Re: Don't Tolerate "Outrageous conspiracy theories"





fkasner wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Well, from that link:
Bush’s more complete statement was: "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of 11 September---malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."


So Fred, How about sticking to the science?

Where did the energy come from to demolish the towers?

How did all the outside columns and the core of WTC7 fail simultaneously? From the bottom? (Don't forget that structural loads are good for at least 6 times the actual for safety.)

How was it that a pilot said to be so incompetent he couldn't fly a piper managed a perfect, and what would have to be a planned maneuver, that would require a 3 or 4 gee approach to the pentagon with split second accuracy? An approach that even a seasoned pilot could not make without practice and planning.

If the science where not so sucky, I would have no questions. As the science was sucky I looked into the rest of the evidence. It sucks too.

You clearly have made up your mind and your assertions about "science" have totally ignored all the science that has been brought to bear on the subject. The great bulk of the science demonstrates that the energy in the fuel that burned was quite capable of softening the steel structure and even cause failure of the concrete. But then again you really weren't interested in that conclusion, were you? You hardly qualify as an objective scientist.

Hi Fred,
You didn't read a word I wrote. You responded to something I didn't address. It seems you have made up your mind not to apply critical thinking to the issue. You said, '(I) totally ignored all the science that has been brought to bear'. But that is the trouble, I haven't seen any science that addresses my questions.


I did a lot of work on Flight 77. But here are the numbers I ran on the towers.

Algorithm:
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/falling.cpp

Free fall:
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/freefall.txt

Minimum time to accelerate the building to the ground without any excess energy available. This also does not take into account time to accelerate the core, only the floors:
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/floors.txt


If you time the videos, and by all official takes, they fell in 10 seconds. Three seconds faster than possible without any energy expended, and without accounting for the core. There will also be some terminal velocity that will add to the time. There was a great deal of energy coming from somewhere as those buildings collapsed and the math says it sure wasn't gravity:
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/site1106c.jpg


It is important to understand that when gravity accelerates something at 32 ft/s/s, no other work can be done. As the towers fell there was work being done to pulverize the building. Work was done to compromise the core continuously for 100 floors. A core of steel and concrete engineered with a safety factor of six.

I do know how easy it is to believe what we saw. I didn't question it for years. Until I applied the physics it was what I saw.
These 'floors' span between the core and the outer columns of the building.
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/wtc1_core.jpg


Where did the energy come from to demolish that core?

---
What was the mechanism of building number seven's failure?

Every outer column failed, (WTC7), at the same time from the bottom.
Columns that would support 6 times the weight they were supporting.

FK

Best, Dan.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney


.