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: knews4u2chew on 22 Mar 2010 10:24 On Mar 22, 4:55 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:qNadnW-QUoQ_yTrWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > >news:4ba44860$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > >> <knews4u2c...(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. The why does neither NIST, FEMA, or the 9-11 Commission claim a "pancake" collapse? http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf
From: AllYou! on 23 Mar 2010 09:02 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is very > clear that you know nothing at all about the subject. Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK brethren do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into the WTC1, there existed the following conditions: A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was significantly damaged. B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were undamaged by the plane crash. C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were undamaged by the plane crash. Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral floor trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the support columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in the videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the weight of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed into the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that the weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail structurally. Either this is true, or the KOOKS are correct that the support structure (C) was substantially damaged by a controlled demolition. Now, the only thing I recall that you ever got right about physics is that F=ma. In the case of weight, F=mg where 'g' is the 'a' due to gravity. So here's what we know: The force 'ma' which caused the support structure to fail had to be greater than the weight 'mg'. The 'm' in both cases was that of the upper block (A). Given that 'ma' was greater than 'mg', and that 'm' in both cases was the same, then 'a' had to be greater than 'g'. So, the question to you, as an expert in physics, and using all of your expert knowledge of "the equations of motion", is: How did the 'a' in the force 'F' which caused the support structure (C) to fail, come to be greater than 'g'? Hint#1: No, the upper block (A) did not fall with greater acceleration than 'g'. Hint#2: F=(d/dt)mv. Hint#3: Your hypothetical goo DID cause a force to be exerted on that hypothetical wall, whether it was accelerating toward it, or even if it was decelerating as it approached it. Got it now? Anyone? Anyone?
From: Peter Webb on 23 Mar 2010 09:32 "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:WridnRCHqs-dITXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > >> I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is very clear >> that you know nothing at all about the subject. > > Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK brethren > do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. > > At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into the > WTC1, there existed the following conditions: > A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was > significantly damaged. > B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were undamaged > by the plane crash. > C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were undamaged > by the plane crash. > > Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral floor > trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the support > columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in the > videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling > downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). > > Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the > support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the weight > of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed into > the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that the > weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail > structurally. All true. > Either this is true, or the KOOKS are correct that > the support structure (C) was substantially damaged by a controlled > demolition. > Doesn't neccesarily follow; I don't believe a controled demolition can be mathematically analysed unless you know where the explosives are, and hence I don't know if the collapse rate a controlled demolition would take. But it obviously wasn't a controlled demolition, that's completely nonsensical for other reasons. > Now, the only thing I recall that you ever got right about physics > is that F=ma. In the case of weight, F=mg where 'g' is the 'a' due > to gravity. > > So here's what we know: > > The force 'ma' which caused the support structure to fail had to be > greater than the weight 'mg'. Well yes, but stating this force as equal to F=ma doesn't help solve the equations, as the acceleration that occurs when the floors collide is unknown. > The 'm' in both cases was that of the upper block (A). > Given that 'ma' was greater than 'mg', and that 'm' in both cases > was the same, then 'a' had to be greater than 'g'. > > So, the question to you, as an expert in physics, and using all of > your expert knowledge of "the equations of motion", is: > How did the 'a' in the force 'F' which caused the support structure > (C) to fail, come to be greater than 'g'? > The falling block hit it. Unfortunately, the "force" with which this occurred, like the acceleration, cannot be determined. Fortunately, you don't need to know the "instantaneous" force or accelerations that occur when inelastic collisions occur, as the equations of motion are solved using conservation of momentum alone. > Hint#1: No, the upper block (A) did not fall with greater acceleration > than 'g'. > Hint#2: F=(d/dt)mv. > Hint#3: Your hypothetical goo DID cause a force to be exerted on > that hypothetical wall, whether it was accelerating toward it, or > even if it was decelerating as it approached it. > > Got it now? Anyone? Anyone? > > I thought you were asking questions. Maybe you learned something. I can only (again) suggest you Google "inelastic collisions", and notice that none of the pages use Force or acceleration to calculate the before and after speeds. OTOH, if you think you can solve the equations of motion (ie predict the change in speed) using calculations based on Force, then you go for it. You can't. Force has doesn't enter into the equations; look for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision See any force terms? See any acceleration terms? See any F = ma ? Lots of luck.
From: AllYou! on 23 Mar 2010 10:22 Responding to Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> In news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, You really are a piece of work. All of this time, you've been completely unwilling to admit that you were completely wrong to agree with the dolts who said that the only two relevant forces at play during the crash of the upper block into the lower support structure were the weight of the upper block, and the reaction of the lower support structure on it, and now that you've finally been boxed into having to admit that this was wrong, you continue your obfuscation of the truth by trying to claim that you knew it all along, and that somehow, it is me who learned something or other. You were just as wrong about this as you were to think that you could show whether or not the lower support structure provided any resistance to the fall of the upper block by performing an analysis, the very premise of which is that it did not. You're a horribly confused person who says whatever he has to say to obfuscate from having to admit that you know almost nothing about physics. You think you do, but you most certainly do not, and all of your smoke and mirrors attempts to hide this very basic fact proves it.
From: Henry on 23 Mar 2010 10:27
AllYou! wrote: > Responding to Peter Webb: > You really are a piece of work. All of this time, you've been > completely unwilling to admit that you were completely wrong to > agree with the dolts who said that the only two relevant forces at > play during the crash of the upper block into the lower support > structure were the weight of the upper block, and the reaction of > the lower support structure on it, and now that you've finally been > boxed into having to admit that this was wrong, you continue your > obfuscation of the truth by trying to claim that you knew it all > along, and that somehow, it is me who learned something or other. > > You were just as wrong about this as you were to think that you > could show whether or not the lower support structure provided any > resistance to the fall of the upper block by performing an analysis, > the very premise of which is that it did not. > > You're a horribly confused person who says whatever he has to say to > obfuscate from having to admit that you know almost nothing about > physics. You think you do, but you most certainly do not, and all > of your smoke and mirrors attempts to hide this very basic fact > proves it. Hey nut job, tell us what makes you "think" that there's no such thing as gravitational potential energy. That's at least as stupid as ironhead's kook rants.... <chuckle> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/gpot.html "Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |