9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Peter Webb on 22 Mar 2010 07:51 >> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? > > F=ma. F=mg (weight) > What is YOUR theory for the increase in the value of 'a' beyond 'g' DURING > THE CRASH? > Let me get this straight. You think that the buildings fell faster than gravity?
From: Peter Webb on 22 Mar 2010 07:55 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:qNadnW-QUoQ_yTrWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba44860$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:0062820c-6e9b-470f-ab33-9319b7d454f6(a)f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 19, 5:38 pm, "Peter Webb" >> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:98207f45-eb2d-4e66-9790-0146aff82c80(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>> On Mar 19, 4:51 am, "Peter Webb" >>> >>> >>> >>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >news:acb2c267-cdca-4017-ba19-ccc89517d9d0(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >>> > On Mar 18, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb" >>> >>> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> > > You still haven't told us the TRUTH of what happened on 9/11. >>> >>> > > Why haven't you? >>> >>> > > What are you keeping it a secret? >>> >>> > > You must be a MOSSAD agent. >>> >>> > Yes. >>> > And I'm telling you it was an inside job. >>> > The short version is: >>> > Three buildings were illegally demolished by the Bush crime family and >>> > it's Neocon cronies world wide to trick the world into letting them >>> > get away with wars of aggression. >>> > G.H.W.B. has been a close friend of us here at the Mossad for many >>> > many >>> > years.http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ >>> >>> > ______________________________________ >>> >>> > Tell me the long version. >>> >>> > I have heard that the objects that crashed into the WTC, Pentagon and >>> > a >>> > field in Pennsylvania were not the commercial airplanes claimed by the >>> > government. >>> >>> > Were they? >>> >>> No way to tell. >>> >>> ____________________________________ >>> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? >> >> 4 Jets. >> Unknown origin. >> Remote controlled. >> Maybe had live Americans on board. >> >> _________________________________ >> Do you believe the planes that crashed into the twin towers were the >> planes claimed by the government? What do you believe the TRUTH to be? > > > Do you believe that the support structure was compromised by a controlled > demolition? No. > If not, then how did a force greater than the weight it was designed to > support come to act upon it, thus causing it to fail? It didn't. The "cause" of the collapse was the failure of the steel beams supporting one floor (the floor of the crash). These were weakened by fire to the extent that they could not support the upper structure (as they were designed to do) and a catastrophic pancake collapse ensued.
From: Peter Webb on 22 Mar 2010 07:57 >> __________________________________________ >> >> These sites all say the Government is wrong about 9/11. >> >> If that is the case, what REALLY happened on 9/11? > > Yes, what really imposed a load on the support sturcture which was greater > than the force it was designed to support? Nothing. It failed to support the weight that it should because it had been weakened by fire (and quite possibly mechanically deformed by the impact of the plane). > Or do you think it was compromised by a controlled demolition? > Obviously not. There is not a shred of evidence to support that, and it makes no sense at all. >> What is the TRUTH? > > How did 'a' in F=ma come to be greater than 'g'? > > >> Will you post, PLEASE ????? > > > Will you post, PLEASE? >
From: Remy McSwain on 22 Mar 2010 08:47 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba759ff$0$6090$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? >> >> F=ma. F=mg (weight) >> What is YOUR theory for the increase in the value of 'a' beyond >> 'g' DURING THE CRASH? >> > > Let me get this straight. You think that the buildings fell faster > than gravity? For you to come to that conclusion from what I said shows your complete lack of understanding of physics. In fact, it's exactly why you're so confused about how to analyze what it was that imposed more of a force in the support structure than it was designed to withstand. So answer the question.... Given that F=ma (which, in the case of weight, F=mg because a=g), and that the mass of the upper block didn't change appreciably, and that the structure was designed to support mg, then that would mean that for the structure to fail, the F being imposed upon the support structure had to be greater than mg. So that means that the 'a' DURING THE CRASH, had to be greater than 'a', right? If not, then tell us of F increased beyond mg. If so, then how did 'a' come to be greater than 'g' DURING THE CRASH?
From: Remy McSwain on 22 Mar 2010 08:52
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba75adf$0$19545$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:qNadnW-QUoQ_yTrWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4ba44860$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:0062820c-6e9b-470f-ab33-9319b7d454f6(a)f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >>> On Mar 19, 5:38 pm, "Peter Webb" >>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:98207f45-eb2d-4e66-9790-0146aff82c80(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Mar 19, 4:51 am, "Peter Webb" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >news:acb2c267-cdca-4017-ba19-ccc89517d9d0(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >>>> > On Mar 18, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb" >>>> >>>> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> > > You still haven't told us the TRUTH of what happened on >>>> > > 9/11. >>>> >>>> > > Why haven't you? >>>> >>>> > > What are you keeping it a secret? >>>> >>>> > > You must be a MOSSAD agent. >>>> >>>> > Yes. >>>> > And I'm telling you it was an inside job. >>>> > The short version is: >>>> > Three buildings were illegally demolished by the Bush crime >>>> > family and >>>> > it's Neocon cronies world wide to trick the world into >>>> > letting them >>>> > get away with wars of aggression. >>>> > G.H.W.B. has been a close friend of us here at the Mossad for >>>> > many >>>> > many >>>> > years.http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ >>>> >>>> > ______________________________________ >>>> >>>> > Tell me the long version. >>>> >>>> > I have heard that the objects that crashed into the WTC, >>>> > Pentagon and a >>>> > field in Pennsylvania were not the commercial airplanes >>>> > claimed by the >>>> > government. >>>> >>>> > Were they? >>>> >>>> No way to tell. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? >>> >>> 4 Jets. >>> Unknown origin. >>> Remote controlled. >>> Maybe had live Americans on board. >>> >>> _________________________________ >>> Do you believe the planes that crashed into the twin towers were >>> the planes claimed by the government? What do you believe the >>> TRUTH to be? >> >> >> Do you believe that the support structure was compromised by a >> controlled demolition? > > No. > >> If not, then how did a force greater than the weight it was >> designed to support come to act upon it, thus causing it to fail? > > It didn't. > > The "cause" of the collapse was the failure of the steel beams > supporting one floor (the floor of the crash). These were weakened > by fire to the extent that they could not support the upper > structure (as they were designed to do) and a catastrophic pancake > collapse ensued. And when it ensued, the upper block came crashing down upon the lower support structure. And then that support structure, which was designed to support the weight of that upper block, failed. So how did it come to be subjected to a greater force than mg? Is it your claim that the catastrophic crash never imposed a force upon the lower support structure of greater than mg? Yes or no? |