Is the Biggest 9/11 Lie Yet to Come?

Sunstealer said:
I'm beyond the USA, clayton is beyond the planet. I don't really see why anyone responds to him. All his points have been debunked years before and he brings nothing new. He's way too far gone to be reasoned with. Ignoring him and denying him the oxygen of publicity is the best response. Onto ignore he goes.
Click to expand...

Good point!

Goodbye!
 
Sunstealer said:
I'm beyond the USA, clayton is beyond the planet. I don't really see why anyone responds to him. All his points have been debunked years before and he brings nothing new. He's way too far gone to be reasoned with. Ignoring him and denying him the oxygen of publicity is the best response. Onto ignore he goes.
Click to expand...

I have been having a nasty fever for 6 days now and needed an easy opponent. :p
 
Childlike Empress said:
Haha, so it wasn't a sunstroke but I was right (as usual) in spotting the sickness of your recent output. Gute Besserung, Eimer.
Click to expand...

Hey CE! Long time no see.

We missed you in the latest thread concerning the Biggest 9/11 Lie to date, No Plane at the Pentagon.

Man, did the United States Appellate Court for the Second Circuit humiliate your heroes like April and her lawyers.

OUCH! That has got to hurt.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You mean the court with the Bush cousin on it? No surprise there and the tripe you type about it is of no interest to me.
Click to expand...

Yea, yea, I know. Any rational person--or "clean" (wink wink) judge--would have been morally compelled to agree with April, what her being totally sane and her position being so rational. It's the ONLY explanation.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Our leaders? Leaders don't carry out standing orders.
Click to expand...

You seem to have lost the topic, so let me reiterate:

Bush and Cheney agreed to a closed session discussion rather than a public hearing because:
  • They didn't want to set precedent weakening the Executive branch in relation to Congress.
  • They were at political risk from charges of negligence by grandstanding opponents.
You're feeble innuendo is just another pitiful attempt to distract from the obvious reality of 9/11, typical Truther nonsense which is easily refuted.

I'll leave it to Bush to do so.

George W. Bush said:
Look, if we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them in the first place.
Click to expand...


BTW. Did you ever figure how the Twin towers were different from other skyscrapers? :rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
...
Kid, we do. We understand the 100 tons of TNT destructive power of gravity. You know, 300,000 tons standing >1400 feet tall represent 100 tons of TNT. Did you know that? Much much much much more than anyone would bring as explosives to a CD.
Or do you think 100 tons of TNT (or equivalent high explosives) exploded at the South Tower? Another 100 tons at the North Tower? Another 20 tons of TNT at WTC7? All with no sounds, no flashed, no observables? No telltale-signs of desctrution on the steel? Are you NUTS?
Click to expand...

At the risk of appearing ro pull a femr2, allow me to speculate that the gravitational potential energy of one tower was over 225 tons of TNT, assuming a mass of 4.14 million kg per floor:

PE_calc.jpg


That's on the order of the same energy as some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-54 (250 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006).

And that's a LOT of energy that had to be expended, as the collapsed towers certainly didn't have a lot of gravitational potential energy.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You mean the court with the Bush cousin on it? No surprise there and the tripe you type about it is of no interest to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it is of no interest to you, No Planer.

Watch the No Planer hand wave away the devastating analysis of the No Planers theories.

Craig and the Buffet Slayer came up with the biggest 9/11 lie, and CE bought it.

Oh but pointing out that they are frauds is of no interest to CE.

Enjoy the Kool Ade sport!
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
At the risk of appearing ro pull a femr2, allow me to speculate that the gravitational potential energy of one tower was over 225 tons of TNT, assuming a mass of 4.14 million kg per floor:

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/PE_calc.jpg[/qimg]

That's on the order of the same energy as some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-54 (250 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006).

And that's a LOT of energy that had to be expended, as the collapsed towers certainly didn't have a lot of gravitational potential energy.
Click to expand...

I allow it ;) :D

My number follows Gregory Urich's whitepaper "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1"

Urich very carefully lists as many building parts as he can, and tallies a total mass of 288,100 metric tons, versus your 455,400 metric tons. That is the first source of difference.
Where did you get your mass per floor?

A second source for difference is your assumption that all floors have the same mass. That is pretty much true for the floor assemblies and office contents; Technical floors would need special attention.
However, the steel columns are much heavier in the lower floors than in the higher floors, so mass per floor decreases from bottom to top.
Urich determines a total potential energy of 480,6GJ vs. your 942GJ. This would mean that Urich's center of mass is at 170m, or 41% of the height of the tower, rather than at 50% (207m).

I chose Urich because he is at the same time meticolous, transparent and conservative. It doesn't hurt my arguments if I err on the low side.

As a side effect, that mass estimate means that the twin towers had an average density of 0.17g/cm3. I once looked up that this is about the density of large ships, so I am probably not overestimating; ships need to withstand forces from a greater variety of directions.
Assuming that this density, and the relative height of the center of mass, applies to other steel frame highrises, I estimated the potential energy of the WTC7 to be 80GJ.

Here two blog posts I wrote to myself about this:
WTC1
WTC7
 
Oystein said:
I allow it ;) :D

My number follows Gregory Urich's whitepaper "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1"

Urich very carefully lists as many building parts as he can, and tallies a total mass of 288,100 metric tons, versus your 455,400 metric tons. That is the first source of difference.
Where did you get your mass per floor?
A second source for difference is your assumption that all floors have the same mass. That is pretty much true for the floor assemblies and office contents; Technical floors would need special attention.
However, the steel columns are much heavier in the lower floors than in the higher floors, so mass per floor decreases from bottom to top.
Urich determines a total potential energy of 480,6GJ vs. your 942GJ. This would mean that Urich's center of mass is at 170m, or 41% of the height of the tower, rather than at 50% (207m).

I chose Urich because he is at the same time meticolous, transparent and conservative. It doesn't hurt my arguments if I err on the low side.

As a side effect, that mass estimate means that the twin towers had an average density of 0.17g/cm3. I once looked up that this is about the density of large ships, so I am probably not overestimating; ships need to withstand forces from a greater variety of directions.
Assuming that this density, and the relative height of the center of mass, applies to other steel frame highrises, I estimated the potential energy of the WTC7 to be 80GJ.

Here two blog posts I wrote to myself about this:
WTC1
WTC7
Click to expand...

I simply took Bazant's estimate of 58 million kilograms (from Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis) for the upper North Tower, and divided by 14, an approximate number of the upper floors of WTC 1. Good to know about Urich's careful analysis. 100 tons is still a lot of energy!

Thanks, Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
Very simply. What a fools errand.

:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

What you're missing is that even if Oystein's figure off 100 tons of TNT per tower (based on Urich's detailed calculations) is smaller than my estimate of 250 tons TNT (based loosely on Bazant), 100 tons of TNT is still a whole lot of energy: according to Sublette 2006, 100 tons of TNT is bigger than a W-48 nuclear weapon (72 tons), about the same as five (5) W-51 nuclear weapons (22 tons), or 5 to 10 Mk-54 nuclear weapons (10-20 tons), and so on.

This is beyond Bazant. Just because I mentioned that name doesn't magically derail the point, that being that each tower released several nuclear weapons' worth of energy as it collapsed.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
To myself and hundreds of millions of others it's just a matter of time for the truth of 9/11 to become indisputable to everyone.

It must be noted that Cheney and Bush would only testify in secret and not under oath. So what are they sharing as hole cards?
Click to expand...


You might has well have written 'To myself and hundreds of millions of others it's just a matter of time for the truth of Intelligent Design to become indisputable to everyone.'


You'll be waiting a looong time.
Conspiracy people can never seem to accept that there is no evidence support their beliefs.

All Truthers use to back their arguments are lies, gossip, absurd theories and ignorance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom