Schiffner wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:14 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> Your alledged sarcasm is as effective as you humor.
What are you referring to, and what's "you humor"?
You should learn how to quote when you reply to a
post. Here's how to do it. I'll start by quoting your
conspiracy idiocy, then I'll explain why it's idiocy.
> FYI none of your cites hold water to a rational thinking person.
They hold facts, hard evidence, science, physics, logic,
reality, expert research, and truth, which is why blind
faith cultists get so silly and hysterical when they're
challenged to find fault with them, or defend their comically
absurd magic fire/super Arab carton conspiracy theory.
People who are interested in the truth welcome an honest, open
dialog of the facts, evidence, and research. Ignorant, blind
faith cultists prefer to run and hide, spew stupid drivel, or
*simply* refuse to address the facts, evidence, and expert
research. It's *very* clear from your responses which camp you're
in...
Why do you "think" WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire
resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free fall speed? We know
that gradual heating can't cause that. Take a look for yourself.
WTC7 on the left - known demolition on the right. What you see are
two controlled demolitions. Gradual asymmetric heating can't possibly
do that to a hurricane and earthquake resistant, highly redundant
and resilient steel framed structure. It's an absurd and physically
impossible fantasy - even a form of insanity.
http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4
Does it strike you as unusual that in spite of requests from
hundreds of people, NIST refused to test the evidence for
explosive residue of any kind? WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid, total, symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual, partial, localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition wasn't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about modern
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST's reports on the WTC, and its periodic
responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before.
But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved
in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of
nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology."
"Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and
materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President
George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary
of defense, former director of DARPA's office of materials science,
and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders
in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005)."
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...geLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org