How Loony are the Loons?

[RemoveBush]

" how fast did the towers fall?"

Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.

"how much energy is required to account for the destruction observed?"

A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.

 

[PerryLogan]

You see, RemoveBush? I tried to warn you...

 

[Dr. Lao]

"The burden of proof is on you , now show me your vast understanding of these buildings, please."

There were 47 steel columns in the center that were tied together through a structual support structure. The building floors were attached by bolts that were welded to the core. They attacked to Steel hollow tubes that made up the outside facade.

The core was the strongest part of the bulding and it did infact support most of the buildings weight. The thickest part was 6" thick, and the thinnest was a little over 3". From bottom to top respectfully.

The designers stated that the buildings were designed to withstand a FULLY LOADED 707 and it would be like a masquito puncturing a screen. A 707 is actually larger and heavier than a 757, so I would say that the damage by a 757 would be as less detrimental to the structual integrity of the building.

Anything else?

Uh, how about 767? Pesky details.

As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?

 

[stateofgrace]

"Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable"

Yes they did because they had a MORAL person in charge then.

Source?
911timeline DOT net

source?
Google! Type in OKC and bombsquad. You will find old new reports of the bomb squad pulling several bombs.
Look for 7/7 and London and you will find that they were performing a "training" exercise for the trains and bus route used for the attacks.
Look at 9/11 and you will see that there were several exercised being performed and that one was scheduled to be performed in October, but Cheney moved it to 9/11.

"Hearing explosions inside burning building is not the same as explosions being planted inside the building beforehand."

Excuse me?? If there were bombs going off, as several firefighters, ems, police, and reporters state then they had to of been planted before hand.

Not to bright are you? You seem to think that they ran into the buildings and planted them as things were happening.

No I guess I am not. I never made any claims about anybody running into building planting bombs you did.

So when did they do it? How much explosives where planted and on which floors.

Please show me your full understanding of the construction of the Towers. Please show a full thesis and mathematic model of your explosives that were planted. You being so bright and all, this will be no problem.

Please tell me all about the US death squads that plant explosives inside Towers to kill innocent people.

Please show me how the same explosives survived the planes slamming into the towers and the massive fires afterwards.

Please remember I am not that bright, so just simple sentences will do.

Thanks in advance.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

" how fast did the towers fall?"

Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.

"how much energy is required to account for the destruction observed?"

A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.

whats the numerical equivilent of "a hell of a lot" ?

"Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable"

Yes they did because they had a MORAL person in charge then.

robert mcnamara?

 

[ConspiRaider]

"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.

I personally interviewed The Concrete while it was falling that day and let me tell you it was really NOT very fine. Just that weekend, it had been brooding in stony silence because of the difficulty in cementing a tight relationship with the Steels. That had been a major pain in the buttress to get through. The Concrete knew that the Steels were rotten to the cores and that there could never be any joist between them.

RemoveBush: Did it ever occur to you that you are in fact AIDING Bush by making such absurd statements about 9/11? If the Bush Administration wanted to have the citizenry roll their eyes and shake their heads every time 9/11 analysis was mentioned: What better way to do it than to seed the populace with crazy conspiracy theorists (posing as)? In that way - a deeper investigation into their arrogance, ignorance and complacency is thwarted.

You must now prove to us that you are NOT working for the Bush Administration. Because the chance of that being true is much higher than the chance of surreptitiously smuggling explosives into 3 skyscrapers - in the middle of the downtown section of the most populous city in the USA.

 

[RemoveBush]

"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.

 

[stateofgrace]

RemoveBush said

Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.

How fast did each building fall? And why does the speed the buildings falling in anyway back up your claims of preplanted explosives ?

A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.

Ah,another claim, please back it up with your full undestanding of a gravatational collapse.

 

[A W Smith]

"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.

please allow me to quote Robert Cronk

My approach has been influenced by all of my interactions with conspiracy theorists in the past. One thing I try to avoid is what I have called the “conspiracy theory pattern”. It goes like this: First, I find some evidence that refutes one of the theory’s supporting facts, next, the defender of the theory essentially avoids the evidence I presented and then brings up several (usually more than five) other facts that supposedly also support the theory.
This has the effect of keeping the overall theory protected since the issue in question doesn’t get resolved - rather, the theory seems to get even stronger as all of these other supporting (but thus far not proven) “facts” are brought up.
In my experience, it turns out that those other “facts” usually end up being a large pile of debunkable (is that a word?) “maybes”. It’s as though protecting the theory is more important than uncovering the truth - as if they have such a strongly held belief that their theory is true that they refuse to let any of the supporting “facts” be debunked because any debunked “fact” threatens whatever vested interest they may have in the theory being true.
They might also twist a fact into a pretzel shape so that it can fit into their theory. Of course I have found that this happens to most people defending their theories and so this behavior is not necessarily proof of anything, it’s just something to keep in mind as we go through this. My idea is that once all of the facts are proven true or false individually, then and only then can the true ones be gathered together to form a theory.

now with this in mind. Can you address my post on the previous page re-free fall fallicy?

 

[RemoveBush]

"As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?"

Physics! F = M * A

If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.

 

[TheChadd]

As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?

How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?
How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

"As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?"

Physics! F = M * A

If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.

except the planes on 9/11 were larger and faster, what does physics say about that?

and the "mosquito screen" thing didnt come from any of the designers of the tower

 

[RemoveBush]

"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?

Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.

You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....

 

[Mr. Skinny]

It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.

Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?

 

[RemoveBush]

"How fast did each building fall? And why does the speed the buildings falling in anyway back up your claims of preplanted explosives ?"

Simple! The core would have been LARGELY in tact for several stories and the floors would have been piled up in a large mound. There were none of these. Only an outside source could break up the floors to allow the gravitational collapse to occure with LESS resistance, hence providing more force.

"Ah,another claim, please back it up with your full undestanding of a gravatational collapse."

A gravataional collapse is going to be slowed by resistance! The core, outer part of the building were the points of resistance. Unless these items are gone there will be resistance. It's a fact!

 

[JimBenArm]

"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.

Oh, boy! A new twoofer to play with! Saying everything we've heard fourteen times in the last week, all on one thread for easy mocking!

Another one who can't be bothered with math and stuff, because his common sense is so much better!

Thanks for showing up. Was getting pretty quiet around here.

Oh, and just so you know; if you want people to take you serious, you have to act serious. Coming in with an attitude right off the bat just doesn't score any style points here, as we require actual facts to back up what you say, unlike Loser Change.

Mock you later, dude!

 

[RemoveBush]

"except the planes on 9/11 were larger and faster, what does physics say about that?"

NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....

so it was no more than 10 tons of TNT

yet the energy produced by the towers falling at a speed of 10.2 seconds is equal to 40 tons of TNT, how is it that 10 tons is enough to destroy the towers but 40 isnt?

 

[uk_dave]

"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.

I have to admire the woowoos ability to skip from one 'claim' to another without drawing breath.

So we start with that old chestnut about how the towers couldn't collapse at freefall speed when nobody actually claims they did, except the woowoos themselves who conveniently ignore the outer debris falling faster that the structure itself (which provides simple and irrefuteable proof that the woowoo claim of the towers collapsing at freefall speed is just a load of crap) and then they jump with the grace of an asthmatic elephant to asking how the concrete in the towers could be pulverised to a fine dust when it is only the woowoo's who actually claim that this happened (once again) and for added comic relief they add the coda that not only was all the concrete pulverisd to fine dust (which it wasn't) but somehow this non-existent event is somehow to be linked with questioning how the core could be destroyed as if somehow the core of the tower is some magic construction which is able to stand without any support from the rest of the structure and (of course) is so amzing that it can withstand impact damage from both the original airplane crash and the subsequent collapse of tons of material.

Of course, woowoo's are experts in fantasy.

 

[apathoid]

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?

Hmmm, this line of "reasoning" sounds awfully familiar.