Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")

Quite a dishonest method of participation you got there.

"I've got this evidence but I'm not going to post it. neener-neener"
 
I will put excaza down as "no EMAIL witness" number one.

As for me, I am a "no WONDER WOMAN INVISIBLE PLANE" witness.
 
DGM said:
Jammonius:
I'm not going to ask this guy if he thinks the trade towers were destroyed by DEW.
Click to expand...

Good, it is not wise to "lead with your chin" so to speak, especially when you'd likely pose the question so as to make sure you were communicating, via voice inflection or whatever, that you really don't want to be told that DEW destroyed the twin towers.

That's stupid and he'll think I'm a loon.
Click to expand...

As there has not ever been an explanation of what destroyed the towers, there is no rational reason why he or anyone else should think of you in any way at all for asking a question.

I will however ask about the amount of energy required to vaporise thick steel (such as a tank or war ship). From this we maybe could get some useful information.
Click to expand...

That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.

Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
 
jammonius said:
That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.

Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi

Oh lordy....what complete and utter gibberish. Honestly, that may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

Energy requirements do not exist in a vacuum....that's a good one. :dl:
 
Last edited:
I seem Jam making claims and refusing to back them up. That's the hallmark of a liar. Is Jam a liar? What do you folks at home say?
 
jammonius said:
... you really don't want to be told that DEW destroyed the twin towers.
Click to expand...
The people who claim DEW destroyed the towers could be insane nuts. That is one of the dumbest claims made.

jammonius said:
As there has not ever been an explanation of what destroyed the towers, ...
Click to expand...
This is a lie. Why do you post lies after 8 years?
Your best posts are your delusional idea posts of Plymouth Wheel-covers and Horse-trailer, insane ideas to amuse luckers who like to see idiotic ideas based on fantasy; Why are you resorting to gibberish?
jammonius said:
That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.
Click to expand...
Gibberish.

jammonius said:
Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
Click to expand...
Weak gravity? Gravity is used to destroy buildings, it is cost effective, and very strong. Gravity is a partner with mass and height to form over 100 TONS of TNT kinetic energy in each WTC tower.

You don't know physics. E=MGH

Kerosene, aka the jet fuel you say was not there! LOL
Kerosene, 10 TIMES the energy of TNT; why we don't use TNT for fuel in our cars and planes! lol
Go get educated; stop leaving a legacy of delusion all over JREF.
 
Last edited:
Hey Lurkers, Victims' Family Members,

It is very difficult to get more than about 2 to maybe 3 substantive posts in a row before the onset of put downs that don't add anything useful to the discussion. Note, for instance, post # 245. There we have an attempt at ridicule; but, totally missing is the inclusion of anything substantive.

Put simply, if what I said was so worthy of ridicule, what does that poster have to add that clarifies or elaborates on the energy requirements issue, pray tell?

Needless to say, the poster added nothing whatever of a useful nature. As such, my post to which the attempt at ridicule was made, still stands as being perfectly valid, without any refutation having occurred.
 
jammonius said:
...
Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is considered.

Potential energy of one of the twin towers in earth's gravitation field relative to ground level can be estimated as follows:

E = m*g*h (m=mass of building, g=gravitational acceleration=9.81m/s2, h=averge height of mass before fall)

From http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf I get
m= 288,100,000 kg

Total height of a tower is 415m. The center of mass would not be at half that height but lower. One can assume 30% of total height (I can give reason if so desired):
h=125m

So total gravitational energy is on the order of 3.53*1011 J

1 ton of TNT has an energy equivalent of 4.184 × 109 J
So the potential energy of the mass of one tower was equivalent to about 85 tons of TNT. Nuclear weapons start at 300 tons TNT.

A modern nuclear power plant has typically a power output on the order of 1*109J/s.
To dustify one tower in 14 s, the power needed is 3.53*1011 J / 14s = 25*109J/s
That is the power output of 25 modern large nuclear power plants.
 
I'll leave the "red herrings" alone.

jammonius said:
That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.
Click to expand...

This whole paragraph falls into the category of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your BS".

Just for starters. Why do you think it would be "non-starter" to ask about energy requirements for a Directed ENERGY Weapon?
 
I thought that the Towers were on the surface of the Earth. They weren't in a vacuum.

What is a 'synergistic effect'?
 
Oystein said:
Yes, it is considered.

Potential energy of one of the twin towers in earth's gravitation field relative to ground level can be estimated as follows:

E = m*g*h (m=mass of building, g=gravitational acceleration=9.81m/s2, h=averge height of mass before fall)

From http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf I get
m= 288,100,000 kg

Total height of a tower is 415m. The center of mass would not be at half that height but lower. One can assume 30% of total height (I can give reason if so desired):
h=125m

So total gravitational energy is on the order of 3.53*1011 J

1 ton of TNT has an energy equivalent of 4.184 × 109 J
So the potential energy of the mass of one tower was equivalent to about 85 tons of TNT. Nuclear weapons start at 300 tons TNT.

A modern nuclear power plant has typically a power output on the order of 1*109J/s.
To dustify one tower in 14 s, the power needed is 3.53*1011 J / 14s = 25*109J/s
That is the power output of 25 modern large nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

I have to correct myself:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
states a number for Potential Energy that is higher than my estimate:
E = 4.806*1011J (page 23)
That's 36% higher than my estimate.
Or 116 tons of TNT
Needs the combined total power of 34 nuclear power plants.
 
carlitos said:
This one might be even more appropriate.
Click to expand...


Or this:-


344914c59d3b2cb5f8.jpg

​

:-]

Compus
 
jammonius said:
Telephone is fine, but leaves you without a record of what transpired, absent recording such events. Email provides a documented record. If you email them, please consider redacting and posting up what you can. I have posted up some things from DEPS and from US DED, but it is difficult to do so without running afoul of posting rules. I've had some things taken down by mods. I don't think it appropriate to name names and so I will not do so.
(snip)
Click to expand...
What does the United States Department of Education (USDED) have to do with this topic?

Or did you mean AFRL/DE (a Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory)?

I've already corrected you on this mistake two times.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
What does the United States Department of Education (USDED) have to do with this topic?

Or did you mean AFRL/DE (a Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory)?

I've already corrected you on this mistake two times.
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant "DoD" and just brainfarted?

:D Yes, I can easily imagine him brainfarting that the exact same way more than once. He's already proven capable of that with his whole "DEW" argument to begin with.
 
Oystein said:
I have to correct myself:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
states a number for Potential Energy that is higher than my estimate:
E = 4.806*1011J (page 23)
That's 36% higher than my estimate.
Or 116 tons of TNT
Needs the combined total power of 34 nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

Nope, you haven't corrected yourself at all. You've contradicted yourself; and, worse than that, you've given a calculation that is in a useless format; namely, tons of tnt.

What is needed here, if DEW is to be assessed, is an energy calculation in joules of energy, not once, twice or thrice estimates of potential energy denominated in estimated tons of tnt.

Do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom