D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] OT - conspiracy theories - was facebook group

 

On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 14:39 +0100, Tom Potts wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 23:58, Ralph Smithen wrote:
> > From Wikipedia:
> >
> > "The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41
> > m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of
> > the tower."
> >
> > The official "pancake collapse" of the floors cannot explain why this
> > core did not remain.  Nor the pools of molten metal observed by rescue
> > workers.  Nor the utter pulverisation of the buildings, and subsequent
> > pyroclastic flow of dust clouds.  Nor the massive explosion in the
> > basement witnessed shortly *before* the plane hit. Nor...
> Its worth remembering that its only a few years since many geologists have 
> accepted the fact of pyroclastic flow. And also non-heated solids acting as 
> fluid. I remember the shock when a load of rubble was tipped into a river 
> valley and even the proponents of pyroclastic flow were amazed at the river 
> of rubble that flowed and flowed well beyond their wildest dreams.

Yes, that's a very good point.  Considering the abundance of dodginess
surrounding the event, I'd better focus on other points in future.
Thanks!

> This partly answers the loss of the core - the debris acts as a fluid to cut 
> through it like a knife through butter. I used to work down the pit and we 
> used pressurised water to cut through stone. 

This cutting was achieved by a concentrated and directed blast.  By what
mechanism do you propose the debris/dust was so constrained?

> With the height involved the 
> simple drop is sufficient to powder anything, and indeed melt metal. 

I'm not sure about this.  In everyday life I see drops of water
attaining terminal velocity (called raindrops) that conspicuously fail
to powder or melt most substances.

> I seem 
> to remember from school that a lead bullet at 200m/s has enough kinetic 
> energy to melt itself on impact. And thats without warming it in kerosene 
> flames first.

Assuming no energy goes to deforming target or sound.  Kinetic energy,
K.E. = 0.5 * m * v^2
K.E./kg (of bullet) = 0.5 * 200^2 = 20kJ/kg
latent heat of lead = 22.4kJ/kg

Very nearly!  In practise, of course, the energy goes to plastic
deformation of both target and bullet.

> Also a lot of modern constructions are pre-stressed as the building goes up - 
> take the weight off and they pull themselves apart.

So you contend that it was this effect that threw 4 ton steel girders up
to 600ft away?

> >
> > Please look into this.  If we don't recognise and raise awareness of
> > false flag attacks, we're inviting more of the same!
> I am not denying the existence of false flag attacks and would admit that the 
> US would happily use them as an excuse to cause trouble. 

Good.  I was about to tear my hair out,  recant all and tell you that
your government loves you, and that you should watch some TV then treat
yourself to a spot of shopping ;)

> However the US would 
> never be so stupid to attempt one of this complexity - too many things to go 
> wrong, too many loose ends to try and tie up. They may even have 
> (accidentally) funded it by a back door somewhere but they didn't organise 
> it. The US is run by big money - it wouldn't try and kill itself.
> Tom te tom te tom

The puppet masters are anything but stupid, albeit somewhat lacking in
normal human compassion.  Big money didn't lose anything, look at the
put options placed on the specific airlines shortly before.  These
events can be and are contrived by a small group of well-placed moles.

Regards,
Ralph.



-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html