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 14:53 In news:83ad5a70-99aa-48cb-84a5-524658a78f31(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 5, 10:41 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > So you won't answer any of the questions. Liar. All of your questions have been thoroughly answered, and yet, you can't even answer the simplest ones posed to you. For instance, other than your claims about the WTC, can you provide any documentation at all wherein any building has ever been subject to a controlled demolition thus producing pools of molten steel? If, when people say that the noises they heard sounded like explosions, it therefore means there were explosions, then wouldn't that mean that when people say that controlled demolitions produce clouds of dust like those of volcanoes, that the clouds which were seen at those demolition sites were produced by volcanoes? And so wouldn't that mean that you're making the case that the WTC were destroyed by volcanoes?
From: knews4u2chew on 5 Oct 2009 15:13 On Oct 5, 11:33 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <haddop$sf...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Freedom Man <libe...(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 But it doesn't account for 47 core columns and their resistance nor the 283 perimeter columns. Even at 1/4 second resistance by the thousands of welds and upright steel columns the building cold not have fallen in less than 20 seconds. ALL internal resistance HAD TO BE REMOVED for those buildings to collapse at the speeds witnessed. I knew it the minute I saw the first building go down into itself instead of the top falling over. Why don't you take your own sig seriously? Hiding in plain sight?
From: Gunner Asch on 5 Oct 2009 15:24 On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:50:53 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > You're still not reading or thinking at all. The floors were pulverized >into dust by the demolition. Pulverized floors can not act like >pistons and compress air. Blink blink....huh? They most certainly can. I see you have the engineering talent of a garden slug. Gunner Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
From: Gunner Asch on 5 Oct 2009 15:27 On 5 Oct 2009 14:33:59 -0400, adykes(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >>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. Not only aero drag..but the compression of air in each lower floor will supply a bit of "resistance" as the upper levels pressurize the air below it and it has limited places to go. Gunner Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
From: knews4u2chew on 5 Oct 2009 16:00
On Oct 5, 11:36 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <1a9e88a1-1a3f-4f2d-a17d-6759ad1ab...(a)t11g2000prh.googlegroups..com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(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 Get a new ISP. It works fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPWgSaBT9hNU Or are you just lying again? |