They have the information readily available, all you have to do is ask for it. As someone that works in IT, that's SOP. Why take up space hosting something that only a meager fraction of Americans even care about anymore? Can you name any other company that does that? Even FedEx and UPS ditch tracking numbers after a certain amount of time. 9/11 was, going on, 14 years ago. By this time it's archived. If you can provide any evidence that an FOIA request has been denied in regards to this information then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. As it appears, you do not. The reason most people aren't upset is because the 9/11 truth movement, conspiracy theorists, and anyone else who truly believes the government was behind 9/11 is shrinking at a rapid pace. It might be important to you, but I assure you the majority of the U.S. understands that it was a terrorist act, committed by extremists to punish the West. Only about 6% of the entire world population actually believe that the U.S. government was directly involved. I know several people who have received FOIA requests, and multiple organizations that have as well. If you'd stop being so lazy, and actually do some research on your own you could find the answers to these questions. I know, the internets are tough to use, but sometimes you have to do things for yourself. Oh, who am I kidding, you're a truther. Truthers never do things on their own, they rely on retarded youtube videos, and other morons to tell them how to think. So here's a link to the FAQ area regarding FOIA requests. I'll be awaiting your furthered whining about things you have absolutely no idea about.
simple physics question 4 U is something that is descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, exerting 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? yes, no ..... maybe? what?
Obviously you don't know an insult from a statement of fact, you posted 100% in response to my question about how much of the weight of an object descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, that is how much of its weight would be expressed against whatever is under said falling object. I'd most strongly recommend that you re-think your position on this subject.
Gravity is pulling 100% of the mass downward,Bob....I contend that YOU are the one in need of a refresher course in physics
Does the mass, express 100% of its weight against whatever is under it at the time? and if it is accelerating downward at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, its only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it.
No bob,you're confused...100% of the weight-is expressed on what is below,It's gravitational MASS increases in force,like a hammer does a nail. Try driving a nail by just placing the hammer on the head of a nail and pushing.
You have missed the point, oops! the problem with the hammer & nail analogy is that in the case of the descent of the upper mass allegedly destroying the lower bit of the building the "pile driver" keeps going and indeed accelerating at 64% of the acceleration of gravity and allegedly destroying the building in the process, however, like with the hammer & nail demonstration, in order to actually express that energy, the hammer has to STOP. now do you see?
the expression of the energy from a hammer is done by swinging it,and hitting the nail the hammer stops,not by anything involving the nail,but the force used to swing the hammer
exactly how is what I wrote wrong? - - - Updated - - - The expression of energy happens when the hammer hits the nail and stops because it has used up the energy that it had.
For the record, saying the hammer "used up the energy" and saying it was "used in driving the nail" are slightly different phrases. The first is sloppy, implying the energy vanished. The second is more cogent, and shows an understanding of the hammer/nail event, but a more precise phrasing, keeping in touch the physics theme, the energy was transferred to the nail. Normally people don't talk this precisely. But normally people are not debunking junk science.
To say the energy was "USED UP" does NOT imply that the energy vanished, the energy of course was used in driving the nail. The fact of the matter is that you are leaning on a semantics argument rather than addressing the fact that a falling body at 64% of the acceleration of gravity can only express 36% of its weight against whatever is under it and the ONLY way to make that a larger figure is to have the falling object either slow down or stop.
An even simpler example for Bob,lets see if can mess this up...take two cinder blocks,stand them on end,place a 5 foot section of 1x4 across them,then walk to the middle of it from one end.and stand there,odss are you can do this,with the board bending, and not breaking.... Is your full weight evident on the board? now get a chair or a ladder,and set it beside the blocks and the 1x4 so you can jump in the middle of the board,then do so. What do you think will happen,bob? I weigh 220 pounds,but do you think it would still break if I weighed say 150 pounds?,if not,why? And how much of my weight would be hitting the board?
Try that stunt with bare feet .... can U say equal & opposite reaction? The fact is that in every case you cite, there would have to be energy transfer that demands the slowing down or indeed stopping of the original moving object. You can not have your cake & eat it...... There are two major problems with the official explanation. 1. the uniformity of the acceleration of the upper mass. 2. the fact of total destruction of the tower(s) The taxpayer funded "report" contains the statement " total collapse was inevitable .......... " Right, the ONLY out-come possible once the building started to fail was "TOTAL COLLAPSE" REALLY PEOPLE? this is a good bit more than "incredulity" this is about common sense.
Bare feet?...And the 'energy transfer' from my mass would be sufficient to break the board,and the only thing that would stop me,as it did the towers on 9/11,would be the ground. Congrats Bob,you messed it up again.
Considering the fact that it is an unknown, that is the actual mass of the upper 17 stories of the North tower, and also the distribution of said mass, ( very critical factor ) so what magic is it that ALL of the floors below the 93rd floor of the tower should have been completely destroyed by the falling rubble? To destroy a building, it not only takes energy, but that energy needs to be focused. without focus, you have incomplete demolition. what wand wielding wizard caused this?
and again you insist that "gravity" and gravity alone guided all that rubble to a path that would guarantee total destruction of the tower(s). Damn good trick .....
