Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
..... Consider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power?Got to hand it to you. That sure sounds like Al Queda and ISIS, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
TRUMP
LIBERTY
UNIVERSITY
SORORITY LIFE He's looking his age.   And they know it...  At a $hundred each, plus a free T-shirt, that isn't much over $3600... a mere pittance for someone of Trump's financial stature.  Which one is your favorite? And no, you cannot vote for me... Please let us know which one you are, so nobody votes for you by accident. I know, I know. You won't tell us, because then we would all vote for you on purpose. They are all my favorites... It's foolish to think these girls would have had to be paid $100 to pose. There are plenty who would pose with Trump immediately without any thought of money. FYI, had lunch today with two lifelong Democrats who were totally pro Trump. But they wouldn't have said it unless I opened the subject first. |
|
|
|
Millette's samples do not display the same behavior as Harrit's under exposure to MEK. Millette used this as an excuse to NOT attempt to reproduce the findings that the reaction is violent and resulted in molten iron spheres under the argument that his results indicate no elemental aluminium an thus cannot be of the thermite family. This indicates to me both that his results are invalid, and that he is a fraud.
Evidence abounds of a cover-up on many fronts. To wit, one would expect to find a multitude of shills working in various fronts at the behest of the perpetrators. Millette would appear to be an anticipated example of such.
I've not looked at Millette's paper yet since my workstation fails to verify the issue's certificate authority. Perhaps later I'll try on a machine with a less secure operating system where I use more relaxed security protocols.
Here are some brief sections of Millette. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles
Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.
Nano-thermite ....is made up of approximately 2 nanometer iron oxide particles and approximately 30 nanometer aluminum metal spheres The differences in size of the FeO being 100-200 nm and the requirement for about 2 nanometer size for the "nano-thermite" are not reconcilable. Period. The lack of the (more or less) 30 nm AL spheres is conclusive. Obviously, for "regular thermite" normal size powdered metals are satisfactory. |
|
|
|
Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
You mean cutting a horse's head off, then shooting it, then driving over it with a truck isn't necessary? |
|
|
|
I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and its properties are well documented. Umm....NO. Particle sizes and burn rates are huge differences. Look at my note about nano particle aluminum being the fuel for torpedoes. Change the particle size, that does not work. What I am saying is that one must get very specific on "nano-thermite" or otherwise it is a nebulous term that can have any characteristics you want. Regardless, we can agree to use "standard iron oxide thermite." ....
Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.
You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives? I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it. I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.
Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic. .... Come on, that's not fair. I only said I was trying to think of a simple way to explain it. Here goes. The WTC towers were by volume, about 10% steel, concrete, etc - building structure, and 90% air - working spaces. Then one falls. All material goes downward. Material fragments in the process. By the time 10 stories have pancaked, there is in that area pretty much a solid mass of building material. It is no longer 90% air. Once the density of material reaches a certain number - you pick it, 30%, 50%, 70%, then that area or section is effectively presents a solid mass to materials coming down from above. Then they move sideways because that's all they can do. Now do you seriously want to argue that 0.2% of the PE of a beam cannot translate into sideways movement? Really? We could agree that the debris pile from a 200 foot x 200 feet building extended 5 feet further out than the original perimeter. That's sideways motion. It extended 200 feet. Again, that's sideways motion. It extended 500 feet. That's sideways motion. |
|
|
|
....
I produced an argument based on first semester college physics as to why satellite temperature measurements are superior to ground temperature averages, it's up to you to refute it, or argue against it, or fall back on the "belief".
I don't care what you do, think or believe. If you're through trying to argue that ground based temperatures are superior, then you're through.
I don't know if i said they are superior. They are preferred. The only reason they are not preferred is if you want to cherry pick the data and measure something slightly different than the aspect of global warming that will directly impact us.Repeating to cut through your misrepresentations appears necessary. The original question was a valid question. "Which is better for measuring global temperature, satellite or the ground temperature network?"
My answer was that due to non equilibrium thermodynamics, the ground temperature network would have to be discarded as a possible answer. Asserting "something is preferred" is not even answering the question. Neither is it even true that they are preferred, but that's another issue. Neither is it true about cherry picking vis a vis use of satellite temperature measurements, as there is no other option for measuring temperatures at various strata in the atmosphere, and there is no option other than thermometers and ship engine monitors for measuring temperatures near the ground. Neither is your use of the phrase "cherry picking" accurate or appropriate. Cherry picking: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. But what is the position? You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming." You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion. That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use. This is all in your head. There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded. None. Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal. Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things. Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior. |
|
|
|
..... Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.) The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular. From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf: Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...
