Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Watching a program on National Geographic on 9/11 Conspiracies

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    My point is that building was not designed to withstand a forces of that magnitude from top to bottom. I realize the weight would not change but drop a fifty pound block on a scale and tell me the scale will still read fifty pounds on impact.
    You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load", to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.
    Charlie

  2.   
  3. #12
    I think you all are just arguing orver semantics and technicalities. The only conspiracy I believe in about the collapse of the WTC in the one the OBL and his cronies were able to fly jet planes loaded with fuel into the towers and cause their collapse. I don't think Bush or anyone outside of the OBL group had anything to do with it. I also don't think that anyone other than Mother Nature had anything to do with the flooding of Nawleans after Katrina. That is other that the stupidity that some people think they are smarter than her and can control Mother Nature.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    Big jet hits building. Building burns and collapses. ...I am but a simple man.
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    [QUOTE=CharlieK;226502]You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load" to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.

    Well I'm not an engineer, maybe you are. I do believe we are saying the same thing.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #15
    [QUOTE=fuhr52;226548]
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
    You just supported my point. The block will still "weigh" 50 pounds. It's the change in momentum and kinetic energy that causes the scale's reading, the "load" to suddenly jump wwaaaaaayyyy up....just as in the building collapse.

    Well I'm not an engineer, maybe you are. I do believe we are saying the same thing.
    I agree, we are saying the same thing. Yes, I am an engineer; my PhD is in engineering mechanics with a specialty in structural mechanics, impact phenomena, and dynamic properties of materials. You are relying on your intuition, which is just fine in this case.
    Charlie

  7. #16
    [QUOTE=CharlieK;226564]
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    I agree, we are saying the same thing. Yes, I am an engineer; my PhD is in engineering mechanics with a specialty in structural mechanics, impact phenomena, and dynamic propterties of materials. You are relying on your intuition, which is just fine in this case.
    My degree in in electrical engineering but I did have to take statics and ###namics. This is like people always talking about power surges which technically there is no such thing. I had a fellow bet be $50 on that one time and pulled out his book to prove it and never could find the author refer to power surges. (It is a voltage surge)

    I like tuts40's story, plane hits building....building burns....building falls down. End of story.

  8. #17
    [QUOTE=FN1910;226588]
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post

    My degree in in electrical engineering but I did have to take statics and ###namics. This is like people always talking about power surges which technically there is no such thing. I had a fellow bet be $50 on that one time and pulled out his book to prove it and never could find the author refer to power surges. (It is a voltage surge)

    I like tuts40's story, plane hits building....building burns....building falls down. End of story.
    I like tuts40's story, too. Well, I taught statics, dynamics, and solid mechanics when I was in graduate school.
    Charlie

  9. #18
    I'm not disputing common sense and/or the governments and experts explanations of the events, however. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction how WTC #7 fell. Also, probably THE most secure and protected property on earth (the Pentagon)as far as video surveillance, to my knowledge, there should have been dozens of photo's of what hit the building? Any thoughts?

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis1209 View Post
    I'm not disputing common sense and/or the governments and experts explanations of the events, however. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction how WTC #7 fell. Also, probably THE most secure and protected property on earth (the Pentagon)as far as video surveillance, to my knowledge, there should have been dozens of photo's of what hit the building? Any thoughts?
    The geophycisists at Columbia Universiy in New York City (News Archive - The Earth Institute - Columbia University) say that the shaking of the earth due to the falling buildings of WTC 1 and 2 was not enough to cause the nearby buildings to collapse; however, they also say that they can't be sure that it didn't cause such damage. They didn't have seismographs near the site, though; their closest sensors were about 35km away.

    They think the main effect on the nearby buildings was the pressure wave emanating from the falling buildings. There was a huge volume of air inside the buildings that was compressed when the buildings fell. This air had to move outward and away from the falling buildings and had to have had significant effects on the nearby buildings.

    One thing they did not discuss, though, was the fact that the usual earthquake has energy released over a huge area very deep inside the earth, so that sensors many miles away would see a much larger signal for a given Richter Scale reading. The event in question had energy released in a concentrated location compared to an earthquake.
    Charlie

  11. #20
    As for why WTC #7 fell there was a bumper sticker quite popular a few years back saying excrement (####) happens. Yup, lots of theories but few hard facts or proof.

    For the Pentagon there are lots of pictures, just none that are suitable for framing. The plane was traveling app. 500mph which is 703fps. The cameras outside the Pentagon were not high speed-high definition type cameras and not designed or intended to capture images of things moving at that speed. As much and the producers of CSI and NCIS would like us to think, every inch of the US is not monitored by surveillance cameras, even the Pentagon is/was lacking in some spots.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast