11 months later MMC's stock split 2-1. This is right from their website. How the FUCK can your whole main office be blown up and 11 months later your value splits 2-1? BTW in June of 97 and 98 consecutively their stock had also split 2-1 so obviously some people were lining up to quadruple their money. Before that the last split was over a decade before. 2 years in a row this company splits twice. The place blows up and 11 months later the fucker splits again. y is no 1 in jail. Who bot the stk
Marsh & McLennan had a big office in the towers, but it wasn't their HQ. Their HQ was and is at 1166 Ave. of the Americas in NYC. I know this because I used to work there. It's unlikely Bremmer had an office in the twin towers. As a Board member he would have been at the 1166 building. (FYI, I'm no fan of Bremmer, I think he made a horrible mess of Iraq and would not be surprised if he personally stole some of the billions in cash that were lost there under him.)
@beachcomber2008 a) there was not 1 column holding up these buildings..in wtc 7 there were over 70 perimeter and core columns.
b) the critical failure column was not free standing at anytime..even after it lost connection due to thermal expansion there were 2 other girders that connected to it and stabilized it (NIST ignored them in their models)
c) even if this column buckled, it would not cause a cascade collapse in under 7 seconds - internal resistance of the connections would stop that
@beachcomber2008 all that video proved is that yes, things will buckle under enough load. It does not represent the situation in the towers at all since it is a single column, it is not made of structural steel, not designeded in the same fashion, not corss braced and engineered to resist the buckling and basically is a totally irrelevant example.
In order for 2 sec of free fall over 500 columns would have had to buckle without any resistance across 8 floors when not all were damaged
@beachcomber2008 this is similar to a nail bed performer..put 1 nail on the bed..they get peirced..put a thousand mails..not damage since the mass is distributed.
Showing 1 beam buckling under load means nothing since for every new beam you add with the same load the likelyhood of collapse decreases since the load is fixed. In the towers the loads were not completely fixed since there was damage, but they had safety factors and were overengineered to begin with
@lexicon008 "It does not represent the situation" Haha. That "physics course" did you little good, then. Was it PSEUDOphysics? - OF COURSE IT REPRESENTS THE SITUATION
"this is similar to a nail bed" Of course it is. Just make sure the nails are FIFTEEN FEET LONG. Idiot
"THEN they worked out that 0.34% of 450,000 tons MEANT 1,530 tons of steel could have been raised to the melt point. THEN they DROPPED the WHOLE IDEA."
This is one of the clinchers of TROOF
They quote-mine lies, they fabricate lies, they CONCEAL truth when it damages their case, and finally they are HYPOCRITES, exhibiting EVERY vice of those they accuse
@JSSTyger The melting point of carbon steel is 1550 deg C, and the temp rise from ambient (t) therefore 1530 deg C, and the specific heat of steel (s) is 450 Joules/kg/deg C
Energy to raise a ton of steel to melt point is s*t*10^3 = 450*1530*10^3 = 6.89*10^8 Joules
Therefore the number of tons of steel which could be raised by the PE to melting point is 9.80*10^11 / 6.89*10^8 = 1,422 tons
My original figures were for the steelwork alone. You've removed your own foundation... :)
@JSSTyger You missed the point. A few points, actually, due to unclear thinking
WTC height is 444 metres and weight (M) is 450,000 tons where a ton is 1000 kg
The weight of the steelwork alone was 253,000 tons. The rest of it was LOAD, but it was the steelwork that had the WORK done to it, and where the STEELWORK + LOAD PE went
So the PE figure (of a laden tower) is .5*M*G*h = 4.5*10^8*9.81*222 = 9.80*10^11 Joules
@beachcomber2008 they likely dropped it for 1 simple reason..steel framing is not going to melt due to falling in a collapse. This is easily demostrated using any known controlled demolition. There isn't a single example of one collapsing even with explosives and causing molten steel or molten anything for that matter. The whole idea is great in theory but is complete nonsense in reality.
Multi ton aircraft crash from 32k ft and at 100's of mph and dont liquify into molten aluminum
@lexicon008 "steel framing is not going to melt due to falling in a collapse" - Is a STRAW MAN in which you waste my time and yours
Liquid iron/sulfur eutectic (at 1100 deg C) isn't liquid STEEL (at 1550 deg C)
Raising steel to the melt point STILL LEAVES SOLID STEEL, albeit like "toffee". To melt it requires CONSIDERABLE excess energy in the latent heat of fusion of iron
Why do you think the remaining core columns fell over, by the way
@beachcomber2008 here let me put it to you another way then.. NONE OF THE METAL in the towers is going to liquify, melt, turn into toffee like substances or vaporize due to the collapses. feel free to show us an example of this happening in any known collapse scenario.
@JSSTyger "You must think you are the only one here who has taken a physics course" - Well bully for you. But does it add up to a career?
By your single beam analogy you are returning to the idea of "the fall melting the building" - the straw man argument which so damages your thinking, and you think so weak. It is, but it's a STRAW MAN
It DOESN'T allow you to deny that the energy was THERE and enough to raise 1,422 tons of steel to 1550 deg C
@beachcomber2008 Nope it doesn't add up to a career which is why i find it hilarious that people like you bash the work and effort of PhDs in physics, mechanical and stru tural engineers, architects, fire protection engineers and others with as much or more experience then you. Most of these guys have worked or taught in their fields for decades. It was a high school physic teacher who forced NIST to admit that free fall did in fact happen in wtc 7..still waiting for their explanation....
@beachcomber2008 so what if the energy was there..the reality is that it didn't melt the steel or anything for that matter. You can sugar coat it all you want but if this is supposed to explain the presence of the molten steel/metal then prove it with verifyable experiment in the real world and not some math thesis. As i have said there is no real world example of your theory, until there is it's just that..a theory.
@lexicon008 "the reality is that it didn't melt the steel or anything for that matter" - is simply a DENIAL OF PHYSICS. Go and ask any engineer you like (if you know any) if the potential energy released by the fall of the tower couldn't easily explain the heat in the basement. Ask him whether heat-soaking such steel in an insulation of gypsum couldn't produce a eutectic iron alloy which would be molten
"still waiting for their explanation" - Wow. I bet they're on tenterhooks about that.
@beachcomber2008 could have..and did are 2 completely different things..theoretically, the collapses could have opened a mini wormhole into the core of a star and this heat melted the steel..ask a theoretical physicist and im sure they will say thats possible too, is it likely to have happened? No.
While i agree that what your saying is theoretically possible, unless you can show this is what happened and prove it using real world tests it, once again, is just a theory.
@lexicon008 "it, once again, is just a theory" - As the above links to something nonexistent also are - just damn theories - and what is more - they are useless
@lexicon008 "theoretically, the collapses could have opened a mini wormhole" - That's a hypothesis and not a theory
I see what you're doing, You communicate here using digital techniques developed from quantum theory
Quantum theory is a physics NEVER SEEN BY HUMAN EYE, but the theory WORKS, doesn't it?
Mechanics has had 300 years of development from Newtonian mechanics, and has created wonderfully elaborate and devastating weaponry. Such products of THEORY are undeniably REAL
@beachcomber2008 the reality is we wouldn't be having this conversation is the officials at the scene had followed proper procedures in preservation of evidence. If they hadn't destroyed 99.5% of the steel before the investigations got started. If they actually followed the national fire investigation guidelines, we would have a better idea what happened here. But no, ignore the law, ignore the procedures and destroy the evidence as quick as you can..some people call that a crime
@lexicon008 "destroyed 99.5% of the steel" - The towers were very modular & I guess 0.5% is sufficient to cover the steel events
"followed the national fire investigation guidelines" - I think they KNEW the fire had been started with12 tons of kerosine, and worked from THAT
"some people call that a crime" - & others SLANDER without proper evidence. That's a crime if it can be proved to have harmed the reputation of the victims. In Ur case, no crime because no-one believes claims without evidence
Its not a strawman argument. You said "500 tons of steel would melt itself".
"It DOESN'T allow you to deny that energy was THERE and enough to raise 1,422 tons of steel to 1550 deg C".
Why would all of that energy be so concentrated? Thats a pathetic tiny amount anyhow. If you dropped one steel beam the full height of the tower, how much of that steel would be molten post impact?
@JSSTyger "If u dropped" - is an interesting question. Depends on how it lands - at 200 mph, directly on end, the energy densities would certainly upset it. This is 4 times LESS energetic:
watch?v=6dI5ewOmHPQ
"how much steel would be molten" - None of it. Please don't spiral once more down the "molten metal = molten steel" snake. To "raise to melting point" is not to MELT, and molten material in the basement (if it existed at all) had had lots of time to become a low melting point eutectic alloy
@JSSTyger If you include the TOTAL weight of the tower, then THAT potential energy would have raised 1,422 tons of steel to its melting point, & the heat in that steel wasn't going to dissipate when it was so nicely insulated...
"Why would all of that energy be so concentrated?" - Almost existentialist... Because the tower stood over its base? Wasn't most of it destined for directly beneath itself? You know, the direction entitled DOWN? The direction GRAVITY was accelerating it towards?
@JSSTyger The actual quote is that the "steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself", and I had originally quoted the established weight of the tower steelwork to be 253,000 tons
I had to go one week and 19 pages back for that. And it's perfectly true
Ok so I did mistake the "500 tons" for "500,000 tons"...
But the big question remains...why would all that energy be so concentrated? You are harnessing the entire "energy" of the collapse and directing it to a point. This is VERY unlikely. We're talking molten steel here. I mean, come on.
@beachcomber2008 "The floors slid as if on rails down to the basement where they impacted Gzero at 120 mph" wait a sec..are you actually trying to say the floors pancaked? Because if you are you might wanna go re-read the NIST report.
@JSSTyger "the PE of all the falling steel is approximately 0.34% of that required to melt the steel"
Hey, kiddo, 0.34% of 450,000 tons IS 1,530 tons of yellow hot steel! ROFL
U've made the very mistake that ae911truth made. Who said that ALL the steelwork (all 253,000 tons of it) had to be melted? Certainly not I
Everything heated due 2 impact during or concluding its descent, but there is a general truth that the impact heat would B concentrated at the BASEMENT where the energy reflected BACK
@beachcomber2008 I finally got it ! Thanks for enlightening me. I agree with your explanation and everyone should: NIST is the only agency with people capable of rendering an expert opinion.
@VolodiaTheElder "NIST is the only agency" - False. There are also all the qualified engineers who weren't picked also. They would tell you the same story
You too could be as informed as a NIST engineer. You merely have to pass the exams they passed and gain the experience they gained
@beachcomber Again I can't figure out what you mean. Maybe it is the Alzheimer catching up with me. Did you look at Dr. Alan Sabrosky comments? I imagine that it would be hard to dismiss a guy of his caliber. There are other big guys like him who are straight shooters (i.e. no confusing|misleading statements). Being direct is a must to bust The Elite's Agents in YouTube. Think of the pain that it will save for those victims you mentioned + Don't forget the Victims of The Illegal Wars: Million+
@beachcomber2008 "The collapses were NATURAL" thats a funny statement considering the official investigation came up with about 6 different theories as to what caused said natural collapses. I mean if these were so natural then why the difficulty in explaining them? Oh maybe it was because it had never happened before or since. Odd...thousands of skyscrapers all over the world and not one has fallen like this due to any mechanism including earthquake (well excluding demo) but this was natural?
@lexicon008 "thousands of skyscrapers all over the world and not one" - was built like WTC1&2 or NOT fought like WTC7
"why the difficulty" - Initial impact damage hard to assess when the building destroys itself. Fire works internally where it cannot be seen or measured. The advantages were high-resolution still and moving images of the event, and detailed knowledge of the structures concerned
Impact and fire are natural processes. Laws of physics apply.
@beachcomber2008 and thus we come to the big problem..the destruction of evidence..we can't really know what happened because...tada..rather then save teh evidence for analysis it was virtually all shipped over seas or melted down down recycling before an real investigation started. So now we must take the word of NIST even though the steel itself invalidates their theory by showing that temperatures in the impact zones only got to 250C far below the temps needed.
@lexicon008 "it was virtually all shipped" - Except for 400 pieces of evidence from specifically selected parts of the buildings
"temperatures in the impact zones only got to 250C" - But the fires burnt ELSEWHERE. What the fuck does 250 deg C at the impact zone matter, when the other side of the building was pouring out molten aluminum at 1000 deg C?
And what of the internal columns creeping away at 350+ deg C, and dumping their load onto the external columns?
@beachcomber2008 A) prove your statements..prove that the metal pouring out the side was aluminum and prove that there was any temperature above 350C present..what testing proved this? where is the data..the paperwork.
b) 400 pieces of evidence were saved out of hundred of thousands..not a very good representative sample.
c) the samples saved were tested by NIST and found to not have been subjected to temps higher then 250C in all but 2% of samples..cont
@lexicon008 "prove that the metal pouring out the side was aluminum"
It was the point of the tower where 40 tons of ALUMINUM (the wreckage of a Boeing 767) was located
Its color was ORANGE - that's 1000 deg C
It poured when a floor supporting it collapsed, and it poured without sparking
Thermite iron, formed WHITE hot at 2,500 deg C could never have poured outside the building, because there was NO material at all within the tower capable of holding it. It would have cut its way STRAIGHT DOWN.
@beachcomber2008 sorry that is conjecture..not proof..especially since you must show what caused said 1000C temperature in the first place since jet fuel in open air maxs out at about 825C. Oh but let me guess..your going to contend the chimney argument again.
And thermite most certainly could have poured out as we see if it was coupled to the exterior columns. Once molten it would flow in whatever direction it chose, out of the structure would be one of those.
@beachcomber2008 but the steel was not exposed to temperatures of 1000C..what part of that aren't you understanding...if the steel was exposed to the temperature then NIST is wrong since they tested samples directly from the fire zones and found only 2% had temp above 600C..all others did not reach higher then 250C. This is far below the weakening point of steel.
You also ignore the results of the cardington test which showed office fires did not complete failure of a steel framed structure.
@lexicon008 "only 2%" - Only 2%? Only about 2% of WTC2 was burning. Sounds OK 2 me
"far below the weakening point of steel" - The rest of the structure WASN'T weak. It was simply unable to cope with impacting with the falling tower top
Did "the cardington test" add 24,000 pounds of kerosine to their office fire, a 50 yard wide and feet high SLASH into their structure, and subject the whole of it to a 29 mph breeze?
@beachcomber2008 No genius only 2% of the samples FROM THE FIRE ZONES..not 2% of the entire structure..learn to read as you so love to say to others.
24000 gallons of jet fuel? well lets see first NIST says there was only about16000 gallons pre explosion, tests have shown that even if that didn't burn off almost instantly during the fire balls it would have left enough cubic foot volume to leave a layer about 1/4 inch on only 1 floor. So the fuel was largely irrelevant other then to start it
@lexicon008 ".learn to read as you so love to say to others. 24000 gallons of jet fuel?" - Oops. A bit ironical...
Let's see, 16,000 gallons of kerosine would weigh 108,000 lbs. I apologize for the gross underestimate, and leave you with your pompous irony
"So the fuel was largely irrelevant" - Yes, mate. There's a bit of a delay from the planet YOU are actually on. In the meanwhile let's review what a fuel/air bomb actually IS (except I can't find one as big as the 767)
@beachcomber2008 sorry wrong again...it was 16000 total between both towers..actual numbers from NIST are 8684 gal for WTC1 and 7415 for wtc 2..They assume 20% blew off on impact and another half "flowed away" leaving 3474 and 2966.
again this would leave a layer around 1/4 inch on 1 floor...not some huge amount of fuel to burn on multiple floors.
so the fuel available to nurn post impact was minimal and only served to light the other fuel sources
@beachcomber2008 and since the other fuel sources are largely paper, wood, plastics and other such products..there is no product available to cause melting or severe weakening of steel over such a large area inthe timeframe that was available. Hence the panic to get rid of the fire proofing. allowing for immediate access to the steel..well except at the core where there were no combustables ..but thats not relevant is it...
@beachcomber2008 As for your buckling comments..buckling cannot cause free fall since a buckling column always has some form of resistance and since it also has built in safety factor it will never allow for free fall unless it fractures..since we have 0 evidence of fractured columns, buckling alone cannot account for the free fall collapse that occured for over 2 sec in wtc 7. Then add to that the fact that connections are designed to be 150% stronger then the members..NIST is full of it
@beachcomber2008 mhm..still refuse the admit that free fall happened but can't happen as the official story maintains. Well you keep living in your little dreamworld of magic free fall causing buckling and fuel air bombs that have never been quantified or even mentioned in the official reports.
It's ok, i understand your reluctance to want to look for the truth..it's easier to just sit here and throw meaningless insults and prose at me..oh well..have fun with that
@JSSTyger It's all just a red herring..a distraction to draw eyes away from the fact that the official investigation and report are hopelessly flawed and full of blatant lies. Until people actually look at the reports and learn the reality the truth will never come out.
@lexicon008 "the official investigation and report are hopelessly flawed" - They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholders
The beholders in this case can see about as well as Blind Pugh, or maybe Mr. Magoo. Additional to their role of supplying wild imagination, crap maths, and terminological inexactitude
@beachcomber2008 "supplying wild imagination, crap maths, and terminological inexactitude" yeah all the scientists opposing the NIST reports are just doing it to be anti extablishmentists..they don't really like thier careers or their reputations. Has nothing to do with the fact that there is false or inacurate information in the reports. Nothing to do with the fact that NIST ignored eye witness, physical findings and standard invesigation procedures..they are just all nuts aren't they.
@beachcomber2008 i mean look at you mister" i gots 40 years of mechanical engineering experience" and you will actually sit there and condone the fact that NIST ignored NFPA guidelines, they removed existing structure, they removed the thernal conductivity of steel, they grossly overexagerated temperatures, they ignored then admitted but never explained 2+ seconds of free fall in wtc 7. You just defend it all and say that there is no other possibility..keep drinking the koolaid..youll be fine
@beachcomber2008 wtf are you talking about "after collapse" NIST admitted and included in their updates that there was 2+ seconds of free fall during the collapse of wtc 7. they never explained how it occured since to do so would be literally impossible without some kind of demolition event since 2+ seconds of free fall means 100 feet of the structure offered ZERO resistance.
@lexicon008 "It would be literally impossible without demolition" - NO. Must I keep repeating that VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE INVOLVES SUDDEN REMOVAL OF LOAD
THAT is the way IT FAILS
Googlevid "VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE" - You're bound to find a few college experiments
@beachcomber2008 verticle buckling may cause failure or collapse but is cannot and did not allow for free fall. There is always some resistance in a buckling situation and thus free fall will not happen. By admitting to free fall NIST is admiting that nothing resisted the collapse for over 100 feet. this isnt explained by verticle buckling or they would just say so wouldn't they..yeesh
@beachcomber2008 basically the amounts of fuel we are talking here is like takeing 1 of the 10x10 office cubicles on the wtc (and there could be up to 300 per floor) and filling it with fuel up to 9 feet high. But wiat..it gets better..NIST says half of that fuel "flowed away" which means we only have about 450 cubic feet of fuel. So the fuel load is largely irrelevant. It served to light everything else on fire. As for the slash..again largely irrelevant..cont
@beachcomber2008 since "According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut."
These structures were significantly over engineered specifically to be hit and withstand the impact of a jet liner.
By not doing a proper investigation we will not know why they failed to do so..either natural collapse or demolition.
@beachcomber2008 so they desperately have been trying to show that the FP was blown off. They have yet to prove that since in order to do it the plane would need to have turned into shotgun pellet like particles yet we have survivors on the impact floors who should have been ripped to pieces by the shrpnel and then roasted alive by the raging infernos that aren't seen in videos..odd
@beachcomber2008 so rather then admit the temperatures did not get that high in the fires they claimed the sample size was too low. Ok but if the sample size is too low how can you then go on to argue that fire temperatures caused the failures when you have shown that it didn't get that hot?
See the problem here? They try to prove their theory with data that refutes the theory outright and then try to ignore the data.
@beachcomber2008 "Sabrovsky isn't an engineer and doesn't understand the physics of collapse any better than you" well apparently NIST dont understand collapse either since they dropped their theory on WTC 1 and 2 in favor of Silversteins theory. Interesting that all these "experts" jumped on the insurance seeking owners bandwagon when his theory was even harder to prove then their original one.
@JSSTyger "steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself" - Makes no mention of "when it hit the ground". That's because I would NEVER say that, as the process of energy transfer takes place on IMPACT and there was a LOT of tower ahead of the ground
Secondly "having the potential to melt " is NOT synonymous with MELTED
So what you said I said is itself THE LIE, and you said it because you are THINKING a lie
You have just demonstrated clearly that you don't understand what I write too
@beachcomber2008 Heres another point to ponder..why was NIST so adamant that ll the fire proofing in the towers had to be blown off during impacts and not so concerned in WTC 7? Simple if hte fire proofing was in place in 1 and 2 the fires could not have caused failure since the fires did not burn long enough. They had to remove the FP to allow the fire to directly affect the steel. They have said if the FP was in place no collapse would have occured.
