 Physics 101??
Put on yer thinking caps, Wally, Harry, and Dung-head!!
II. If a steel skyscraper completely collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetrical, near free-fall, which of the following MUST have been true?
A) The collapse was caused by the gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors-- Boom-boom-crunch! -ouch! - boom -- boom, etc... (e.g., per the belated Bush-Cheney NIST Report "simulation")
B) The collapse of upper floors caused step-wise, sequential perpendicular "shearing" of the steel beams on the lower sub-structures (e.g., per Wally's beloved Bush-Cheney NIST Report) Boom! Shear...BOOM! Shear...Boompity-boom-boom...Shear, etc.
C) The resistance to total collapse caused by the steel beams of the lower sub-structure was progressively destroyed by the weight of the upper floors (per the NIST Report)"It could...possibly...go...GEEZ!...Boom!...OUCH!..all..the...way...down...floor after..floor...after another .. BOOM!...floor...CRUNCH!...look, Wally... boom...boom! Still crumbling slowly down! Boom!"
D) Jet fuel (kerosene) dripping from high level floors simultaneously liquefied all of the lower steel girders (Look, Wally! It's molten steel pouring from the floors right after those serial explosions!)
E) The resistance to total, symmetrical, near free fall collapse was close to ZERO -- i.e., the steel beams of the lower sub-structure were rapidly demolished by something other than gravitational force, to the extent that they caused ZERO resistance to free fall collapse.
READ IT. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 18:35:29 GMT -5
Why do I always end up having to help Wally with his basic physics homework?
This would never have happened if I had tutored Wally in college physics. 
II. If a steel skyscraper completely collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetrical, near free-fall, which of the following MUST have been true?
A) The collapse was caused by the gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors-- Boom-boom-crunch! -ouch! - boom -- boom, etc... (e.g., per the belated Bush-Cheney NIST Report "simulation")
B) The collapse of upper floors caused step-wise, sequential perpendicular "shearing" of the steel beams on the lower sub-structures (e.g., per Wally's beloved Bush-Cheney NIST Report) Boom! Shear...BOOM! Shear...Boompity-boom-boom...Shear, etc.
C) The resistance to total collapse caused by the steel beams of the lower sub-structure was progressively destroyed by the weight of the upper floors (per the NIST Report.) "Look! It could possibly go...GEEZ!...Boom!...OUCH!..all..the...way...down...floor after..floor...after another .. BOOM!...floor...CRUNCH!...look, Wally... boom...boom! Still crumbling slowly down! Boom!"
D) Jet fuel (kerosene) dripping from high level floors simultaneously liquefied all of the lower steel girders (Look, Wally! It's molten steel pouring from the floors right after those serial explosions!)
E) The resistance to total, symmetrical, near free fall collapse was close to ZERO -- i.e., the steel beams of the lower sub-structure were rapidly demolished by something other than gravitational force, to the extent that they caused ZERO resistance to free fall collapse.
The correct answer is E)
The observed near free fall collapse of the WTC towers (and WTC7) on 9/11 NECESSARILY implies near zero RESISTANCE to collapse by the lower steel subs-structures of these skyscrapers.
In other words, the steel sub-structures were explosively demolished.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 12, 2019 18:43:28 GMT -5
Why do I always end up having to help Wally with his basic physics homework?
This would never have happened if I had tutored Wally in college physics. II. If a steel skyscraper completely collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetrical, near free-fall, which of the following MUST have been true?
A) The collapse was caused by the gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors-- Boom-boom-crunch! -ouch! - boom -- boom, etc... (e.g., per the belated Bush-Cheney NIST Report "simulation")
B) The collapse of upper floors caused step-wise, sequential perpendicular "shearing" of the steel beams on the lower sub-structures (e.g., per Wally's beloved Bush-Cheney NIST Report) Boom! Shear...BOOM! Shear...Boompity-boom-boom...Shear, etc.
C) The resistance to total collapse caused by the steel beams of the lower sub-structure was progressively destroyed by the weight of the upper floors (per the NIST Report.) "Look! It could possibly go...GEEZ!...Boom!...OUCH!..all..the...way...down...floor after..floor...after another .. BOOM!...floor...CRUNCH!...look, Wally... boom...boom! Still crumbling slowly down! Boom!"
D) Jet fuel (kerosene) dripping from high level floors simultaneously liquefied all of the lower steel girders (Look, Wally! It's molten steel pouring from the floors right after those serial explosions!)
E) The resistance to total, symmetrical, near free fall collapse was close to ZERO -- i.e., the steel beams of the lower sub-structure were rapidly demolished by something other than gravitational force, to the extent that they caused ZERO resistance to free fall collapse.
The correct answer is E)
The observed near free fall collapse of the WTC towers (and WTC7) on 9/11 NECESSARILY implies near zero RESISTANCE to collapse by the lower steel subs-structures of these skyscrapers.
In other words, the steel sub-structures were explosively demolished.
The correct answer can be found in the NIST report, which you've never bothered to read. Until you do that, you're wasting pixels. |
|
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
