gdalton

I hope it's reynolds heavy duty, I think they have found a way to get through the thinner foils, I prefer to double mine up.

Calm2Chaos

Sprinkle it with salt also.. That really helps

__________________
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
--Thomas Jefferson--

gdalton

Yes, salt, I can see how that would help disperse their hypno rays. Brilliant, I will get to it immediately.

Lucidthots

Hey, did Stalin and Hitler exist or was that just a myth?

Maybe all of History is just a myth?

You guys are too frightened to open your eyes to the truth.

So, have fun sticking your head in the sand!

Dont be surpried when a boot comes along and kicks you in the ass.

__________________
~There is no religion higher than truth~ H.P. Blavatsky

SKILMATIC

That just about sums it up. Ok next thread. Cause this ones done.

Lucidthots

Ever heard of Lyman Lemnitzer?

__________________
~There is no religion higher than truth~ H.P. Blavatsky

arussian

Didga has shown impossibility of pan-cake version of WTC1&2 collapse (click to see)
Consequently, it means that the cores of the buildings were ruined.
There are two possibilities:
1) the core has ruined because of the change in distribution of weights.
Due to the inclination of the upper part columns of facade couldn't carry the corresponding weight and it has all loaded on the columns of core. They were unable to cope with such an overload.
2) The core was ruined because of explosives.

Let us consider first option #1 on the example of WTC2 (South Tower). How much was the overload of its core. If we assume that the part of the WTC2 building above the fire was 30%, then the additional load on the core will be 40%* of this, which is 12% of the total weight. Could this additional load simultaneously ruin the whole core structure just to the very bottom?
And notice it has ruined it in both in the upper and lower part! (look at the pics from the above cited post with Didgas explanation). Which is of course very, very strange, because either some structure presses on the below parts, or it falls aside being pulverized and dispersed (then it doesn't substantially affect them).


__________
* it was stated in Homburger et al. (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm) that columns of the core carried 60% of the overrall weight of the building, while those of facade 40%.

arussian

Now let us consider the second option. The cores of WTC1&2 were ruined by the explosives.
Why do we say that they were?
Simply because they were! No "coulds" no "woulds" in these cases.

Just look at these powerful outbursts of pulverized concreate directed upwards.


These are explosions, nothing else but explosions!
If you doubt, OK look at these squibs explosions. Their pattern is specific for controlled demolitions. The squibs explosions as you see precede the collapse.


And these squibs


and those as well.


Enough?
Explosions those ruined the WTC1&2 are the matter of fact not the matter of ideas and explanations!

If you are going to deny obvious facts, it is your business. But then some questions about your mental sanity arise.

Actually there is nothing to debate any more in this topic except the pathological denial of facts that occurs in some persons. What are the causes of such a primitive and maladaptative psychological defense?

Lucidthots

YEAH!!!

ARUSSIAN YOU ROCK!

__________________
~There is no religion higher than truth~ H.P. Blavatsky

teacher

And you blew it.

Didga, Arussian, Lucidthots, the three stooges of scientific deduction. The three of you reading from a recipe couldn't make a peanut butter jelly sandwich. Let alone reach a plausible theory on the WTC. A puff of smoke coming out of collapsing buildings that are on fire and you three goo in your pants. Have you Einsteins considered the forces at work in a structure fire? The changing pressures? Since logic and science has no effect on you future Nobel Prize recipients, ever see the movie Backdraft? There is just no end to the assumptions and illogic that goes into your posts. It's like you are consciously trying to appear a stupid as possible. If that is so you succeeding. Explain to me the lack of a fireball in your little "explosions". Debris flying is proof of explosions? Nothing can possibly be ejected forcefully in tons of collapsing debris in your view. I don't know where to begin shredding you little theory and I won't. At this point it's beneath me. I've mounds of posts in this thread and have continually asked you geniuses to find fault in any of it. Never a reply, you just ignore it and continue on with your fantasies. Pathological denial of facts eh? My posts on this you seem to pathologically deny even exists because you don't have the intelligence to understand let alone critic it.


Didga: Hey arussian, let me see that.
arussian: Certainly.
Lucidthots: Hey, watch it with that blowtorch.
Didga: Why you I oughta....