@lexicon008 "so they desperately have been trying to show that the FP was blown off" - Yeah, once more
There's no way a 50 ton fuel/air bomb could do it
This little pissant thing, couple of tons... ...you can hardly see the SHOCKWAVE, and you don't see the house get blown flat either
watch?v=i20zvZ-3MMw
Now if THAT were twenty-five times bigger, cripes, it would look like the outside of 911. Wouldn't that be a sight? And it reached the basement too...
@beachcomber2008 Oh so now its a fuel air bomb..not just weakened steel due to fire..well where was the fuel air bomb in wtc 7?
It never ceases to amaze the lengths people go to avoid looking at the most obvious explanation. NFPA921 specifically recommends that you look/test for explosives or exotic accelerants when you have high order building collapse, molten metals and pulverized concrete..yet people like you just wave your hand and ignore it..wonder why? scared what you might find?
@lexicon008 "Oh so now its a fuel air bomb" - TWO fuel air bombs BIGGER than any deliberately constructed ones
""So the fuel was largely irrelevant"" - YOU
"It never ceases to amaze the lengths people go to avoid looking at the most obvious explanation" - Jesus. There should be a "thunderbolt rule" for colossal stupidity, AND blindness AND hypocrisy AND slander combined. Zeus's mighty fist should blow you away. There's no fairness to life...
I got this by knowing that the specific heat of steel is approximately 450J/kg/°C.
450*20,000*257 = 2,313,000,000J
So, assuming a 100% energy transfer from the PE of the falling beam to heat energy, you would only have about 3% (78,480,000/2,313,000,000) of the energy required just to heat the steel up to 282°C. And thats not even its melting point.
Funny... I just read some of the postings by others and all of the sudden I remembered the OJ Simpson Trial... How effective are the techniques used by The Elite: MisDirection... Look at what Dr. Alan Sabrosky (former Director of Studies of The US Military War College) says about the whole thing. I recommend to start from the most recent posting on his thoughts.
@beachcomber I apologize if you feel insulted by my comment. I assure you that it was not my intention. That shows that clarity in writing is essential. It also shows the fractionation created amongst The People by The Elite (always having the upper hand). My comments were directed to those privileged minds who always complain about those who they call "stupid". Please, check what a group of friends say (put the following in your browser): Sail dot To / The_Key_4_666 (no spaces) God Bless!
Fantastic Clip. I am afraid that the message will be lost with the intellectually-challenged people (the greatest fraction of the voter). We must strive 4 the Simplest & Clearest Explanation so that Challenged People do not get confused & Media Prey. Suggestion: Make greater efforts 2 convey message to The Lowest Denominator. Example: Q: What is Relevance of Remodeling-Refurbishing Offices? A: Placement of Radio Beacons to direct Drones or Re-Wired Airplanes that follow Guiding Radio Signals.
"IMPACT energy is a COHERENT form of HEAT energy, in that the unidirectional motion of impact becomes random atomic vibration (HEAT) after the event"
I can just imagine dropping a 20 ton steel beam from 1,000 feet and watch it melt itself upon impact. Is it going to produce heat? OF COURSE. Is it going to be significant enough to melt itself? NO. If one beam can't melt itself then how does the PE of all the steel melt the whole building (on impact)?
hahaha oh shit, wrong video...that was meant for your '9/11 The official conspiracy" video where you talk about the official story...but in this video, you should really elaborate on the 100,000 dollars wired to muhammed atta from Ahmed from the ISI and the drills that were run that day
man, you have to change the part about the Navy Seals members being killed on the helicopter...seal Team 6 is made of a shitload of people...all the ones that were on the bin laden killing mission got sent back to the US...NONE OF THEM DIED ON THE HELICOPTER!! Your video has to be very clear, because discrepancies like that will force idiots to debunk your video without listening to everything else! lol
There are numerous psychics and astronomers who have stated on the web,....that those who are TRULY GUILTY OF THE MASS MURDERS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE,.......will in fact be brought to justice before the year 2020.
The WHOLE LOT of them.
The truth is always there waiting to be discovered,....in the universal mind. They clearly see the entire group falling like dominos, as the world demands justice.
The TRUTH may have been delayed,...but in the end,...they DON'T GET AWAY WITH IT.
Astronomy,....the study of celestial bodies and phenomena that ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. Astronomy,....HISTORICALLY,...always includes astrology.
In fact ASTRONOMY is DERIVED,...... FROM ASTROLOGY. The entire history of astrology was part of academic contexts when astronomy became an OFFSHOOT.
BOTH STUDY PLANETARY OBJECTS,.....and celestial events.
You can't begin to make human relations, within the oneness of the universe,.....and therefor predictIons,...WITHOUT THE EXPRESS STUDY OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES.
You have the AUDACITY to insult others and you can not PROPERLY punctuate a sentence?
You missed FOUR periods in your paragraph structure,..which is elementary school english,...and you PRETEND to sit on an intellectual high horse?
I think you are RETARDED,....pubic hair head. You also act,.... EXACTLY like a TROLL.
So,...you DELIBERATELY want people to think you are retarded?
You ABSOLUTELY CAN properly punctuate, within over 500 characters, .....in fact you CAN properly punctuate with AS LITTLE,... as a two word sentence!
That makes you a LIAR.
'Therefor'- is CORRECT. Meaning 'FOR THAT'... or.... 'for this." It is commonly used in law, and is the joining of there + for. Therefore, is also CORRECT,....also meaning 'FOR THAT.' It may also be used to mean,.. consequently.
I know what the video is about and my original response was in direct relation to it. I pointed out that THOSE who have looked into the either,...and the study of heavenly bodies, have determined,...THE GENUINE CULPRITS OF THE MASS MURDER, will be brought to justice before 2020.
YOU chose to become insulting.
I understand things quite well,...for instance I clearly see you are trying to shove the 'official story line' down people's throats,...(continued)
& NO SENSE in claiming "inside job" when there was NO "thermite"
Without an inside job, ALL these fascinating snippets of info as to who was pally with whom, and did stuff for what, are all very interesting, but separate, clusters of little corrupt deals, and not the grand clusterfuck you'd really like it to be
You have grasped the wrong of the stick. The rot, worms, and corruption at its roots are dirtying your minds right now
Best come clean and admit you know too little. Go & learn something.
The materials found in the dust were naturally-produced by the collapse
There is NO LOGIC in suggesting remote detonation by radio, when the radio receiver & detonator could never survive being RED HOT for an hour, let alone SEVEN hours
NO LOGIC in a "demolition" which started 10-30 minutes b4 final collapse
NO SENSE in suggesting that the HEAT in the basement was produced by "thermite" when the steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself
@beachcomber2008 Really? molybdenum microspheres were foundin the dust samples by the USGS RJ LEE and several others. Molybdenum has a higher melting point then steel which has a melting point over 1000C higher then any fire existed in the towers. So how exactly were these things "Naturally produced byt he collapse"?
Also if your suggesting that the steels potential energy somehow managed to cause the molten metals in the basement you need to do some better homework, cont
In effect, each column was HAMMERED downward once for each floor sheared
Each blow was REACTED at the foundation, delayed by the speed of sound in steel, and reflected back up again, its energies absorbed by fixings everywhere
The energies involved were huge forging energies, and steel gets hot when you "work" it in such a manner, eventually ending up about as stiff as wet spaghetti
You've seen the evidence of twisted and tangled beams and columns
You could argue what about the hot air, hot concrete? And I can tell you the specific heats of these materials, and the opportunities for conduction and convection, couldn't have accounted for more than 5% of that energy that way
The BULK of that vast energy remained in the steel - as HEAT
As to WHY in the basement, here's why
As the accreted floors slammed into the NEXT floor, EVERY bolt, flange, beam, that got in the way got SHEARED, and the next
@lexicon008 "molybdenum microspheres" - Molybdenum is an alloying component of STEEL
Some steel would vaporize - especially where the floors slid UNLUBRICATED down the internal columns at up to 120 mph - so I would expect there to be molybdenum in the microspherules
@beachcomber2008 Well, tell ya what freind, you go find any single example of a high rise building structure that was brought down byanymechanism including controlled demolition that caused molten metal in the basements and maybe i would beleive you. There is absolutely no precidents for large pools of molten metal being formed by a gravitational collapse of a steel structure..none. Nice try though.
@beachcomber2008 BTW if your claiming steel melted or vaporized you are a conspiracy theorist according to the official story supporters..there is absolutely no mechanism for molten steel in the buildings based on the collapse or fires. None of the supporters of the official story will admit to or even consider the possibility that steel melted because that would require temperatures much much hotter then available at the site.
@beachcomber2008 So your argument is that steel beams rubbed together and this formed the molybdenum spheres? See let me explain this too you. The molybdenum in those micropsheres has a melting point HIGHER then steel. That means not only did you have to somehow cause a temperature over 1000 degrees celcius hotter then the fires present, you then had to increase that temperature so it was hotter then molten steel. Friction won't cause that or we would see this everytime a building falls
@beachcomber2008 65+% of the potential energy of the collapses was directly turned into kinetic energy needed to allow the collapse to proceed at near free fall. The remainder was used to launch items laterally at up to 75+ mph, crush, rip, tear, bend, push, pull and basically disintegrate the building. There was no energy to turn the steel or any other metal into molten materials.
@beachcomber2008 "65+% of the potential energy of the collapses was directly turned into kinetic energy"
I can make that statement because based on the official story timelines that towers fell at approx 65% of free fall..that means 65% of the potential energy was completely converted to kinetic energy. It was no available to do anything but cause the fall.
And your right, it does show a direct conflict with the laws of physics and truth since it should never have happened to begin with.
@beachcomber2008 is there a reason people like you seem to feel the need to throw insults when trying to debate a topic? Is your argument so pathetic that your only recourse is to start throwing childish references? In your case, your insults don't even get you to the level of a 5 year old. I've heard better from my children. Grow up.
And again, show me 1 example of your little theory and then we can talk..until then it's fantasy at best.
@lexicon008 "is there a reason?" - Yes there is. You start telling me that physics isn't the way I know it to be, when I've just given you careful. well-thought-out reasons why it is the way it is
It has appeared to go straight in one of your ears, and straight out the other
That's reason enough
"show me 1 example of your theory" - I'll give you 3: WTC 1, 2 & 7
I'll leave you to your subdividing (and evaporation) of potential energy
@beachcomber2008 Wow what a cop out..you try to justify your argument using the very collapses in contention as your proof. Well since the cause of the molten metal has either been denied or left unproven by the official side of the story..your argument is also unproven. So let me rephrase..find me 1 non 911 example of the phenomenon your describing..friction of a building collapse causing vaporization of steel..then we will talk.
@lexicon008 "using the very collapses in contention" - Then name me any other instance of impact-led fire upon a fifty-storey building. Any other
"either been denied or left unproven" - Neither. NIST wrote to the point of collapse, and the rest is obvious, and as I have described it. It is YOU who believes Ur myth, but it's only possible for U 2 fabricate so, because that region of understanding is UNKNOWN to U, a blank canvas
2 the rest of the engineering world the picture is already complete.
@beachcomber2008 "Then name me any other instance of impact-led fire upon a fifty-storey building. Any other"
sure
Empire state building 1945
Manhattan 2006 plane hits 50 story skyscaper causing fire
may 1946 , 40 wall street hit by plane on 58th floor
Now yes these were now jumbo jets, but it wasn't the damage that caused the collapses of the towers according to the official story, it was the fires. now once again, show 1 example of a building collapse causing pools of molten metal
@beachcomber2008 And no i didn't say sliding steel doesn't get hot, what i said is that sliding steel is not going to cause the vaporization or melting of steel on the scale needed to produce the pools of molten metals found at ground zero weeks are the collapses.
So the rest of the engineering world knows the difference? Okay i guess you should be listening to engineers both in and out of the 911 movement who disagree with NISTs findings. cont..
@beachcomber2008 Sorry..video and eyewitnesses including the mayor and governor of NY said there was molten metal several weeks post collapse.
You stated that there was enough potential energy to melt 500 tons of steel (that would mean it became molten..that usually happens when you melt something..it bevomes molten.)..implying this explained any molten metal and microspheres found at the site. You then went on to try to contradict my statements by saying it was due to friction.
@beachcomber2008 tell ya what..when you publish your academic paper proving your impact theory, let me know..im sure it will be an interesting read. Until then..your statements are in contraction to both the official story and most if not all of the available evidence. I find it amusing though that you have gone to all this trouble to try to debunk the thermite theory when NIST would not even bother to follow basin fire investigation procedure ..seems kinda odd don't you think
@beachcomber2008 i mean really..if this was all due to fire and damage why not follow the national fire investigation standards that NIST helped to write? Why go through all the trouble of coming up with the most unlikely theory based on the evidence and eye witness testimonies? Why won't they actually test the dust samples? Whats the problem? What are they afraid of?
@beachcomber2008 I guess you side with the building owner who someohow managed to convince that the theory they had been working on for 3 years was wrong and he was right. I guess you beleive a acedemic paper written 2 days post 911 that was based on no evidence since the investigation had not even started yet. I guess you agree with NIST when they say steel does not conduct heat. I guess your Ok with them removing restrining bolts and quintupling the sag of trusses contrary to their own tests.
@lexicon008 "side with the building owner" - Do I?
"believe academic paper written 2 days post 911" - I could have written it. I knew how they were built
"they say steel doesn't conduct heat" - It's a poor conductor of heat. It's why they use it to build furnaces
"quintupling the sag" - Whereas in the towers they so completely failed (prior to collapse) that floors fell away. Had U read the NIST Report U would have seen THIS
@beachcomber2008 steel is an excellent conductor of heat which is why it is used in heat sinks. It conducts heat directed at it away from the heat source quickly, which is why any fire in any of these towers would not have gotten hot enough to soften or melt it. The heat would have to be far above the softening point to overcome the conduction. NIST even admitted that in order for the steel to reach its 50% strength point you needed a 6 hr constant 1100C fire burning
Great vid, but is that a Wikipedia screenshot at 0:32?
jhodgski 2 weeks ago
great vvid ,, and good info
dennisjo88 3 weeks ago
Wow! Thanks so much for this! <3
ChicagoDreamer5 1 month ago
11 months later MMC's stock split 2-1. This is right from their website. How the FUCK can your whole main office be blown up and 11 months later your value splits 2-1? BTW in June of 97 and 98 consecutively their stock had also split 2-1 so obviously some people were lining up to quadruple their money. Before that the last split was over a decade before. 2 years in a row this company splits twice. The place blows up and 11 months later the fucker splits again. y is no 1 in jail. Who bot the stk
RatDog67 1 month ago
I always thought Wolfowitz was credited with the "Pearl Harbor" comment in PNAC... it was Zakheim?
Great video!
EndTheFed59 1 month ago
.... coincidence? .... Inside job rings true....
evilstoo 2 months ago
@evilstoo 7-7-05 LONDON
DgurlSunshine 1 week ago in playlist 123
Marsh & McLennan had a big office in the towers, but it wasn't their HQ. Their HQ was and is at 1166 Ave. of the Americas in NYC. I know this because I used to work there. It's unlikely Bremmer had an office in the twin towers. As a Board member he would have been at the 1166 building. (FYI, I'm no fan of Bremmer, I think he made a horrible mess of Iraq and would not be surprised if he personally stole some of the billions in cash that were lost there under him.)
bluechao 3 months ago
Holy...crap... great video and explanation in one place. Thanks for this!
pauladamkim 3 months ago
Absolutely awesome!!!!!! Thank you.
diapedysis 3 months ago
I apologize to each of you here for mixing the two of you up. It's what happens when one mislays one's reading glasses
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Googlevid "VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE" and the first thing to turn up is
watch?v=TUE7DKNBIrU
Note how collapse is SILENT and COMPLETE
Note that CONSTRAINT alters rigidity
Note also that in both cases the columns are undamaged by the initial collapse
This is banal stuff, but counter-intuitive
It's easy to mislead yourself if you haven't seen it
In the case of a tower, a SINGLE COLUMN would always collapse upon itself
The tower stands on its column restraints & without them it is finished.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 a) there was not 1 column holding up these buildings..in wtc 7 there were over 70 perimeter and core columns.
b) the critical failure column was not free standing at anytime..even after it lost connection due to thermal expansion there were 2 other girders that connected to it and stabilized it (NIST ignored them in their models)
c) even if this column buckled, it would not cause a cascade collapse in under 7 seconds - internal resistance of the connections would stop that
lexicon008 4 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 all that video proved is that yes, things will buckle under enough load. It does not represent the situation in the towers at all since it is a single column, it is not made of structural steel, not designeded in the same fashion, not corss braced and engineered to resist the buckling and basically is a totally irrelevant example.
In order for 2 sec of free fall over 500 columns would have had to buckle without any resistance across 8 floors when not all were damaged
lexicon008 4 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 this is similar to a nail bed performer..put 1 nail on the bed..they get peirced..put a thousand mails..not damage since the mass is distributed.
Showing 1 beam buckling under load means nothing since for every new beam you add with the same load the likelyhood of collapse decreases since the load is fixed. In the towers the loads were not completely fixed since there was damage, but they had safety factors and were overengineered to begin with
lexicon008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lexicon008 "It does not represent the situation" Haha. That "physics course" did you little good, then. Was it PSEUDOphysics? - OF COURSE IT REPRESENTS THE SITUATION
"this is similar to a nail bed" Of course it is. Just make sure the nails are FIFTEEN FEET LONG. Idiot
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"THEN they worked out that 0.34% of 450,000 tons MEANT 1,530 tons of steel could have been raised to the melt point. THEN they DROPPED the WHOLE IDEA."
This is one of the clinchers of TROOF
They quote-mine lies, they fabricate lies, they CONCEAL truth when it damages their case, and finally they are HYPOCRITES, exhibiting EVERY vice of those they accuse
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Lets do large scale now....lets assume all the steel fell, on average, 200m and the melting point of steel is 1300°C. We start at 25°C
(450,000,000kg)(450J/kg/°C)(1275°C) = 2.58x10^14J
PE = mgh = (450,000,000kg)(9.81m/s²)(200m) = 8.83x10^11J
So, assuming a 100% transfer to heat energy, the PE of all the falling steel is approximately 0.34% of that required to melt the steel.
Can anyone tell me where I might have erred? Do we still think PE can be converted to melt steel?
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger The melting point of carbon steel is 1550 deg C, and the temp rise from ambient (t) therefore 1530 deg C, and the specific heat of steel (s) is 450 Joules/kg/deg C
Energy to raise a ton of steel to melt point is s*t*10^3 = 450*1530*10^3 = 6.89*10^8 Joules
Therefore the number of tons of steel which could be raised by the PE to melting point is 9.80*10^11 / 6.89*10^8 = 1,422 tons
My original figures were for the steelwork alone. You've removed your own foundation... :)
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@JSSTyger You missed the point. A few points, actually, due to unclear thinking
WTC height is 444 metres and weight (M) is 450,000 tons where a ton is 1000 kg
The weight of the steelwork alone was 253,000 tons. The rest of it was LOAD, but it was the steelwork that had the WORK done to it, and where the STEELWORK + LOAD PE went
So the PE figure (of a laden tower) is .5*M*G*h = 4.5*10^8*9.81*222 = 9.80*10^11 Joules
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
unclear thinking my ass.
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "unclear thinking my ass" - It's what you talk out of too. What does "potential energy" MEAN to you?
Do you think it really exists?
Why do you think ae911truth, who originally went down this line of thinking, DROPPED IT?
Because they at first thought that proving the whole structure couldn't melt itself PROVED SOMETHING
THEN they worked out that 0.34% of 450,000 tons MEANT 1,530 tons of steel could have been raised to the melt point
THEN they DROPPED the WHOLE IDEA
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 they likely dropped it for 1 simple reason..steel framing is not going to melt due to falling in a collapse. This is easily demostrated using any known controlled demolition. There isn't a single example of one collapsing even with explosives and causing molten steel or molten anything for that matter. The whole idea is great in theory but is complete nonsense in reality.
Multi ton aircraft crash from 32k ft and at 100's of mph and dont liquify into molten aluminum
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "steel framing is not going to melt due to falling in a collapse" - Is a STRAW MAN in which you waste my time and yours
Liquid iron/sulfur eutectic (at 1100 deg C) isn't liquid STEEL (at 1550 deg C)
Raising steel to the melt point STILL LEAVES SOLID STEEL, albeit like "toffee". To melt it requires CONSIDERABLE excess energy in the latent heat of fusion of iron
Why do you think the remaining core columns fell over, by the way
Shouldn't they have just remained standing?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 here let me put it to you another way then.. NONE OF THE METAL in the towers is going to liquify, melt, turn into toffee like substances or vaporize due to the collapses. feel free to show us an example of this happening in any known collapse scenario.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "NONE OF THE METAL" - But the tower potential energy, 9.80*10^11 Joules, had to GO SOMEWHERE, and in the form of HEAT
Joules may not mean much to you, so another way of expressing that energy is 111,000 kilowatt hours
It is also equivalent to exploding 233 tons of TNT
Whichever way you care to look at it, that amount of energy can raise 1,422 tons of steel to its melting point
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
You must think you are the only one here who has taken a physics course. Take one 20,000kg beam.
(450J/°C/kg)(20,000kg) = 9,000,000J/°C
Multiply by 1350°C and you have 12,150,000,000J required to bring this beam to its melting point..
450,000 kg of steel falling on average 200m has a PE of nearly 900,000,000J.
The totality of the falling mass still doesn't provide enough "kick" to melt just a 20,000kg beam. Not even for a 2,000kg beam
The PE argument is weak
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "You must think you are the only one here who has taken a physics course" - Well bully for you. But does it add up to a career?
By your single beam analogy you are returning to the idea of "the fall melting the building" - the straw man argument which so damages your thinking, and you think so weak. It is, but it's a STRAW MAN
It DOESN'T allow you to deny that the energy was THERE and enough to raise 1,422 tons of steel to 1550 deg C
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Nope it doesn't add up to a career which is why i find it hilarious that people like you bash the work and effort of PhDs in physics, mechanical and stru tural engineers, architects, fire protection engineers and others with as much or more experience then you. Most of these guys have worked or taught in their fields for decades. It was a high school physic teacher who forced NIST to admit that free fall did in fact happen in wtc 7..still waiting for their explanation....
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 so what if the energy was there..the reality is that it didn't melt the steel or anything for that matter. You can sugar coat it all you want but if this is supposed to explain the presence of the molten steel/metal then prove it with verifyable experiment in the real world and not some math thesis. As i have said there is no real world example of your theory, until there is it's just that..a theory.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "the reality is that it didn't melt the steel or anything for that matter" - is simply a DENIAL OF PHYSICS. Go and ask any engineer you like (if you know any) if the potential energy released by the fall of the tower couldn't easily explain the heat in the basement. Ask him whether heat-soaking such steel in an insulation of gypsum couldn't produce a eutectic iron alloy which would be molten
"still waiting for their explanation" - Wow. I bet they're on tenterhooks about that.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 could have..and did are 2 completely different things..theoretically, the collapses could have opened a mini wormhole into the core of a star and this heat melted the steel..ask a theoretical physicist and im sure they will say thats possible too, is it likely to have happened? No.
While i agree that what your saying is theoretically possible, unless you can show this is what happened and prove it using real world tests it, once again, is just a theory.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "it, once again, is just a theory" - As the above links to something nonexistent also are - just damn theories - and what is more - they are useless
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "theoretically, the collapses could have opened a mini wormhole" - That's a hypothesis and not a theory
I see what you're doing, You communicate here using digital techniques developed from quantum theory
Quantum theory is a physics NEVER SEEN BY HUMAN EYE, but the theory WORKS, doesn't it?
Mechanics has had 300 years of development from Newtonian mechanics, and has created wonderfully elaborate and devastating weaponry. Such products of THEORY are undeniably REAL
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 the reality is we wouldn't be having this conversation is the officials at the scene had followed proper procedures in preservation of evidence. If they hadn't destroyed 99.5% of the steel before the investigations got started. If they actually followed the national fire investigation guidelines, we would have a better idea what happened here. But no, ignore the law, ignore the procedures and destroy the evidence as quick as you can..some people call that a crime
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "destroyed 99.5% of the steel" - The towers were very modular & I guess 0.5% is sufficient to cover the steel events
"followed the national fire investigation guidelines" - I think they KNEW the fire had been started with12 tons of kerosine, and worked from THAT
"some people call that a crime" - & others SLANDER without proper evidence. That's a crime if it can be proved to have harmed the reputation of the victims. In Ur case, no crime because no-one believes claims without evidence
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Its not a strawman argument. You said "500 tons of steel would melt itself".
"It DOESN'T allow you to deny that energy was THERE and enough to raise 1,422 tons of steel to 1550 deg C".
Why would all of that energy be so concentrated? Thats a pathetic tiny amount anyhow. If you dropped one steel beam the full height of the tower, how much of that steel would be molten post impact?
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "If u dropped" - is an interesting question. Depends on how it lands - at 200 mph, directly on end, the energy densities would certainly upset it. This is 4 times LESS energetic:
watch?v=6dI5ewOmHPQ
"how much steel would be molten" - None of it. Please don't spiral once more down the "molten metal = molten steel" snake. To "raise to melting point" is not to MELT, and molten material in the basement (if it existed at all) had had lots of time to become a low melting point eutectic alloy
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@JSSTyger If you include the TOTAL weight of the tower, then THAT potential energy would have raised 1,422 tons of steel to its melting point, & the heat in that steel wasn't going to dissipate when it was so nicely insulated...
"Why would all of that energy be so concentrated?" - Almost existentialist... Because the tower stood over its base? Wasn't most of it destined for directly beneath itself? You know, the direction entitled DOWN? The direction GRAVITY was accelerating it towards?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@JSSTyger The actual quote is that the "steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself", and I had originally quoted the established weight of the tower steelwork to be 253,000 tons
I had to go one week and 19 pages back for that. And it's perfectly true
I had omitted the REST of the building
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Ok so I did mistake the "500 tons" for "500,000 tons"...
But the big question remains...why would all that energy be so concentrated? You are harnessing the entire "energy" of the collapse and directing it to a point. This is VERY unlikely. We're talking molten steel here. I mean, come on.
This is "not logical".
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "You are harnessing the entire "energy" of the collapse and directing it to a point"
Well, no
Hot air and hot concrete was made as well - but those materials don't store heat at all well, so the bulk of the heat HAD to be in the steel
Gravity was doing the "concentrating" as best it could
If the steel HAD melted it would have formed a layer only six feet deep within the floor plan
The floors slid as if on rails down to the basement where they impacted Gzero at 120 mph
You've seen that
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "The floors slid as if on rails down to the basement where they impacted Gzero at 120 mph" wait a sec..are you actually trying to say the floors pancaked? Because if you are you might wanna go re-read the NIST report.
lexicon008 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JSSTyger "internal resistance of the connections would stop that"
The connections that remained unbroken by floors collapsing would have done just that
It's your tunnel vision here that pretends the surrounding structure was whole and COOL, when in fact it was ALMOST at the point of failure itself
What probably started it off was the elastic response of the structure to the first collapsing floor - its BOUNCE
All bets were off once it shook itself
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "the PE of all the falling steel is approximately 0.34% of that required to melt the steel"
Hey, kiddo, 0.34% of 450,000 tons IS 1,530 tons of yellow hot steel! ROFL
U've made the very mistake that ae911truth made. Who said that ALL the steelwork (all 253,000 tons of it) had to be melted? Certainly not I
Everything heated due 2 impact during or concluding its descent, but there is a general truth that the impact heat would B concentrated at the BASEMENT where the energy reflected BACK
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 I finally got it ! Thanks for enlightening me. I agree with your explanation and everyone should: NIST is the only agency with people capable of rendering an expert opinion.
VolodiaTheElder 4 months ago
@VolodiaTheElder "NIST is the only agency" - False. There are also all the qualified engineers who weren't picked also. They would tell you the same story
You too could be as informed as a NIST engineer. You merely have to pass the exams they passed and gain the experience they gained
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber Again I can't figure out what you mean. Maybe it is the Alzheimer catching up with me. Did you look at Dr. Alan Sabrosky comments? I imagine that it would be hard to dismiss a guy of his caliber. There are other big guys like him who are straight shooters (i.e. no confusing|misleading statements). Being direct is a must to bust The Elite's Agents in YouTube. Think of the pain that it will save for those victims you mentioned + Don't forget the Victims of The Illegal Wars: Million+
VolodiaTheElder 4 months ago
@VolodiaTheElder "Again I can't figure out what you mean" - If you could I wouldn't write
Sabrovsky isn't an engineer and doesn't understand the physics of collapse any better than you
The collapses were NATURAL, and comments about "false flag" WITHOUT RELEVANCE
watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "The collapses were NATURAL" thats a funny statement considering the official investigation came up with about 6 different theories as to what caused said natural collapses. I mean if these were so natural then why the difficulty in explaining them? Oh maybe it was because it had never happened before or since. Odd...thousands of skyscrapers all over the world and not one has fallen like this due to any mechanism including earthquake (well excluding demo) but this was natural?
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "thousands of skyscrapers all over the world and not one" - was built like WTC1&2 or NOT fought like WTC7
"why the difficulty" - Initial impact damage hard to assess when the building destroys itself. Fire works internally where it cannot be seen or measured. The advantages were high-resolution still and moving images of the event, and detailed knowledge of the structures concerned
Impact and fire are natural processes. Laws of physics apply.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 and thus we come to the big problem..the destruction of evidence..we can't really know what happened because...tada..rather then save teh evidence for analysis it was virtually all shipped over seas or melted down down recycling before an real investigation started. So now we must take the word of NIST even though the steel itself invalidates their theory by showing that temperatures in the impact zones only got to 250C far below the temps needed.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "it was virtually all shipped" - Except for 400 pieces of evidence from specifically selected parts of the buildings
"temperatures in the impact zones only got to 250C" - But the fires burnt ELSEWHERE. What the fuck does 250 deg C at the impact zone matter, when the other side of the building was pouring out molten aluminum at 1000 deg C?
And what of the internal columns creeping away at 350+ deg C, and dumping their load onto the external columns?
Pathetic...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 A) prove your statements..prove that the metal pouring out the side was aluminum and prove that there was any temperature above 350C present..what testing proved this? where is the data..the paperwork.
b) 400 pieces of evidence were saved out of hundred of thousands..not a very good representative sample.
c) the samples saved were tested by NIST and found to not have been subjected to temps higher then 250C in all but 2% of samples..cont
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "prove that the metal pouring out the side was aluminum"
It was the point of the tower where 40 tons of ALUMINUM (the wreckage of a Boeing 767) was located
Its color was ORANGE - that's 1000 deg C
It poured when a floor supporting it collapsed, and it poured without sparking
Thermite iron, formed WHITE hot at 2,500 deg C could never have poured outside the building, because there was NO material at all within the tower capable of holding it. It would have cut its way STRAIGHT DOWN.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 sorry that is conjecture..not proof..especially since you must show what caused said 1000C temperature in the first place since jet fuel in open air maxs out at about 825C. Oh but let me guess..your going to contend the chimney argument again.
And thermite most certainly could have poured out as we see if it was coupled to the exterior columns. Once molten it would flow in whatever direction it chose, out of the structure would be one of those.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "sorry that is conjecture, not proof" - It's INFORMED conjecture which beats the alternative out of sight. That is proof
"you must show what caused 1000 C" - No. The temperature was 1000 C BECAUSE the interior of the fire was ORANGE
The outflow speed of the fire was 50mph. The wind speed at the time was 29mph. There was a DRAFT
"thermite could have poured coupled to the exterior columns" - NO. The quantity was TOO GREAT to have come out of columns
Metal poured when a floor collapsed.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 but the steel was not exposed to temperatures of 1000C..what part of that aren't you understanding...if the steel was exposed to the temperature then NIST is wrong since they tested samples directly from the fire zones and found only 2% had temp above 600C..all others did not reach higher then 250C. This is far below the weakening point of steel.
You also ignore the results of the cardington test which showed office fires did not complete failure of a steel framed structure.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "only 2%" - Only 2%? Only about 2% of WTC2 was burning. Sounds OK 2 me
"far below the weakening point of steel" - The rest of the structure WASN'T weak. It was simply unable to cope with impacting with the falling tower top
Did "the cardington test" add 24,000 pounds of kerosine to their office fire, a 50 yard wide and feet high SLASH into their structure, and subject the whole of it to a 29 mph breeze?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 No genius only 2% of the samples FROM THE FIRE ZONES..not 2% of the entire structure..learn to read as you so love to say to others.
24000 gallons of jet fuel? well lets see first NIST says there was only about16000 gallons pre explosion, tests have shown that even if that didn't burn off almost instantly during the fire balls it would have left enough cubic foot volume to leave a layer about 1/4 inch on only 1 floor. So the fuel was largely irrelevant other then to start it
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 ".learn to read as you so love to say to others. 24000 gallons of jet fuel?" - Oops. A bit ironical...
Let's see, 16,000 gallons of kerosine would weigh 108,000 lbs. I apologize for the gross underestimate, and leave you with your pompous irony
"So the fuel was largely irrelevant" - Yes, mate. There's a bit of a delay from the planet YOU are actually on. In the meanwhile let's review what a fuel/air bomb actually IS (except I can't find one as big as the 767)
watch?v=i20zvZ-3MMw
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 sorry wrong again...it was 16000 total between both towers..actual numbers from NIST are 8684 gal for WTC1 and 7415 for wtc 2..They assume 20% blew off on impact and another half "flowed away" leaving 3474 and 2966.
again this would leave a layer around 1/4 inch on 1 floor...not some huge amount of fuel to burn on multiple floors.
so the fuel available to nurn post impact was minimal and only served to light the other fuel sources
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 and since the other fuel sources are largely paper, wood, plastics and other such products..there is no product available to cause melting or severe weakening of steel over such a large area inthe timeframe that was available. Hence the panic to get rid of the fire proofing. allowing for immediate access to the steel..well except at the core where there were no combustables ..but thats not relevant is it...
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 As for your buckling comments..buckling cannot cause free fall since a buckling column always has some form of resistance and since it also has built in safety factor it will never allow for free fall unless it fractures..since we have 0 evidence of fractured columns, buckling alone cannot account for the free fall collapse that occured for over 2 sec in wtc 7. Then add to that the fact that connections are designed to be 150% stronger then the members..NIST is full of it
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "NIST is full of it" - YOU, after a meaningless melange of truther buzzwords
"0 evidence of fractured columns" - disconfirmed within a minute just by googling the term
"connections are designed to be 150% stronger then the members" - Don't mean shit when confronting a 100,000 ton express train
You aren't too bright are you? You mouth the words but you have no sense of scale
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 mhm..still refuse the admit that free fall happened but can't happen as the official story maintains. Well you keep living in your little dreamworld of magic free fall causing buckling and fuel air bombs that have never been quantified or even mentioned in the official reports.
It's ok, i understand your reluctance to want to look for the truth..it's easier to just sit here and throw meaningless insults and prose at me..oh well..have fun with that
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008
40 years of exp in the field of mechanical engineering and he says things like "...the steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself"
He doesn't want to talk real science.
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger It's all just a red herring..a distraction to draw eyes away from the fact that the official investigation and report are hopelessly flawed and full of blatant lies. Until people actually look at the reports and learn the reality the truth will never come out.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "the official investigation and report are hopelessly flawed" - They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholders
The beholders in this case can see about as well as Blind Pugh, or maybe Mr. Magoo. Additional to their role of supplying wild imagination, crap maths, and terminological inexactitude
Well, 'ansome is as 'ansome does, innit?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "supplying wild imagination, crap maths, and terminological inexactitude" yeah all the scientists opposing the NIST reports are just doing it to be anti extablishmentists..they don't really like thier careers or their reputations. Has nothing to do with the fact that there is false or inacurate information in the reports. Nothing to do with the fact that NIST ignored eye witness, physical findings and standard invesigation procedures..they are just all nuts aren't they.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "they are just all nuts aren't they" - Just another form of beauty in the eye of a beholding Mr. Magoo
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 i mean look at you mister" i gots 40 years of mechanical engineering experience" and you will actually sit there and condone the fact that NIST ignored NFPA guidelines, they removed existing structure, they removed the thernal conductivity of steel, they grossly overexagerated temperatures, they ignored then admitted but never explained 2+ seconds of free fall in wtc 7. You just defend it all and say that there is no other possibility..keep drinking the koolaid..youll be fine
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "but never explained 2+ seconds of free fall in wtc 7" - AFTER collapse
You're accusing them of something they didn't do which was outside their brief
If you can't see how wrong that is, and how consistent that inaccuracy of yours applies itself to ALL these facts, well...
You need it pointing out, it seems.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 wtf are you talking about "after collapse" NIST admitted and included in their updates that there was 2+ seconds of free fall during the collapse of wtc 7. they never explained how it occured since to do so would be literally impossible without some kind of demolition event since 2+ seconds of free fall means 100 feet of the structure offered ZERO resistance.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "It would be literally impossible without demolition" - NO. Must I keep repeating that VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE INVOLVES SUDDEN REMOVAL OF LOAD
THAT is the way IT FAILS
Googlevid "VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE" - You're bound to find a few college experiments
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 verticle buckling may cause failure or collapse but is cannot and did not allow for free fall. There is always some resistance in a buckling situation and thus free fall will not happen. By admitting to free fall NIST is admiting that nothing resisted the collapse for over 100 feet. this isnt explained by verticle buckling or they would just say so wouldn't they..yeesh
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "There is always some resistance in a buckling situation" - Yeah. BEFORE FAILURE
Thereafter there is sod all, bupkiss, grasshopper...
What, you didn't take my advice earlier?
Well, consider how stupid you now look
"VERTICAL COLUMN BUCKLING COLLAPSE"
"VERTICAL"
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 basically the amounts of fuel we are talking here is like takeing 1 of the 10x10 office cubicles on the wtc (and there could be up to 300 per floor) and filling it with fuel up to 9 feet high. But wiat..it gets better..NIST says half of that fuel "flowed away" which means we only have about 450 cubic feet of fuel. So the fuel load is largely irrelevant. It served to light everything else on fire. As for the slash..again largely irrelevant..cont
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 since "According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut."
These structures were significantly over engineered specifically to be hit and withstand the impact of a jet liner.
By not doing a proper investigation we will not know why they failed to do so..either natural collapse or demolition.
lexicon008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lexicon008 "able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind" - With respect to FIRE?
"These structures were significantly over engineered specifically to be hit and withstand the impact of a jet liner."
Which was, significantly, TWELVE TIMES greater than expected, these being modern times
"we will not know why they failed to do so" - Well now you DO.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 so they desperately have been trying to show that the FP was blown off. They have yet to prove that since in order to do it the plane would need to have turned into shotgun pellet like particles yet we have survivors on the impact floors who should have been ripped to pieces by the shrpnel and then roasted alive by the raging infernos that aren't seen in videos..odd
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 so rather then admit the temperatures did not get that high in the fires they claimed the sample size was too low. Ok but if the sample size is too low how can you then go on to argue that fire temperatures caused the failures when you have shown that it didn't get that hot?
See the problem here? They try to prove their theory with data that refutes the theory outright and then try to ignore the data.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "rather then admit" - Stop regurgitating this PAP
The fire we ALL saw burnt furiously for nearly an hour in WTC2 before it fell had internal temperatures CONSISTENTLY ORANGE, which is 1000 deg C
In the case of WTC1 they burnt for an hour and a half and saturated it with heat, sufficient to melt and pour several tons of ALUMINUM
"See the problem here?" - YOU are the problem. You cannot think for yourself
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 proof my friend..proof..where is your proof? Orange flames do not indicate 1000C fire..ask any firemen.
Orange metal does but since hydrocarbon based jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough in open air to cause said 1000C temperature your back at square one.
And aluminum melts are far lower temperatures then your contending and does not glow in daylight until its very hot so again...back to square one
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "Orange flames do not indicate 1000C fire" - But an orange interior DOES
"jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough in open air" - Good thing it wasn't in the open air, then
"aluminum melts are far lower temperatures" - So it does. It also heats up
"does not glow in daylight until its very hot" - Yes. That's right. Good boy
Square one (for you) is NOWHERE
You can't admit ANYTHING while you fixate on the presence of thermite
You are forced to deny evidence, physics, & honest professional labor
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beachcomber2008 "Sabrovsky isn't an engineer and doesn't understand the physics of collapse any better than you" well apparently NIST dont understand collapse either since they dropped their theory on WTC 1 and 2 in favor of Silversteins theory. Interesting that all these "experts" jumped on the insurance seeking owners bandwagon when his theory was even harder to prove then their original one.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"Sabrovsky isn't an engineer and doesn't understand the physics of collapse any better than you"
And you said the potential energy of the steel melted it when it hit the ground.
I think you should get off your high horse and stop talking about other peoples' "misunderstandings".
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "you said the potential energy of the steel melted it when it hit the ground"
That, sir, is a COMPLETE LIE
Wash your mouth out with soap, and brush up your English. Is it not your first language?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber20008
I said: you said the potentail energy of steel melted it when it hit the ground
You responded: That sir, is a COMPLETE LIE
Why then did I find this 6 day old snippet of yours?
"NO SENSE in suggesting that the HEAT in the basement was produced by "thermite" when the steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself"
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself" - Makes no mention of "when it hit the ground". That's because I would NEVER say that, as the process of energy transfer takes place on IMPACT and there was a LOT of tower ahead of the ground
Secondly "having the potential to melt " is NOT synonymous with MELTED
So what you said I said is itself THE LIE, and you said it because you are THINKING a lie
You have just demonstrated clearly that you don't understand what I write too
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@JSSTyger "6 day old snippet" - 6 days? LOL
U missed
"The POTENTIAL energy within a building is the energy used to LIFT it into place
It exchanges to KINETIC energy by FALLING
KINETIC energy becomes IMPACT energy by being BROUGHT TO A STOP
IMPACT energy is a COHERENT form of HEAT energy, in that the unidirectional motion of impact becomes random atomic vibration (HEAT) after the event
So POTENTIAL energy becomes converted COMPLETELY to heat. It's the PROCESS of ENTROPY. It's a LAW"
Shows how U R
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Heres another point to ponder..why was NIST so adamant that ll the fire proofing in the towers had to be blown off during impacts and not so concerned in WTC 7? Simple if hte fire proofing was in place in 1 and 2 the fires could not have caused failure since the fires did not burn long enough. They had to remove the FP to allow the fire to directly affect the steel. They have said if the FP was in place no collapse would have occured.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "so they desperately have been trying to show that the FP was blown off" - Yeah, once more
There's no way a 50 ton fuel/air bomb could do it
This little pissant thing, couple of tons... ...you can hardly see the SHOCKWAVE, and you don't see the house get blown flat either
watch?v=i20zvZ-3MMw
Now if THAT were twenty-five times bigger, cripes, it would look like the outside of 911. Wouldn't that be a sight? And it reached the basement too...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Oh so now its a fuel air bomb..not just weakened steel due to fire..well where was the fuel air bomb in wtc 7?
It never ceases to amaze the lengths people go to avoid looking at the most obvious explanation. NFPA921 specifically recommends that you look/test for explosives or exotic accelerants when you have high order building collapse, molten metals and pulverized concrete..yet people like you just wave your hand and ignore it..wonder why? scared what you might find?
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "Oh so now its a fuel air bomb" - TWO fuel air bombs BIGGER than any deliberately constructed ones
""So the fuel was largely irrelevant"" - YOU
"It never ceases to amaze the lengths people go to avoid looking at the most obvious explanation" - Jesus. There should be a "thunderbolt rule" for colossal stupidity, AND blindness AND hypocrisy AND slander combined. Zeus's mighty fist should blow you away. There's no fairness to life...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Comment removed
JSSTyger 4 months ago
Comment removed
JSSTyger 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beachcomber2008
"So POTENTIAL energy becomes converted COMPLETELY to heat"
I wasn't arguing against the process. I was arguing that it wouldn't produce enough heat for the steel to melt itself. I mean thats just stupid.
Take a 20,000 kg beam falling 400m. PE = mgh = 78,480,000J
How many J is required to raise the temperature of the steel enough to melt itself? ALOT.
I read steel takes about 2,313,000,000J to go from 25°C to 282°C. The PE Is insignificant.
JSSTyger 4 months ago
@JSSTyger
I got this by knowing that the specific heat of steel is approximately 450J/kg/°C.
450*20,000*257 = 2,313,000,000J
So, assuming a 100% energy transfer from the PE of the falling beam to heat energy, you would only have about 3% (78,480,000/2,313,000,000) of the energy required just to heat the steel up to 282°C. And thats not even its melting point.
JSSTyger 4 months ago
Funny... I just read some of the postings by others and all of the sudden I remembered the OJ Simpson Trial... How effective are the techniques used by The Elite: MisDirection... Look at what Dr. Alan Sabrosky (former Director of Studies of The US Military War College) says about the whole thing. I recommend to start from the most recent posting on his thoughts.
VolodiaTheElder 4 months ago
@beachcomber I apologize if you feel insulted by my comment. I assure you that it was not my intention. That shows that clarity in writing is essential. It also shows the fractionation created amongst The People by The Elite (always having the upper hand). My comments were directed to those privileged minds who always complain about those who they call "stupid". Please, check what a group of friends say (put the following in your browser): Sail dot To / The_Key_4_666 (no spaces) God Bless!
VolodiaTheElder 4 months ago
@VolodiaTheElder "I apologize" - Don't bother apologizing to me. Try the victims' relatives
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Fantastic Clip. I am afraid that the message will be lost with the intellectually-challenged people (the greatest fraction of the voter). We must strive 4 the Simplest & Clearest Explanation so that Challenged People do not get confused & Media Prey. Suggestion: Make greater efforts 2 convey message to The Lowest Denominator. Example: Q: What is Relevance of Remodeling-Refurbishing Offices? A: Placement of Radio Beacons to direct Drones or Re-Wired Airplanes that follow Guiding Radio Signals.
VolodiaTheElder 4 months ago
@VolodiaTheElder "Challenged People do not get confused & Media Prey"
Yeah. It must be MOST confusing. It's good to know that experienced people are commenting on this site
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"IMPACT energy is a COHERENT form of HEAT energy, in that the unidirectional motion of impact becomes random atomic vibration (HEAT) after the event"
I can just imagine dropping a 20 ton steel beam from 1,000 feet and watch it melt itself upon impact. Is it going to produce heat? OF COURSE. Is it going to be significant enough to melt itself? NO. If one beam can't melt itself then how does the PE of all the steel melt the whole building (on impact)?
JSSTyger 4 months ago
themite is the most likely cause of the collapse of all 3 buildings.
pigeonpsycho 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pigeonpsycho "themite is the most likely cause of the collapse of all 3 buildings."
What is THEMITE?
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
Well done...great investigation on connecting the dots.
richard57watson 4 months ago
hahaha oh shit, wrong video...that was meant for your '9/11 The official conspiracy" video where you talk about the official story...but in this video, you should really elaborate on the 100,000 dollars wired to muhammed atta from Ahmed from the ISI and the drills that were run that day
snillocekim 4 months ago
man, you have to change the part about the Navy Seals members being killed on the helicopter...seal Team 6 is made of a shitload of people...all the ones that were on the bin laden killing mission got sent back to the US...NONE OF THEM DIED ON THE HELICOPTER!! Your video has to be very clear, because discrepancies like that will force idiots to debunk your video without listening to everything else! lol
snillocekim 4 months ago
There are numerous psychics and astronomers who have stated on the web,....that those who are TRULY GUILTY OF THE MASS MURDERS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE,.......will in fact be brought to justice before the year 2020.
The WHOLE LOT of them.
The truth is always there waiting to be discovered,....in the universal mind. They clearly see the entire group falling like dominos, as the world demands justice.
The TRUTH may have been delayed,...but in the end,...they DON'T GET AWAY WITH IT.
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250 "There are numerous psychics and astronomers who" - What?
You idiot, you mean ASTROLOGERS
May the Spaghetti Monster defend us all from psychics and astrologers - and YOU
I remotely read that you truanted your science classes and were given a pointy hat
Which you have since coated with tinfoil
Stay indoors when there are thunderstorms...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Who are you calling an idiot,....you asshole?
Yes,....I meant ASTRONOMERS.
Astronomy,....the study of celestial bodies and phenomena that ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. Astronomy,....HISTORICALLY,...always includes astrology.
In fact ASTRONOMY is DERIVED,...... FROM ASTROLOGY. The entire history of astrology was part of academic contexts when astronomy became an OFFSHOOT.
BOTH STUDY PLANETARY OBJECTS,.....and celestial events.
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250
You can't begin to make human relations, within the oneness of the universe,.....and therefor predictIons,...WITHOUT THE EXPRESS STUDY OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES.
You have the AUDACITY to insult others and you can not PROPERLY punctuate a sentence?
You missed FOUR periods in your paragraph structure,..which is elementary school english,...and you PRETEND to sit on an intellectual high horse?
I think you are RETARDED,....pubic hair head. You also act,.... EXACTLY like a TROLL.
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250 "You missed FOUR periods in your paragraph structure" - Deliberately
"you can not PROPERLY punctuate" - Within 512 chrs I don't wish to
"therefor" "undersand" "you" are YOUR spelling mistakes
"pubic hair head" - Is a needless insult
This video is TROLLING in the first place, and its supporters are TROLLS, except for you
U R an idiot
The energy visible by satellite was the remnant of the energy originally used 2 raise the towers in the first place, 111,000 kilowatt hours.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
So,...you DELIBERATELY want people to think you are retarded?
You ABSOLUTELY CAN properly punctuate, within over 500 characters, .....in fact you CAN properly punctuate with AS LITTLE,... as a two word sentence!
That makes you a LIAR.
'Therefor'- is CORRECT. Meaning 'FOR THAT'... or.... 'for this." It is commonly used in law, and is the joining of there + for. Therefore, is also CORRECT,....also meaning 'FOR THAT.' It may also be used to mean,.. consequently.
Continued:
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250
Continued:
'You'- Correct.
'Unders-t-and'- Typo.
'U R'- Another example of your retardation.
'Pubic hair head'- An accurate ovservation.
Now that we have established that you are a retarded, LIAR,....the rest of the RUBBISH YOU SPEW,....can be thorwn in the trash where it belongs.
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250 "ovservation" "thorwn"
The comments section here is for the video entitled "9/11 Masterminds - Explosive Connections (Updated Version)", and I am commenting on IT
Whereas U are commenting only about ME, and I am NOT the video
This is what TROLLING is, & U R doing it right now
So U R the TROLL here
You should learn 2 understand the world around U more fully b4 U put Ur foot in Ur mouth
& the best start U could make is with the energy that raised the towers in the 1st place
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008
I know what the video is about and my original response was in direct relation to it. I pointed out that THOSE who have looked into the either,...and the study of heavenly bodies, have determined,...THE GENUINE CULPRITS OF THE MASS MURDER, will be brought to justice before 2020.
YOU chose to become insulting.
I understand things quite well,...for instance I clearly see you are trying to shove the 'official story line' down people's throats,...(continued)
rainbo5250 4 months ago
@rainbo5250
Continued:
DESPITE the fact,....THAT THE MAJORITY NOW BELIVE 9-11 TO BE AN INSIDE JOB!
Online polls show,..... the MAJORITY believe 9-11 was an inside job.
Numerous countries, have come to the same conclusion.
There are so many web sites, by highly degreed professionals,....who can't wait for this to go before a world court.
NOT just professionals in the United States,.....but professionals AROUND THE PLANET.
It will happen.
Tic-Toc-Tic-Toc.
Time is the only variable.
rainbo5250 4 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@rainbo5250 "BELIVE" - Polls of "beliEvers" often record belief
Science isn't a matter of belief, but understanding
"either" - The ETHER has nothing to say to any1. Psychics & astrologers have failed every test ever made
What WORKS is Science
The web works - & I & others helped build its beginnings in the early 80s
Its partial occupation by uneducated, illiterate, & innumerate trolls was unintended & unfortunate
Someone must resist this dissolution of science, language & meaning
So I will
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
& NO SENSE in claiming "inside job" when there was NO "thermite"
Without an inside job, ALL these fascinating snippets of info as to who was pally with whom, and did stuff for what, are all very interesting, but separate, clusters of little corrupt deals, and not the grand clusterfuck you'd really like it to be
You have grasped the wrong of the stick. The rot, worms, and corruption at its roots are dirtying your minds right now
Best come clean and admit you know too little. Go & learn something.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
There isn't any proof of "thermite"
The materials found in the dust were naturally-produced by the collapse
There is NO LOGIC in suggesting remote detonation by radio, when the radio receiver & detonator could never survive being RED HOT for an hour, let alone SEVEN hours
NO LOGIC in a "demolition" which started 10-30 minutes b4 final collapse
NO SENSE in suggesting that the HEAT in the basement was produced by "thermite" when the steel had the potential energy to melt 500 tons of itself
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Really? molybdenum microspheres were foundin the dust samples by the USGS RJ LEE and several others. Molybdenum has a higher melting point then steel which has a melting point over 1000C higher then any fire existed in the towers. So how exactly were these things "Naturally produced byt he collapse"?
Also if your suggesting that the steels potential energy somehow managed to cause the molten metals in the basement you need to do some better homework, cont
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 floor joined the gathering mass
In effect, each column was HAMMERED downward once for each floor sheared
Each blow was REACTED at the foundation, delayed by the speed of sound in steel, and reflected back up again, its energies absorbed by fixings everywhere
The energies involved were huge forging energies, and steel gets hot when you "work" it in such a manner, eventually ending up about as stiff as wet spaghetti
You've seen the evidence of twisted and tangled beams and columns
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 want to argue with a physical LAW?
You could argue what about the hot air, hot concrete? And I can tell you the specific heats of these materials, and the opportunities for conduction and convection, couldn't have accounted for more than 5% of that energy that way
The BULK of that vast energy remained in the steel - as HEAT
As to WHY in the basement, here's why
As the accreted floors slammed into the NEXT floor, EVERY bolt, flange, beam, that got in the way got SHEARED, and the next
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 The POTENTIAL energy within a building is the energy used to LIFT it into place
It exchanges to KINETIC energy by FALLING
KINETIC energy becomes IMPACT energy by being BROUGHT TO A STOP
IMPACT energy is a COHERENT form of HEAT energy, in that the unidirectional motion of impact becomes random atomic vibration (HEAT) after the event
So POTENTIAL energy becomes converted COMPLETELY to heat. It's the PROCESS of ENTROPY. It's a LAW. Do you
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "molybdenum microspheres" - Molybdenum is an alloying component of STEEL
Some steel would vaporize - especially where the floors slid UNLUBRICATED down the internal columns at up to 120 mph - so I would expect there to be molybdenum in the microspherules
You have no point...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Well, tell ya what freind, you go find any single example of a high rise building structure that was brought down byanymechanism including controlled demolition that caused molten metal in the basements and maybe i would beleive you. There is absolutely no precidents for large pools of molten metal being formed by a gravitational collapse of a steel structure..none. Nice try though.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 BTW if your claiming steel melted or vaporized you are a conspiracy theorist according to the official story supporters..there is absolutely no mechanism for molten steel in the buildings based on the collapse or fires. None of the supporters of the official story will admit to or even consider the possibility that steel melted because that would require temperatures much much hotter then available at the site.
So my suggestion to you is go fight them not me,
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 So your argument is that steel beams rubbed together and this formed the molybdenum spheres? See let me explain this too you. The molybdenum in those micropsheres has a melting point HIGHER then steel. That means not only did you have to somehow cause a temperature over 1000 degrees celcius hotter then the fires present, you then had to increase that temperature so it was hotter then molten steel. Friction won't cause that or we would see this everytime a building falls
lexicon008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lexicon008 "let me explain this too you" - What, you? I'd rather listen to my grandchildren. They don't have delusions of grandeur
Molybdenum is an ALLOY of steel
FRICTION can VAPORIZE steel, and generate, briefly, PLASMATIC temperatures
The building fires had NOTHING to do with the temperatures generated by friction as the floors slid down the center columns
"we would see this everytime" - floors slide down center columns
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 There was enough potential energy in a tower to MELT 500 tons of steel
Go bend a paperclip... :)
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 65+% of the potential energy of the collapses was directly turned into kinetic energy needed to allow the collapse to proceed at near free fall. The remainder was used to launch items laterally at up to 75+ mph, crush, rip, tear, bend, push, pull and basically disintegrate the building. There was no energy to turn the steel or any other metal into molten materials.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "65+% of the potential energy of the collapses was directly turned into kinetic energy"
This statement of yours is IN DIRECT CONFRONTATION with the laws of physics, and the TRUTH
It's an insult to human understanding and effort
How on earth you think yourself justified to make it I don't know
Other people's ignorance is not a topic of study for an engineer. His own is enough
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "65+% of the potential energy of the collapses was directly turned into kinetic energy"
I can make that statement because based on the official story timelines that towers fell at approx 65% of free fall..that means 65% of the potential energy was completely converted to kinetic energy. It was no available to do anything but cause the fall.
And your right, it does show a direct conflict with the laws of physics and truth since it should never have happened to begin with.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 You can't make the statement without LYING
"towers fell at approx 65% of free fall" - That didn't REDUCE the potential energy conversion at all
As I said previously, you don't know what you're talking about
If the towers fell at .65G, then that meant .35G accounted for the tower's subtracted IMPACT energy causing impact damage as it fell
"It was no available to do anything but cause the fall" - But ALL FALLS come to their ends with IMPACTS
To talk to you is to converse with wool. Baa
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 is there a reason people like you seem to feel the need to throw insults when trying to debate a topic? Is your argument so pathetic that your only recourse is to start throwing childish references? In your case, your insults don't even get you to the level of a 5 year old. I've heard better from my children. Grow up.
And again, show me 1 example of your little theory and then we can talk..until then it's fantasy at best.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "is there a reason?" - Yes there is. You start telling me that physics isn't the way I know it to be, when I've just given you careful. well-thought-out reasons why it is the way it is
It has appeared to go straight in one of your ears, and straight out the other
That's reason enough
"show me 1 example of your theory" - I'll give you 3: WTC 1, 2 & 7
I'll leave you to your subdividing (and evaporation) of potential energy
Good luck in the land of gibber
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Wow what a cop out..you try to justify your argument using the very collapses in contention as your proof. Well since the cause of the molten metal has either been denied or left unproven by the official side of the story..your argument is also unproven. So let me rephrase..find me 1 non 911 example of the phenomenon your describing..friction of a building collapse causing vaporization of steel..then we will talk.
good luck
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "using the very collapses in contention" - Then name me any other instance of impact-led fire upon a fifty-storey building. Any other
"either been denied or left unproven" - Neither. NIST wrote to the point of collapse, and the rest is obvious, and as I have described it. It is YOU who believes Ur myth, but it's only possible for U 2 fabricate so, because that region of understanding is UNKNOWN to U, a blank canvas
2 the rest of the engineering world the picture is already complete.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "Then name me any other instance of impact-led fire upon a fifty-storey building. Any other"
sure
Empire state building 1945
Manhattan 2006 plane hits 50 story skyscaper causing fire
may 1946 , 40 wall street hit by plane on 58th floor
Now yes these were now jumbo jets, but it wasn't the damage that caused the collapses of the towers according to the official story, it was the fires. now once again, show 1 example of a building collapse causing pools of molten metal
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 And no i didn't say sliding steel doesn't get hot, what i said is that sliding steel is not going to cause the vaporization or melting of steel on the scale needed to produce the pools of molten metals found at ground zero weeks are the collapses.
So the rest of the engineering world knows the difference? Okay i guess you should be listening to engineers both in and out of the 911 movement who disagree with NISTs findings. cont..
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "to produce the pools of molten metals" - doubtful there were such things "weeks after the collapses"
You really must try to read what I write, and NOT confabulate it into some other story
I wrote there was sufficient energy in the building before it fell to melt 500 tons of steel
I didn't write "molten steel" at any time, & certainly didn't suggest friction for that
You are supposed to understand what I say in the order I write it, not deconstruct it & reassemble it into claptrap...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Sorry..video and eyewitnesses including the mayor and governor of NY said there was molten metal several weeks post collapse.
You stated that there was enough potential energy to melt 500 tons of steel (that would mean it became molten..that usually happens when you melt something..it bevomes molten.)..implying this explained any molten metal and microspheres found at the site. You then went on to try to contradict my statements by saying it was due to friction.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "said there was molten metal" - Molten metal wouldn't be molten steel for reasons I have already given
"enough potential energy to melt 500 tons of steel" - OK I shall rephrase that
How about "enough potential energy to raise 7,170 tons of steel to its melting point (1535 deg C)"?
It's the SAME amount of energy
You will find that I have always connected friction with MICROSPHERULES
The heat in the basement steel was due to MULTIPLE IMPACTS as I have stated and restated
Continually...
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 tell ya what..when you publish your academic paper proving your impact theory, let me know..im sure it will be an interesting read. Until then..your statements are in contraction to both the official story and most if not all of the available evidence. I find it amusing though that you have gone to all this trouble to try to debunk the thermite theory when NIST would not even bother to follow basin fire investigation procedure ..seems kinda odd don't you think
lexicon008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 i mean really..if this was all due to fire and damage why not follow the national fire investigation standards that NIST helped to write? Why go through all the trouble of coming up with the most unlikely theory based on the evidence and eye witness testimonies? Why won't they actually test the dust samples? Whats the problem? What are they afraid of?
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "What are they afraid of?" - You mean what WERE they afraid of?
With administrators the usual fear is that of revealing one's pink starfish
They will do almost anything to prevent THAT
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 I guess you side with the building owner who someohow managed to convince that the theory they had been working on for 3 years was wrong and he was right. I guess you beleive a acedemic paper written 2 days post 911 that was based on no evidence since the investigation had not even started yet. I guess you agree with NIST when they say steel does not conduct heat. I guess your Ok with them removing restrining bolts and quintupling the sag of trusses contrary to their own tests.
lexicon008 4 months ago
@lexicon008 "side with the building owner" - Do I?
"believe academic paper written 2 days post 911" - I could have written it. I knew how they were built
"they say steel doesn't conduct heat" - It's a poor conductor of heat. It's why they use it to build furnaces
"quintupling the sag" - Whereas in the towers they so completely failed (prior to collapse) that floors fell away. Had U read the NIST Report U would have seen THIS
i100. photobucket. com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/WTC2-9-14. jpg
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 steel is an excellent conductor of heat which is why it is used in heat sinks. It conducts heat directed at it away from the heat source quickly, which is why any fire in any of these towers would not have gotten hot enough to soften or melt it. The heat would have to be far above the softening point to overcome the conduction. NIST even admitted that in order for the steel to reach its 50% strength point you needed a 6 hr constant 1100C fire burning
lexicon008 4 months ago