Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

flyingswan

I was not the one that brought up verticle loads... I only pointed out how they are important. What did I overlook? Swan should have spoken up well before now if he wanted to save face.

Why should I speak up to save your face?

I'm afraid you still have this problem with not making the effort to read and understand other people's posts. Sky mentioned the dynamic vertical loads that occurred in the collapse, but you ignored the word "dynamic" and made all sorts of claims based on that mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
bendigger0

I have also blamed Rice, our intelligence agencies and even the FAA for dropping the ball...

Dropping the ball is not unique to the United States...

Hitler dropped so many balls...

FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover, dropped the ball...

The Soviet Union dropped the ball...

Johnson dropped the ball...

Nixon dropped the ball.

Dropping the ball is nothing new and unfortunately...

dropping the ball will continue...

SKY >>> you are HILARIOUS ! I haven't seen so many "dropped balls" since the NY METS inaugural season. Is "damage control" a euphemism for "lie"? Now if only Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld would "I'm sorry..." Everything would be alright... :no:

Edited by bendigger0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What else do you want to call it... an accident?

.I don't think I've ever seen any kind of conformation of this claim, but please post it. I'm interested.

That's Newton. Not us. Argue with a dead man.

It was a collapse.

As far as the dust goes you are simply repeating truther nonsense without knowing anything about the issue.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/results.html

The results of analyses completed so far show a consistent picture: the samples are largely composed of gypsum, cellulose, and miscellaneous materials common in a building, with minor asbestiform minerals.

Here is an analysis of the dust.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_dust_composition.html

http://archive.org/stream/WorldTradeCenterStacMeetingPresentation-Cancer/WardWTCSTAC_JDedit_djvu.txt

What materials were present in the initial dust/smoke? Gypsum (major component of drywall

Concrete dust (cement dust, crystalline silica)

Glass fragments and man-made vitreous fibers

Asbestos

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's)

Metals (hexavalent chromium, nickel, arsenic)

Volatile organic compounds (benzene)

http://www.mvainc.com/2010/03/16/%E2%80%9Cmicroscopical-studies-of-world-trade-center-disaster-dust-particles%E2%80%9D/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/multimedia/wtc/wtc-dust.html#

http://wtcreflections.rjlg.com/science/

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/sem1/

As far as Newton goes you're wrong. The notion of least resistance is a truther nonsense. New ton states nothing of the sort. You need to go back and learn what Newtons laws are and what they mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I was not the one that brought up verticle loads... I only pointed out how they are important. What did I overlook? Swan should have spoken up well before now if he wanted to save face.

Maybe Flying Swan was stepping by your childish comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

And according to Einstein... he is to. But... they "are the natural laws" that work with reality. Once again... argue with a dead man

Yes.

Toilet paper offers no resistance to a brick.

Again your comments are inane and show that you know nothing whatsoever about Newton's laws.

There is no physics law about taking the path of least resistance. It's all about least energy.

PS you are wrong about the toilet paper and the brick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

"Do bullets follow the path of least resistance?"

There's you're question. Any body want to step up and say no?

The simple answer is NO. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, which is obvious from all of your posts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

PS you are wrong about the toilet paper and the brick.

Noticed how he dodged such a simple question requiring only a simple answer.

It is clear he showed less than a menial understanding of basic physics and reason why he continues to be wrong on such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

SKY >>> you are HILARIOUS ! I haven't seen so many "dropped balls" since the NY METS inaugural season. Is "damage control" a euphemism for "lie"? Now if only Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld would "I'm sorry..." Everything would be alright... :no:

Do you have anything other than innuendos to post? You've posted nothing of interest so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

As this thread seems to have degenerated in to almost nothing but derogatory personal remarks and given that the topic's size is creating slowdowns and is taking way too much time to load up I think it's time for a refresh on this particular subject.

Feel free to begin a new thread - this one has run its course.

Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.