Posted on 11/21/2007 9:31:52 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Apparently, America's greatest patriot was on Loonwaffle/Trooferville's favorite radio show today with the King Nutbar himself, although I'm not sure if anyone grabbed audio.
If you want to listen to the rebroadcast stream, go here. I don't feel like it. Have fun.
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
In other words, the collapse of the WTC towers released over a kiloton of TNT's worth of energy. And a large amount of that energy was converted into heat in the pile of debris. No conspiracy needed.
Are you effin kiddin me? All the stories/op-eds I see have Paul treated with kid gloves!
LOL
They're not "hanging out" type friends. He's a friend in the sense that Paul can sit down with and discuss the issues freely without worrying about being treated like a leper when he's interviewed by Hannity or O'Reilly, for example.
I guess he would take part in Jones’ documentaries, such as Matrix of Evil, because he was shooting the breeze?
My understanding is that he appeared in the documentaries in screen shots with no speaking part. Even if he had a starring role and a nude scene, who cares? You guys aren't going to vote for Paul anyway, that's whats funny about all of this. You're making a big stink over someone who supposedly "can't win" anyway. If Paul is courting moonbats, then let him destroy his candidacy then and reasonable voters will look at the other candidates. But the more you guys are highlighting all of this, the more people keep digging and getting the real facts and end up being supporters of Paul. BTW - Paul just crossed $9 million dollars for the 4Q. ROFL!
Show me anyone else in the media (if you consider Jones media) Paul and his campaign has done more interviews with or spent more time with?
Good God, he only talked with Jones 4 or 5 times over the course of a year. You'd think he was guest-hosting the show!
BTW - Here's HALEY BARBOUR speaking with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens and JOHN ASHCROFT speaking with the white supremacist Southern Partisan magazine. Both Barbour & Ashcroft served in some capacity in the GOP and Bush administration, respectively.
Major media for the most part have ignored Paul. The positive articles about Paul comes from the blogs and comment sections of newspapers.
Now excuse me, I'm done mopping the thread with you guys. I got a football game to watch!
“Penn and Teller do not tell me where the pools of molten steel come from.”
Are you going to tell me that firs does NOT melt steel?
..and you know this how? Are you personal friends with Paul and he has told you this or are you reading your own guess into it?
My understanding is that he appeared in the documentaries in screen shots with no speaking part.
I see you haven't watched them have you? Matrix of Evil is available on line for free viewing and Paul is speaking all through it, most of which is at the same meeting, hosted by Alex Jones himself who introduced Paul.
Paul just crossed $9 million dollars for the 4Q. ROFL!
By this standard, you must love Obama and Hillary, they are raising a lot of money to.
Good God, he only talked with Jones 4 or 5 times over the course of a year. You'd think he was guest-hosting the show!
I see you conveniently avoided the question. Maybe I'll expand it. Not only would I like to know if there is any other media outlet Paul has appeared on as much as Jones, I would like to know if Jones has had any other guest on as much as Paul..
Would you (or someone else) please explain to me what possible reason the Great Conspiracy would have had for destroying WTC-7? The symbolism associated with bringing down the Twin Towers is obvious. Bringing down a nearby building of no particular symbolic importance would have been meaningless and particularly so since there was no third plane to provide a plausible explanation. Taking down the Twin Towers would have been enough. Why risk the operation by going after a third building in that complex?
For your reading pleasure. I hope this clears up some questions for you. The answers to all your questions about 9/11 are out there, you just need to research them.
RE: Molten Steel
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
RE: Thermite
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
RE: Stephen Jones
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
If you have time to watch the video here it will give you some information surrounding some of the myths of 9/11.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
And their forum site is packed with lots of myth debunking truth and if you don’t see the answer to your question you can just ask and someone will direct you to it I’m sure.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showforum=1
Physicists have demonstrated that even assuming the entire gravitational potential energy were converted to heat (with no loss for pulverization, etc.), the amount of energy involved is not sufficient to melt the steel.
The information is not perfect, as there were no formal assessments of the pools, but they are described in numerous publications. As to the question of structural steel versus “easily melted” steel, even assuming the material was pure iron, it should not have melted.
This Troofer crap is not, as I understand it, welcome here. Ping for clarification.
These are good links, which I will spend some time with when not trying to get Thanksgiving Dinner on the table. But the molten metal link focuses upon the release of some molten metal in photographs out the side of the building which it persuasively argues is aluminum. The question that remains for me is where did molten pools of steel at the bottom come from? The only explanation offered, that the pools could have been molten aluminum with organic and other impurities, is not very persuasive given the other evidence and the nature of what happens to impurities in molten metal, as well as the need for larger heat masses to radiate as indicated in the thermal imaging weeks later. There are also photographs of steel beams with melted tips, and beams radiating at colors associated with temperatures not explained by mere fire; the link’s claim that colors mean nothing is not persuasive either.
Puh-leeze. You are saying that a kiloton of TNT equivalent is not enough to melt a portion of the steel? That's a pathetic joke, and you're a pathetic loser for buying into the wingnut stuff.
I think you have drank way too much koolaid and you want to believe there is a conspiracy, so you keep grasping for one straw.
RE: More on Molten Steel
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-molten-steel-at-wtc-site.html
I’ll keep looking for other reports I’ve seen because I know this won’t be enough for you.
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
Now all the brainwashed sheeple of his are going to be spinning and denying that he was really on the show just like they deny that he wrote all those letters, and takes support from racists and neo-nazis, etc.
“My understanding is that Ron Paul has no interest in running as a third party. I’m sure that his “giving up” after he loses the nomination won’t sit well with his legion of net.followers, though, so who knows.”
Hell they’ll all end up voting for hillary anyways.
EXACTLY!!!
They all tend to see in Ron Paul just what they want to see -- not what's really there.
They also run from the title "Libertarian" like it was garlic to a vampire. None of them have the strength to admit that Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He has just changed his flag because he knows he has no chance to win a national election as a Libertarian.
It is one of the strangest phenomenons of this election season.
10 terms? A long time for a reformer candidate who supported term limits and promised to limit his service to two terms.
He's a fraud and a lier, which makes him a perfect political candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.