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: Henry on 6 Oct 2009 13:44 Al Dykes wrote: > Nobody reports hearing explosions that preceded a collapse and are > loud enough to be consistent with man-made demolition. Kooker lies sure are incredibly blatant and stupid. Fun to expose, though... <g> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html Quotes from witnesses to the demolition: It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down. Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there. We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down. And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse. Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions? Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 6 Oct 2009 13:46 In article <hafvln$24k$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: > >> Nobody reports hearing explosions that preceded a collapse and are >> loud enough to be consistent with man-made demolition. > > Kooker lies sure are incredibly blatant and stupid. >Fun to expose, though... <g> > Name one person, Make it your best case. Lets see where he was and when he heard whatever it is he said he heard. Nothing hear by only one person can possibly be man-made demolition. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Freedom Man on 6 Oct 2009 13:46 <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:81737ca0-4c3e-496e-9a7f-8260c64f4d29(a)13g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On Oct 5, 11:33 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <haddop$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? ----- He is either in serious psychological denial, or a paid government coverup shill. Probably the latter. Just killfile the idiot, as I have.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 13:49 In news:haftll$s12$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: > Let us know if you dispute or don't understand any of what is > written in Kevin Ryan's paper below. > "In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides > of the towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] > The bursts continue throughout the duration of each tower?s > destruction, and all of them are similar in shape and velocity. Because all the windows were of similar shape and strength. > Each of these was a sharp emission that appeared to come from a > point-like source, From that distance, every window appeared to be a similar size. DUH. > ejecting > approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a > fraction of a second. A lot like the speed with which a balloon explodes. Similarity? Both are driven by a compressible fluid. > From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. > 2), we can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected > in > approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity > of approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have > estimated the velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4] Prove that it's not pretty much what you'd expect from enough pressure exerted against that size and strength glass. > These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a > period of several years, as was all other evidence for the > demolition hypothesis. False. They were seen and documented for what they were. > But after being forced to field many ?frequently asked > questions?, NIST?s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial > explanation. > In a March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these > bursts ?puffs of dust?, and explained "When you have a > significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air > and concrete dust > out the window. DUH! > Those clouds of dust may create the impression > of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that > leads to that perception."[5] Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST > was forced to abandon that answer, in the summer of 2006, saying > ?NIST?s findings do not support the > ?pancake theory? of collapse.? In an attempt to maintain their > faltering fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain > the essence of the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking > floors. They > did so by saying ?the falling mass of the building compressed the > air > ahead of it?much like the action of a piston?forcing smoke and > debris out the windows as the stories below failed > sequentially.?[6] 3 Again, DUH! > Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense > for the discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for > NIST?s current pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft > that fits within an enclosed cylinder, whose action within the > cylinder causes the volume and pressure to change. But the WTC > buildings did not have > sections acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their > disintegration. Without pancaking floors, there is no internal > shaft to slide down within the ?enclosed cylinder? of these tall > buildings. The piston analogy works just fine for those of a sane mind wherein common sense is used to differentiate the literal meaning, and the analogous meaning. Even your own "experts" have used the analogy to a volcano when proffering their theory that the dust emanating from the WTC was analogous to that of a volcanic cloud. Are they then claiming that a volcano was present on the WTC? Again, DUH! > Because the government scientists never did any physical testing > to support this latest compression argument, we must try to > imagine > for ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created > the ejections of debris. Well, given that you have imagined how a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers, or how this is the only time a controlled demolition ever left pools of molten steel that flowed like lava, it should be very easy for you to imagine how a rapidly shrinking contain full of air would eventually cause its weakest boundary areas to fail. If not, then fill a paper bag with air, close it, even if not perfectly, and then stomp on it. VIOLA! > To be the result of overpressures created from the falling > mass, these bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized > containers that were tightly sealed on all sides except the point > of ejection. Wrong again. As long as the volume of air is shrinking more rapidly than the air can escape, then the pressure will continue to build. That's really all there is to it. > With > his 2005 pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder > suggested that these pressurized containers were entire floor > areas, compressed by the falling mass. The reason these containers > cannot be smaller than > a full floor area is because the office floors were wide-open > spaces, The inside of a ballon is a wide open space too. So what? > with no floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in > other office buildings. The effective partition-less area in > each floor was approximately 3000 square meters. > > It?s difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the > Twin Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, > while collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical > distance of 350 meters. It's even more difficult to imagine how so many columns at so many floors could have been rigged with materials that melt, and not cut, steel in such as way as to have been so precisely timed so that the melting process would happen in the exact succession required to achieve free fall (which didn't happen anyway). And, after all, all we have for this scenario is your imagination. No experiments of "melting" though steel columns of that thickness, and in the vertical orientation, have ever been performed, much less shown how thousands of such melts could be so precisely timed. > But even if this feature of the > fire-induced hypothesis was a given, to initiate the gas > pressure below, we would need to imagine the falling mass as a > flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform pressure at > all points. False. See above. > If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow > pressure to be released upward. *Some* air is being expelled in all directions. Hence the dust clouds. The issue your "expert" fails to comprehend is that it's simply a matter of the container shrinking more quickly in volume than the volume of the escaping gas. > But we can infer that the > falling mass was probably not a uniform flat plate or a > continuous sheet > because workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris > at > ground zero was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Wrong. Lots of steel was remove in assemblies, as was lots of concrete. The difference is that when removing such debris, the concrete can be much more easily broken into smaller, more easy to handle pieces than can steel. but to suggest that all of the concrete of the WTC was pulverized to dust is just as whacky as any of your other fantasies about 911. > Photographic > evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling > debris, which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was > cloud-like. Such cloud-like debris could not form the continuous > falling surface that would be needed to create the downward > pressure and compress the > air below. > The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself > repudiates the compressive piston hypothesis. Wrong, for all of the above reasons.
From: knews4u2chew on 6 Oct 2009 13:50
On Oct 5, 10:23 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:hacukg$6kh$14(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > > > AllYou! wrote: > >> Innews:h9b3sj$t6h$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Iarnrod wrote: > > >>>> All of the evidence supports the official findings. > >>> You've confused the word "support" with "contradict". > > >>> Tell us why you "think" Cheney would permit a known > >>> hijacked plane to enter the most heavy guarded airspace > >>> on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit. > > >> By your standard of what a whacko is, you'd have to provide > >> "hard evidence" that Cheney ordered any stand down wrt any such > >> plane. > > > I did, > > No one has seen it. Standard Disinfo tactic, deny anything presented as evidence exists even if it's right in front of your face. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html |