[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Billy there was an interesting Q and A session with the Artemius crew about 20 mins ago from this post about whether or not they could see stars and how the earth looked and a whole bunch of other interesting questions. I think you should check it out if you get time.
https://web.archive.org/web/201112081928...That's the article I think. I'm not sure how much it changed over the years or why they seemingly decided to eventually take it down entirely but it does include the quote "indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structu
Excellent find, sir.
Controlled demolition is also debunked.
Notably, the "holes" have no other explanation.
The links at the end are to military sources - it is they who speak of energy weapon technology, space-based and otherwise. Drs Wood and Reynolds follow the evidence and arrive at the conclusion of DEWs.
There are also links there also to the info in where did the towers go - although not everything is covered so the book is still required.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy there was an interesting Q and A session with the Artemius crew about 20 mins ago from this post about whether or not they could see stars and how the earth looked and a whole bunch of other interesting questions. I think you should check it out if you get time.
Watched a few bits here and there. What in particular?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy there was an interesting Q and A session with the Artemius crew about 20 mins ago from this post about whether or not they could see stars and how the earth looked and a whole bunch of other interesting questions. I think you should check it out if you get time.
If you're going to watch sci-fi, put Star wars or something on. NASA productions don't have lasers or anything. I mean they haven't even blown something up since the 80's, so boring and the most fake looking.
If there were a way to rig my computer so that it blew up like a grenade the moment billy posted an actual map of the flat earth as he understands it, I would still feel totally comfortably carrying my computer around in a backpack.
Ohh that gives me an idea. Let's see how well summoning works.
*clears throat*
Uh, yeah, and similarly, if there was a way to rig my computer so that it blew up the instant DeucesMcCracken posted actual compelling evidence of molten steel at ground zero, I would sleep like a baby right next to it every night.
Usual strategy of clogging up thread with BS as soon as a point gets made that smashes your 9/11 fantasy.
Explain the holes.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Deflections noted.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, the fact that nobody wants to talk about your dumb**** crackhead space laser fantasy is not pRoJeCtIoN dEfLeCtIoN aD hOm.
Now explain why my torus model is any more ridiculous or less likely than your flat model. All the evidence you admit fits both. Or are you deflecting?
I just looked at billy and Judy's bombshell report his panties are in a wad about. It's exactly like what I told you he would present about 50 pages ago.
Photos of the cleanup sites weeks later asking where all the debris is. In almost every photo you can see cleanup equipment in the background.
And he's asking how there are holes in the roof of surrounding buildings when the 3 skyscrapers that dwarfed them collapsed downward.
Truly groundbreaking stuff.
I just looked at billy and Judy's bombshell report his panties are in a wad about. It's exactly like what I told you he would present about 50 pages ago.Photos of the cleanup sites weeks later asking where all the debris is. In almost every photo you can see cleanup equipment in the background.And he's asking how there are holes in the roof of surrounding buildings when the 3 s
You mean... they're just a bunch of dumbass conspiracy nutjobs? Well **** me with a fish fork, I was really hoping that after the flat earth fiasco, Billy might really be on to something here.
I had to laugh at one of the captions of the pictures purporting to show a lack of debris that said "it looks like you could drive a jeep down that road!"
You think? During cleanup they might clear the road so they could drive down it? Just fing imbeciles.
Deflection noted.
Explain the holes.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
But the buildings didn't collapse, hence no debris, hence no holes.
Ad hoc noted.
Sent from Artemis II totally not on the far side of the moon.
I mean, could be collapse debris hitting the buildings. Or could be space lasers. I guess it's 50/50 - either it is space lasers, or it isn't.
Or perhaps our friend Occam can help us out here, huh, Billy?
We talked about this before, Billy - deflection is what you do, not us. Usually to score an own goal.
But the buildings didn't collapse, hence no debris, hence no holes.
Ad hoc noted.
Sent from Artemis II totally not on the far side of the moon.
On the contrary, we will assume falling debris caused the holes and test this against the evidence.
See the web page here for further pics:
https://web.archive.org/web/201111300910...
I have selected an image for reference that shows the vertical view and the view from inside the sheared hole. This is WTC6, adjacent to WTC1.
The biggest piece of debris alleged to have come down is known as "the meteor". This is "4 to 5 floors of the north tower" compressed. Its mass is 12 to 15 tons. We will say 15 tons, this is 13.61 tonnes, or 13 608 kg. This is the biggest possible debris that could have hit WTC6 and caused the hole.
The weight of "the meteor" is 13 608 kg x 9.81 N/kg = 133 494 N.
We next ask, what is the maximum shear stress this object could cause? Shear stress is force per unit area where the area is the shear area parallel to the direction of the force. The hole is approximately a circle of diameter 24 feet. The height of the hole is 8 floors x 3.79 m = 30.32 m. But we will just have a test case of one floor, approximately 10 cm thick. The shear area is the curved surface area of the approximate cylinder, which is 2 x pi x radius x height.
WTC floors were about 10 cm thick concrete (google). The shear area of a slab of concrete is thus:
Shear area = 2 x pi x 3.7 m x 0.1 m = 2.3 m^2.
Shear stress = force / area = 133 494 N / 2.3 m^2 = 58 000 Pa.
The shear strength of concrete is an absolute minimum of 2 MPa (google), un-reinforced.
Hence the shear stress caused by "the meteor", assuming the meteor even hit WTC6, is about 3% of the shear strength required to shear one of the concrete floors.
Therefore falling debris did not cause the hole in WTC6.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Don't really understand exactly what you are trying to work out here, and, how do I put this diplomatically, clarity of exposition is not one of your many and varied talents, but intuitively I don't get why you're multiplying by the height of the cylinder, and in fact the definition of "shear stress" specifically says "force / cross sectional area". You are calculating surface area. Since your height is 0.1 it looks like you're off by a factor of 10 in the denominator.
Next, I don't think I understand why we're working with the static weight of the falling object. Surely velocity has to be in there somewhere. A bullet sitting on a piece of paper doesn't make a hole but it does when fired at it from a gun.
And I don't understand why we're working with shear stress anyway. I don't think shear stress is what makes holes when objects impact each other. Shear stress appears to be the strain an object experiences when one end of it is pulled/pushed to the side while the other remains fixed, or the two ends are pulled in opposite directions.
All in all this looks like you're calculating something completely irrelevant, and calculating it incorrectly to boot.
Even if I'm wrong about the area and about shear stress, the fact that velocity doesn't appear anywhere in your calculations and you're supposed to be some sort of whiz at physics is pretty ****ing lol. By your logic a bullet does the same damage resting on your forehead as it does when fired at it.
Don't really understand exactly what you are trying to work out here, and, how do I put this diplomatically, clarity of exposition is not one of your many and varied talents, but intuitively I don't get why you're multiplying by the height of the cylinder, and in fact the definition of "shear stress" specifically says "force / cross sectional area". You are calculating surface
One reasonable point you make is that possibly an impulse model is more appropriate. But it will not make a difference to the overall result. Feel free to do that.
The rest is a hopeless gish gallop of wrongness.
The reason you do not understand is not my excellent exposition. You must read up the correct definitions, then you will understand.
You say that stress is strain. Stress is measured in pascals and is effectively a pressure. Strain has no units, it is simply the proportion a material extends or compresses relative to its original length.
Second, you are confusing direct stress with shear stress. Direct stress is the force per unit cross sectional area. That would be the stress exerted on an approximate circle in our case. This is also at play but the correct model here is shear stress - the area over which the shear force acts is the curved cylindrical area hence we must multiply by the height. Notice the correct formula is 2 x pi x radius x height. Not pi x radius squared - that would be the direct area.
Why is shear the correct model? Because according to the photos, the entire face of WTC6 is SHEARED down from the top 8th floor to the base. Same with all of the other strange holes. I did not even consider the metallic shear. The shear strength of mild steel is at least 180 MPa (google).
An easy example of shear stress is a hole punch. Extend this to a device that punches holes in sheet metal. The correct area is, of course, the curved cylindrical area inside the hole. For direct stress the correct area is circular.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Even if I'm wrong about the area and about shear stress, the fact that velocity doesn't appear anywhere in your calculations and you're supposed to be some sort of whiz at physics is pretty ****ing lol. By your logic a bullet does the same damage resting on your forehead as it does when fired at it.
You are most definitely wrong about that, see above.
Feel free to give a change in momentum model but just saying "no velocity therefore lol" is not an argument.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
