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: Al Dykes on 6 Oct 2009 13:50 In article <hafvpg$ad7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Freedom Man <liberty(a)once.net> wrote: ><knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:81737ca0-4c3e-496e-9a7f-8260c64f4d29(a)13g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >On Oct 5, 11:33 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <haddop$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. Timings (and source) used for you to come to that colsuion, please. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: knews4u2chew on 6 Oct 2009 13:52 On Oct 6, 10:22 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:hafgln$74m$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > PV wrote: > > >> Also, all tornadoes are actually freight trains. > > > Of course they are, kooker. And, of course, a 1500 degree > > fire can heat steel to well over 2500 degrees, > > Again, you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorace. Steel begins to > weaken as it is heated. There is no magic temperature below which > it is 'strong', and over which is is 'weak'. And it certainly does > not have to melt before it fails. > > But I noticed that you snipped the quiestion I asked, and so I'll > challenge you to answer it. > > If, when people say that the noises they heard 'sounded like > explosions', it therefore means that there were explosions, then > wouldn't it necessarily follow 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 also mean that many of your kooky > friends are making the case that the WTC towers were destroyed by > volcanoes? You win the Stupid Contest. Spook. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 13:55 In news:hafvcs$24k$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > > >>> Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air remained >>> focused like a cannon shot when it entered the vast open office >>> spaces. > >> It didn't have to do that > > Compressed air can't do that if it enters a huge open area of > uncompressed air, but according to you, it did. That's why we > know you're nuts. The inside of a balloon is an open space too. As long as the volume of air entering any space, no matter the size, is greater then the volume leaving it, the pressure will build. It's just that simple. >> It doesn't need to be tightly focused. > > But it did. It never does. Pressure is equal across the entire pressure boundary, and a catastrophic failure will occur at the weakest point whenever the pressure rises sufficiently to do so. > Your imaginary compressed air didn't blow out rows > of windows, but remained tightly focused as it entered the open > office spaces until it violently exploded through the exterior > walls in a huge focused burst of pulverized concrete and other > debris. You mean like it does in the cartoons? No, not really. Take a course in fluid dynamics, and then get back to me. > They were massive explosions the size of houses. The size of very large windows. Your own expert said that they were pinpoint.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 13:57 In news:hafvgm$24k$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> PV wrote: > >>>> Also, all tornadoes are actually freight trains. > >>> Of course they are, kooker. And, of course, a 1500 degree >>> fire can heat steel to well over 2500 degrees, > >> Again, you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorace. > > > Wow, another nut job who "thinks" you can heat steel to > over 2500 degrees by exposing it to 1500 degree heat. > Only on usenut..... LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which is the final refuge of the person who knows they have lost the debate. The obvious flaw in your comment is that you think steel has to heat to 2500 degrees before it weakens. :-) Tha's pretty funny.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 14:01
In news:91b13ebb-d195-4613-ba0a-835f5a220e02(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 6, 10:22 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:hafgln$74m$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>> PV wrote: >> >>>> Also, all tornadoes are actually freight trains. >> >>> Of course they are, kooker. And, of course, a 1500 degree >>> fire can heat steel to well over 2500 degrees, >> >> Again, you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorace. Steel begins >> to weaken as it is heated. There is no magic temperature below >> which it is 'strong', and over which is is 'weak'. And it >> certainly does not have to melt before it fails. >> >> But I noticed that you snipped the quiestion I asked, and so >> I'll challenge you to answer it. >> >> If, when people say that the noises they heard 'sounded like >> explosions', it therefore means that there were explosions, then >> wouldn't it necessarily follow 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 also >> mean that many of your kooky friends are making the case that >> the WTC towers were destroyed by volcanoes? > > You win the Stupid Contest. > Spook. > http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html 3) Post a link which implies a refutation of the point at hand, but which does nothing of the kind. |