9.11 Conpiracy Probability... The Actual Article... SCIENCE!

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:08 am

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Argue the facts... not your dumb ass fucking opinion"Biggity

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:07 am

Get the fuck over it, no one cares.

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:47 am

Bla bla bla....Here, let me demonstrate.

"In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = Â½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse."

The first floor that collapsed would be the only one that would be a free fall. All the floors after that would have accelerated at an abnormal rate due to the velocity of the falling floor impacting it.

From one of the sources he quoted...
" 'As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.' "

So the bombs kept going off for 21 days? :scratch:

Your brilliant scientist is a moron. I apologize in advance for having no arguement and falling back to name-calling, since I'm an uneducated neanderthal. Still, he's a moron.

I think I'm done in this forum.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:45 am

I'll have more to say about this later ('bout to drive for 5 hours), but I agree with the above. This guy is a fool. He should have his tenure yanked. I pity Physics students at BYU.

I can use exactly the same argument (conservation of momentum) to show why he's wrong.

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:59 am

Indy wrote:acting it.

From one of the sources he quoted...
" 'As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.' "

So the bombs kept going off for 21 days? :scratch:

Your brilliant scientist is a moron. I apologize in advance for having no arguement and falling back to name-calling, since I'm an uneducated neanderthal. Still, he's a moron.

I think I'm done in this forum.

Uhmm, no... how can their be molten metal 70 feet below the surface 21 days after the building fell when NO OXYGEN is present... Jet fule doesn't burn hot enough to cause this... Thermite however does.... and since molten metal was found under BOTH the WTC and Building 7, proves it WASN'T! jet fule...

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Let's not believe science"Biggity

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:24 pm

Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:37 pm

Series8217 wrote:Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:

Once again, no 747 crashed into building 7

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT"Biggity

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 pm

Oh, it must have been a thermite-powered 757.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:46 pm

hmm so since you think there was no oxygen present at the bottom of a heaping pile of stuff that was on fire.. then the thick pile of ass at the bottom of a campfire where the coals are the hottest part of the fire must also not gete oxygen?..

seriously - as a pyro much of this talk is just silly - I can melt metal in a campfire fueled by nothing but pine needles - pressboard furnature and plastics contain vastly more energy when burned and can generate higher temperatures - confined spaces like a rock ring (colapes concrete) only serve to concentrate the heat into one place - thus increasing the temperatures in the area and turn it into a furnace - not to mention that metals also burn when they get hot enough

(thermite is basicly just iron oxide powder and aluminum powder mixed thoroughly and often lit with a magnesium fuse)

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:49 pm

Kohburn wrote:hmm so since you think there was no oxygen present at the bottom of a heaping pile of stuff that was on fire.. then the thick pile of ass at the bottom of a campfire where the coals are the hottest part of the fire must also not gete oxygen?..

seriously - as a pyro much of this talk is just silly - I can melt metal in a campfire fueled by nothing but pine needles - pressboard furnature and plastics contain vastly more energy when burned and can generate higher temperatures - confined spaces like a rock ring (colapes concrete) only serve to concentrate the heat into one place - thus increasing the temperatures in the area and turn it into a furnace - not to mention that metals also burn when they get hot enough

(thermite is basicly just iron oxide powder and aluminum powder mixed thoroughly and often lit with a magnesium fuse)

The coles in a fire have oxygen... if you throw dirt on a fire.. you put it out.

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Without oxygen, you get no fire"Biggity

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote: The coles in a fire have oxygen... if you throw dirt on a fire.. you put it out.

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Without oxygen, you get no fire"Biggity

your logic is flawed - so if i throw dirt on some metal it won't rust because no oxygen can get to it?

smothering a fire that is burning something other than just leaves or twigs that would quickly burn themselves out anyways, so that it can not relite and is no longer smoldering takes mroe just just some dirt

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:59 pm

Kohburn wrote:
DiggityBiggity wrote: The coles in a fire have oxygen... if you throw dirt on a fire.. you put it out.

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Without oxygen, you get no fire"Biggity
your logic is flawed - so if i throw dirt on some metal it won't rust because no oxygen can get to it?

smothering a fire that is burning something other than just leaves or twigs that would quickly burn themselves out anyways, so that it can not relite and is no longer smoldering takes mroe just just some dirt

We're talking about more than just dirt however... we're talking about 70 feet of concrete and steel... Why would the metal be MOLTEN?

This is not MY logic.. this is a Prof. Of Physics

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Ignoring intellectuals is one of the many steps towards fascism"Biggity

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:08 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote: Diggity"Ignoring intellectuals is one of the many steps towards fascism"Biggity

there are just as many intellectuals that say otherwise -
besides proffessors are usually the ones that weren't good enough at it to get a real job and have little or no real world experience, only laboratory work.

Koh"choosing which intellectuals to believe based on them supporting your side is like using statistics to prove something and is on par with propoganda wars"burn

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:15 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote:
Series8217 wrote:Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:
Once again, no 747 crashed into building 7

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT"Biggity

Apparently you're so high up on your soap box you can't see a joke.
Besides, the article you posted doesnt just talk about building 7. Read the paper before you start arguing

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:33 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote:Diggity"Without oxygen, you get no fire"Biggity

Without an oxydizer, not oxygen.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:36 pm

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:51 pm

SappySE107 wrote:Good thing aarons head wasn't in there....it would still be burning.

Hehehehe...Nice.

Hey, how much rod stretch do y'all think I should account for when ordering my pistons?

Nate"smarter than a physicist, dumber than a wall"Engel

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:47 pm

Series8217 wrote:
DiggityBiggity wrote:
Series8217 wrote:Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:
Once again, no 747 crashed into building 7

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT"Biggity
Apparently you're so high up on your soap box you can't see a joke.
Besides, the article you posted doesnt just talk about building 7. Read the paper before you start arguing

Did you read the article? It does talk about Building 7.. also, as far as me not taking a joke.. I don't find this topic very funny

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Sorry it went over my head"Biggity

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:40 pm

Remember the whole kinetic energy debate we had a week or so ago? How come it was all of a sudden forgotten? The building could have colapsed with no fire and there still could have been molten steel.

And thermite doesn't burn slowly, it burns like gunpowder. If there was thermite, it would have burned off long ago. I know, I've made plenty. Just get some rust and shave some aluminum, mix and light. Burns right through steel, doesn't just melt it.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:48 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote:
Series8217 wrote:
DiggityBiggity wrote:
Series8217 wrote:Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:
Once again, no 747 crashed into building 7

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT"Biggity
Apparently you're so high up on your soap box you can't see a joke.
Besides, the article you posted doesnt just talk about building 7. Read the paper before you start arguing
Did you read the article? It does talk about Building 7.. also, as far as me not taking a joke.. I don't find this topic very funny

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Sorry it went over my head"Biggity

Diggity, as I mentioned it doesnt just talk about building 7. It also talks about 1 and 2, which by the way, planes crashed into.

What's "read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT" supposed to mean? I haven't argued with any facts here. Was that in reference the idea of a plane hitting building 7?