I so agree!What a bunch of bwunk!?!?!? LOL
I Totally debunk your claim that 20 pilots could not hit the WTC, prove me wrong!
#4419
May 12, 2013
I so agree! I Totally debunk your claim that 20 pilots could not hit the WTC, prove me wrong! 

#4421
May 12, 2013
This last part makes your previous calculations worthless. The "sheering of columns" and spandrel plates is a massive energy sink, and there was lots of "sheering" going on in every direction, even in the freefalling upper block, where there shouldn't be any "sheering" at all!! 

#4423
May 12, 2013
Sure, Show your math! WOW, Precollapse sheering! Just add collapse and wind drag to the dangling aluminum. http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC_Fac... PS: Could you twoofers make up your mind, did it fall in it's own footprint or not? 

“ reality, what a concept” Since: Nov 07 30,817 this one 
#4424
May 12, 2013
Why "shouldn't" there be any sheering at all in the upper portions of the structure? They weren't falling intact, but collapsing themselves as they fell. The structure at the bottom couldn't support the weight now coming down on it, the upper part of the structure was itself collapsing, even as it collapsed onto the lower portion of the building. The sheering seen in the lower structure occurring in the upper portion of the building doesn't strike me as being as near as impossible as you claim it to be, especially without any sort of evidence to back your claim. At least you tried.

Since: Apr 13 40 Aït Melloul, Morocco 
#4427
May 12, 2013
For many it is difficult to stay happy and focused at work. This is because not a lot of people are enjoying what they are really doing. The problem is while you may never enjoy your work, you need compensation for your basic needs. This is the reason why you must learn how to find the right focus and inspiration to become and stay happy at work...More http://1topsuccess.blogspot.com/2013/04/howt...

#4428
May 12, 2013
Ahh, Perhaps your random trolling and senselessness generalizations left you confused. Wrong Board. http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04... 

Since: Apr 13 40 Aït Melloul, Morocco 
#4430
May 12, 2013
Why?

Since: Apr 13 40 Aït Melloul, Morocco 
#4432
May 12, 2013
OK freind

#4435
May 12, 2013
dazzle them with math (even though it makes no sense), that's why they hired me to support the official fairytale. 

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ” Since: Jul 11 11,194 POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET 
#4439
May 12, 2013
D dt (Z z(t) 0 μ(S)s˙(S)dS ) − g Z z(t) 0 μ(S)dS = − Fc(z, z˙)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; μ(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s˙(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crushdown differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 − (z)] dz
dt + μcl 2 [2 − (z)] dz dt ) − m(z)g = −Fc(z, z˙)(crushdown)(2) while the crushup differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 − (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y˙)(crushup)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crushup. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, μc = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + μcl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z˙)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 − )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Baˇzant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1− out)	 56;(z)/μc, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crushdown (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1− )+μc l(1−0.5 )]z¨W 22;mg = −Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1− )+μ cl(1−0.5 )]˙ ; z˙ = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z˙ the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯μ = d[m0(1 − )+ &# 956;cl(1 − 0.5 )]/dz = part of the impacted mass per unit height that remains within the tower perimeter. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the RungeKutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant μ = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz˙)˙ = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005). Yeah dat's wat i'm talking bout 
“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ” Since: Jul 11 11,194 POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET 
#4440
May 12, 2013
D dt (Z z(t) 0 μ(S)s˙(S)dS ) − g Z z(t) 0 μ(S)dS = − Fc(z, z˙)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; μ(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s˙(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crushdown differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 − (z)] dz
dt + μcl 2 [2 − (z)] dz dt ) − m(z)g = −Fc(z, z˙)(crushdown)(2) while the crushup differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 − (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y˙)(crushup)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crushup. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, μc = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + μcl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z˙)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 − )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Baˇzant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1− out)	 56;(z)/μc, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crushdown (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1− )+μc l(1−0.5 )]z¨W 22;mg = −Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1− )+μ cl(1−0.5 )]˙ ; z˙ = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z˙ the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯μ = d[m0(1 − )+ &# 956;cl(1 − 0.5 )]/dz. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. Upon setting v = z˙, Eq.(2) or (5) was converted to a system of two nonlinear firstorder differential equations for unknowns v(t) and z(t), which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the RungeKutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant μ = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz˙)˙ = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005). Dat's wat I'm talking bout 
“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ” Since: Jul 11 11,194 POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET 
#4441
May 12, 2013
Dat's why dose buildings fell down.
LOL . It wern't magik atall !?!?!? LOL 
Since: Jan 11 288 
#4442
May 12, 2013
maybe you can explian how not a single explosive detonation registered on any seismograph ..... or should we just ignore that little fact

Since: Jan 11 288 
#4443
May 12, 2013
or with another Sock Puppet with a hidden location

Since: Jan 11 288 
#4444
May 12, 2013
everybody with half a brain knows the buildings fell at free fall Speed

Since: May 10 2,100 YOUR MOM'S HOUSE 
#4445
May 12, 2013
And with your Face Please do not reproduce. Really... I mean it...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ” Since: Jul 11 11,194 POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET 
#4446
May 12, 2013
Ignore it cause it ain't true!?!?!?!?!? . There was lots of seismograph evidence. The govie interprets the data one way, unbiased scientists interpret it another. . Snot Magik either Huh Eh ! 
Since: Aug 11 35,136 Location hidden 
#4447
May 12, 2013
Nonsense. It would be impossible to do such a demolition. The chunks are expelled by air being squeezed out by the pancaking floors. 
#4448
May 12, 2013
I would have never imagined that pancakes could fart chunks 

“ reality, what a concept” Since: Nov 07 30,817 this one 
#4449
May 12, 2013
Oh come on, you're telling us that you're the only one who hasn't heard the story of your unplanned birth? 
Title  Updated  Last By  Comments 

Hard Reset Sony ST27i Xperia Go  1 min  hafacs  1 
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08)  1 min  River Tam  864,792 
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07)  1 min  June VanDerMark  599,779 
Lido Theater, Dallas (Mar '12)  1 min  courious SWF  361 
Why are there only Old White Men on the Ballot  1 min  Wake the Dead  1 
The Christian Atheist debate  1 min  HipGnosis  2,008 
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07)  1 min  WasteWater  6,476 
White Lives MATTER  1 hr  Burke Devlin  113 
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07)  5 hr  WasteWater  272,417 
Find what you want!
Search Top Stories Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC