911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: AllYou! on 5 Oct 2009 14:34 In news:c189eaef-ff8a-47b2-a934-8cd040eccffd(a)d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 5, 10:30 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:7107fa1d-1794-4a70-b6cd-b40a8f531265(a)i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 5, 9:06 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:hacu2q$6kh$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>>> On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>> And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, >> >>>>>> It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. >> >>>>> We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite >>>>> explains it. >> >>>> There was no melted steel. There is only some anecdotal, >>>> second hand reports of some amount of molten metal. No molten >>>> steel. >> >>>> (Insert links here that you mean to imply is evidence of your >>>> claim, but which is only actually proof of mine) >>>> ------------> >> >>>>>> Get back to us once >>>>>> you have some credible sources to back up your claims. >> >>>>> Since you agree that the fires couldn't have produced >>>>> the molten metal, what claim are you disputing? >> >>>> That there was any molten steel. >> >>>>> Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten >>>>> metal "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" >> >>>> Which is not any kind of evidence that it was molten steel. It >>>> could've been any amount of soft metals and other low-melting >>>> point substances that were in great abundance in a fully >>>> occupied sky scraper. >> >>>> And why have you never been able to produce even one example >>>> of a building destroyed by controlled demolition to have ever >>>> resulted in pools of molten steel flowing like lava in a >>>> foundry. >> >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516# >>> Watch. >>> Listen. >>> Then come back and lie and deny some more. >> >> 1) Instead of answereing a question directly, post a link to >> some whako site as though it's an answer to the question, when >> it doesn't even begin to be on point. > > And my modus operandi continues: > http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html I know.
From: Al Dykes on 5 Oct 2009 14:33 In article <haddop$sf4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Freedom Man <liberty(a)once.net> wrote: >SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - >GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE >EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK > > >How Gravity Acts: > >Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also >noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the >observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity >at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant >magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have >become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and >certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect. .... > >A Quick Recap: > >Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise >physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any >resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would >without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance >it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to >fall a given distance. > >Free-fall From WTC Building Heights: > >The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by >using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to >free-fall from the towers' height. > >Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T) > >With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T: > >2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T) > >Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G) > >Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G)) > >Time = 9.2 > >So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the >ground from the height of the WTC towers. > >Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the >free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over >200 mph. > >But that can only occur IN A VACUUM. > Your mistake is that the 9 second interval wasn't from 1300 ft. It was from about 1,000 ft. It was the measured fall time from some beam from the impact zone. That would be something from the 78-84th floor, not 1300 ft. Call it 80% of the full height; 1,040 ft (320m). Free fall from 1,040ft is 8.07 seconds and v in the last second is abouy 240ft/sec so that extra second is plenty to account for aero drag. SOURCE: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)... [2] You get an "F" in your High School physics paper. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: knews4u2chew on 5 Oct 2009 14:34 On Oct 5, 10:41 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <a9b2b9b8-2a29-42f5- <snip all your distractions> > BEEP BEEP BEEP k00k makes ad hominem attack instead of addressing point BEEP BEEP BEEP > BEEP BEEP BEEP k00k changes topics instead of addressing point BEEP BEEP BEEP > > -- > Al Dykes > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU Prove these guys wrong.
From: Al Dykes on 5 Oct 2009 14:36 In article <1a9e88a1-1a3f-4f2d-a17d-6759ad1ab34c(a)t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 5, 10:41=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <a9b2b9b8-2a29-42f5- > ><snip all your distractions> > >> BEEP BEEP BEEP =A0 k00k makes ad hominem attack instead of addressing poi= >nt =A0BEEP BEEP BEEP >> BEEP BEEP BEEP =A0 k00k changes topics instead of addressing point =A0 = >=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 BEEP BEEP BEEP >> >> -- >> Al Dykes >> =A0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advert= >ising. >> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPWgSaBT9hNU Your URL is broken. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: knews4u2chew on 5 Oct 2009 14:43
On Oct 4, 7:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >http://rense.com/general87/nhe.htm > > > Today, nearly every network and news outlet in the U.S. mass media is > > owned and controlled by Zionist Jews. This is a statement of fact and > > should not be misconstrued to be anti-Semitic in any way. > > Uh, sure, Goebbels. > > You need to grow a brain. Seriously. You are so far deep into your > delusions it ain't funny. So you think this is funny? http://rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm |