{mcb: Below are 9/11 discussion points of view that I am tired of repeating. Being a lazy hue-mahn, the carousel rides over repeated territory may now cause me to regurgitate the following.}
x3 Maxwell C. Bridges : aluminum-iron flakes
2017-03-09
Your article states (http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-5/):
"Unreacted nanothermitic material, 'which can be tailored [3] to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” [4] was found in four independently collected [5] samples of the WTC dust (as reported [6] in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).'"
To quote President Trump: WRONG! No such thing was found in the dust. Period.
What they found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones were aluminum-iron flakes. They attributed these as coming from NT. The other explanation for them is the corrosion between the aluminum cladding and the steel wall assemblies, which -- together with the asbestos problem -- contributed to the WTC being a white elephant to maintain and renovate.
Dr. Jones et al did not test the dust samples for explosives -- even years later when brought to their attention. When NT was said to not have the brissance needed for the observed pulverization, he claimed it was mixed with RDX or some thing (which I repeat, he didn't test for.) The numbers don't work with NT mixed in any combination with conventional explosives.
No other group (RJ Lee Group, USGS, etc.) found explosives or NT in their dust samples either. This is important, because NT was also meant to explain the duration of hot-spots. Doing the math on quantities required for the hot-spots, we're talking massive amounts UNSPENT from the original pulverizing purposes.
Further, when Dr. Harrit considered the iron spheres in the dust of a neighboring building (as reported by RJ Lee Group), he claimed this was the result of the NT chemical reaction. The only problem was that the percentage of iron spheres calculates backwards to indicate, again, MASSIVE amounts.
Were nuclear physics professor Dr. Jones not trying to dissuade the world from considering any form of nuclear devices, his research would have found Dr. Andre Gsponer and fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND).
FGND can explain the iron spheres, the duration of hotspots, the energy of the destruction, the pulverizing nature, the relative "softness" of the explosions, etc.
Please read my paper on the subject.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
//
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : I don't think '9/11' means what you think it means.
You make a lot of appeals to authority in your article, and lots of "9/11 Justification." My era was on the tail end of the "Question Authority" generation, so your appeals to authority don't fly.
Secondly and more importantly -- to paraphrase from the "Princess Bride" -- "I don't think '9/11' means what you think it means."
There is a reason that 9/11 Truth Movement exists and why it isn't going away any time soon. To put it mildly, the government and their complicit media has not made a convincing case to prove their assertions about any of the MANY coincidences that happened on 9/11. Not a one.
Geez, have some objectivity and look up "all sides" of 9/11 to see what the truthers (and the coincidence theorists) are really saying. 9/11 is full of lies and knee jerk reactions which quickly had everybody removing shoes and suffering other FSA attrocities to our civil rights.
Because you're interested in airlines, let it be known that the government has not produced convincing and thorough evidence (a) that the alleged hijackers even got on the planes [video surveillance has been in airports for decades], (b) that the alleged planes even took off or flew the routes attributed to them, (c)_ that mobile phone calls could be made from aircraft in flight, (d) that the serialed numbered parts found matched those of the alleged aircraft, (e) that any plane crashed into the Pentagon & Shanksville... 1960's Operation Norwood presented but rejected by JFK proves that such false-flag planning happens.
For me, the above is just one government dog on 9/11 that don't hunt. What got my attention and should all science literate people -- according to the official version -- were two steel skyscrapers with minor aircraft damage and waning office fires falling at near gravitational acceleration while pulverizing themselves and spewing content laterally hundreds of yards WITHOUT allegedly ENERGY BEING ADDED. If such were the earnest belief of our government officials, rather than persecuting Muslims all over the world with bombs and drones, this very act of breaking Allah's laws of physics on 9/11 should have inspired them to recommend to the nation the conversion to Islam. (Joke.)
Since 9/11, anybody justifying wars or civil rights infringement based on those 9/11 events is an opportunistic con-man and huckster.
//
x5 Maxwell C. Bridges : *Written with a British accent*
2017-04-20
*Written with a British accent*
Superior debate tactics does not equate with being superior. Unless, of course, the debate opponent has an inferiority complex and is therefore prone to "feeling" being condescended to. In which event, it won't matter what or how a message is conveyed, offense will always be taken.
Whether the condescension is real or mostly perceived, you lose the discussion if you make perceived tone the focus of your rebuttal, snowflake.
The Z. in a nutshell: "*Whimper* It isn't WHAT he wrote... *sob*, but HOW he wrote it *sniffle* that makes me feel like I'm such an inferior human being. *Wah!* So I will henceforth endeavor to ignore any salient points that made up the meat & cheese of his condescension sandwich, and instead focus on sour pickles."
x6 Maxwell C. Bridges : points of physics that the NPTers like to malframe
2017-06-12
2017-06-12
2017-06-12
Video frame rate versus speed of object are important, because it introduces sufficient error to mask deceleration. For example, assuming a frame rate of 24 frames per second, an aircraft length of 155 ft, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph, both velocities (and those in between) would have the aircraft travel its length in the same number of fames.
The physics of the building should also be properly described. The tower walls were not solid steel. The wall assemblies had window gaps with little resistance. The wall assembly was composed of three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels, and with the built-in failure points of the bolts that connected the assemblies together. The wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding.
When studying the actual damage of the building, the aluminum cladding demonstrates wingtip-to-wingtip damage. Behind that, you'll observe areas where entire wall assemblies were pushed out of the way (owing to the bolt failure points), where box columns were bent, and in some cases severed. The floors were (approximately) 13 feet apart.
The points are that wall assemblies did not offer 100% resistance, and that once the walls were breeched by the leading mass of the aircraft, the resistance to subsequent mass of the aircraft would have been reduced significantly.
Another point of physics that the NPTers like to malframe. They harp that the wings and tail should have bounced off of the structure. To a certain degree, they did but not as cohesive wholes. They tend to purposely misunderstand the physics involved by applying observations of relatively low velocity collisions (e.g., parking lot speeds, autobahn speeds) with what would be observed (in the MythBusters Rocket-slide videos and the Sandia F4 crash) at really high velocities. The energy available at very large velocities (velocity squared term) is sufficient to overcome internal structural energy of the material of the vehicle and therefore get shattered first before any bouncing may or may not occur. Close observation of the video and recognizing that from the distance to the camera, what appeared to be tiny pieces were actually much larger and were shattered wings and such.
Included in the evidence of real aircraft are 10 different instances of fragments of aircraft wheel assemblies found in various locations. My favorite is an aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 (remember the bolt failure points), was lying in the parking lot below, and was photographed from several angles before either tower was destroyed.
My second favorite is the engine that rocketed out of the corner of WTC-2, hit a roof of a Park Place building, and then landed near Church & Murray.
Let's be clear that none of the larger parts were ever serial numbered identified to match the alleged aircraft. For many other reasons including curious flight paths, incomplete take-off records, turned off transponders, speed & precision of flights, etc., some reasonable doubt exists whether or not the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. But the evidence is there of physical aircraft being involved.
// MCB
No comments:
Post a Comment