I would not want the stuff coating my house if a spark from a random short circuted wire could set it off. Possibly this was associated with the short-notice power disturbances which impacted on-site datacenter deployments. I mean, taking certain vacant and prepped floors out of service for safety reasons. .... "the stuff" is exactly what your house would have if it was done with a 1970s era primer, because that's what the "red/gray chips" were, primer paint. Look at the Millet study that debunked Harriet - 'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.' ' Conclusions The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.' Millette is actually an expert at this type of study, so he didn't make the rookie mistakes they did. He used FTIR, for one thing. He took the guesswork and speculation out of it, and found nothing remarkable. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=015_1330900552 |
|
|
|
One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive. In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.
Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives. There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite. None whatsoever. In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it. Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different. For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone. Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive. Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them. Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.) The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular. From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf: Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...
No to the kJ/g "estimates." They are in excess of yields from thermite. So what to the "ignites." Paint ignites. This material was not thermite or nano-thermite, it was primer paint. Yes, paint contains metal and metal oxides. No, paint does not explode. I don't doubt that conventional high explosives were employed in convential ways to acomplish certain tasks.
Eliminating the fantasy stuff about fantasy nano-thermite is a step forward. Then you are simply left with the question of whether an energy source other than jets, fire and potential energy is required to explain the events. |
|
|
|
^^^^ There is a large shift of voting pattern among the blue collar whites (especially among middle-aged males). They are increasingly supporting Trump, as the Democrats have done nothing to reduce the unemployment rates among this section. I am not sure about the women, but it seems that a number of them have changed their loyalties as well. This is a fight for the very survival.
Yes, the old "working man core" of the Democratic party was farmers and industrial workers, the latter becoming "the unions." The party's changed to appeal to the free stuff crowd, so it makes sense that these segments would be more attracted to Trump. Tough problem. I can see guys that wear hard hats on the job, who have always voted Democratic, whose families and towns have always voted Democratic, being between a rock and a hard place with Hillary and Saunders. I can see them going Saunders. Then with the unethical way the votes all went to Hillary, I can see them going Trump. They might vote for Trump for prez, then Demo all the rest of the way down the ticket. Now go into a ghetto, there it's straight line Democratic voting. Look, you just need to make all those damn voters into beggars. They are so much easier to please then! <sarcasm> |
|
|
|
One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive. In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.
Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives. There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite. None whatsoever. In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it. Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different. For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone. Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive. Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them. |
|
|
|
What's "far away?" Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence." It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.
Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force. What is "far away"? Lets examine that. Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor.  The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse. Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory. Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile. To an extent I agree with you. "Toppling down a debris pile" wasn't precisely what I had in mind. Rather I wanted to illustrate the massive amounts of potential energy in each of these pieces of the building when they were up in the air. The translation of just a small part of this energy into sideways motion easily results in the sideways displacement. What percentage? 40,000 required for sideways movement/24,000,000 joules PE = 0.16% (this is for that one column fragment previously discussed, eg 4 ton section A36 steel) Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement. You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives? I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it. I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well. |
|
|
|
Hidden Microphones Exposed As Part of Government Surveillance Program In The Bay Areahttp://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/13/hidden-microphones-exposed-as-part-of-government-surveillance-program-in-the-bay-area/OAKLAND (CBS SF) — Hidden microphones that are part of a clandestine government surveillance program that has been operating around the Bay Area has been exposed.
Imagine standing at a bus stop, talking to your friend and having your conversation recorded without you knowing. It happens all the time, and the FBI doesn’t even need a warrant to do it.
Federal agents are planting microphones to secretly record conversations.
Jeff Harp, a KPIX 5 security analyst and former FBI special agent said, “They put microphones under rocks, they put microphones in trees, they plant microphones in equipment. I mean, there’s microphones that are planted in places that people don’t think about, because that’s the intent!”
FBI agents hid microphones inside light fixtures and at a bus stop outside the Oakland Courthouse without a warrant to record conversations, between March 2010 and January 2011.
Federal authorities are trying to prove real estate investors in San Mateo and Alameda counties are guilty of bid rigging and fraud and used these recordings as evidence.
Harp said, “An agent can’t just go out and grab a recording device and plant it somewhere without authorization from a supervisor or special agent in charge.”
The lawyer for one of the accused real estate investors who will ask the judge to throw out the recordings, told KPIX 5 News that, “Speaking in a public place does not mean that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy…private communication in a public place qualifies as a protected ‘oral communication’… and therefore may not be intercepted without judicial authorization.”
Harp says that if you’re going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home. He says that was the original intention of the Fourth Amendment, but it’s up to the judge to interpret it. Guess this strikes off talking to myself at the bus stop to boost my self esteem.  Uber, here I come! |
|
|
|
I suppose that's the difference between Satanists and Satan Worshipers... Satan Worshipers, actually worship some imaginary angel named Satan, and do crazy shit Satanists will never say, "Satan made me do it", because they do not believe Satan is real... at best Satan is a metaphor (not for evil, but for skepticism and challenging the status-quo... in the bible, Ha-Satan is not evil, he is simply "the accuser")  This is a really stupid Satan, because those wings will not support his weight. He will have a lift to drag ratio of about 1:666. Of course that can be overcome with power, but I have heard he's pretty much lacking in power to rise up. |
|
|
|
^^^^ There is a large shift of voting pattern among the blue collar whites (especially among middle-aged males). They are increasingly supporting Trump, as the Democrats have done nothing to reduce the unemployment rates among this section. I am not sure about the women, but it seems that a number of them have changed their loyalties as well. This is a fight for the very survival.
Yes, the old "working man core" of the Democratic party was farmers and industrial workers, the latter becoming "the unions." The party's changed to appeal to the free stuff crowd, so it makes sense that these segments would be more attracted to Trump. |
|
|
|
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period. OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium. A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible. The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant. A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout. I see your point, but as a couple of others have said, I'm not sure why ground temperature data is as dismissable as you say - it seems a reasonable measure of aggregate global warming to me. However, I've been reading some information from here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm and I have to say, the satellite data seems to corroborate the surface temp data. Thanks for your reply, I have been on the fence re: warming for a number of years, all I want is some well thought-out conclusions in relation to the actual data. I'm no expert, but I am studying a science degree and appreciate every line of questioning regarding this subject. One interesting way to answer this is to apply the question to other fields. For example, just for discussion, I make the following assertion. Ground temperature and other ground sensor data are as good as satellite data. We can use our ground weather station networks to predict weather.Reality. No, you can't, unless you want to go backwards to 1950s level weather forecasting accuracy. We're now up to ten days with fairly accurate weather forecasting. You'd be going back to three day accuracy. Note regarding bolded above, this is not relevant when we look at the accuracy and precision of a measurement. Further, of course two differing styles of measurements of temperature should "correlate." We could say "satellite and ground temperatures do seem similar between night and day."The variance would simply reflect the differences and those would be the sum of - from real world differences - measurement style differences - precision differences. The original question was a valid question. "Which is better for measuring global temperature, satellite or the ground temperature network?" My answer was that due to non equilibrium thermodynamics, the ground temperature network would have to be discarded as a possible answer. Reject that, and you might as well follow it up with this style of answer regarding finding water in the ground. "Water witching has worked out well in the past, I think it's perfectly fine. Go get a coat hanger and let's do it." |
|
|
|
Both sides of this debate are too fear driven. Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.
The non-partisan facts appear to be:
Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.
Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.
As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).
So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.
It's been argued, I think quite convincingly, that Warmers who want to control other peoples' behavior to "save the planet" are not going to stop regardless of what technology comes to exist. This is because we are seeing control freaks in action. They want control, period. Overall, though, your post makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive. In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation. ....
"Reactive" means simply that it will very, very shortly be "not reactive." |
|
|
|
....people believe him because he's a show man, he knows what to say, what most of the people want to hear and when things need to be said.....
You mean, like Obama? |
|
|
|
Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?
Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video. As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so? What's "far away?" Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence." It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam. I guess it's up to whoever makes the claim "bone fragments were found far away" to support his claim that somehow this is evidence or proof of explosives. As I've already shown, the kinetic energy of position at 1000 feet alone is orders of magnitude higher than is required to move things a few hundred feet sideways. A piece of debris from an aircraft colliding with a tower, if it continued forward at it's initial velocity for ten seconds would come to rest over a mile away. Many of the bone fragments found were like 1-2mm in size, these would decelerate quickly from the plane's velocity but would be moved by the wind. So what exactly is "far away?" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
