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 13 Oct 2009 12:56 Al Dykes wrote: > NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. Your kook lies and ignorance sure are blatant and easily exposed. Are you mentally ill? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 NIST's Miracle Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so. NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse "was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles - that is, the principles of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing: A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it.... [T]he ... time that it took... for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous. Chandler's Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder?s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder's 40 percent claim contradicts "a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity." The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that "for about two and a half seconds..., the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall." Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: "Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously." NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]." "Gravitational acceleration" is a synonym for free fall acceleration. So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens." Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion." The implication of Chandler's remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them. If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened. That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: "WTC 7 did not enter free fall." But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)." Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was ?consistent with physical principles.? One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found. NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]" -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 13 Oct 2009 13:01 On Oct 13, 10:56 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close.. > > Your kook lies and ignorance sure are blatant and easily > exposed. Are you mentally ill? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up... > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 You stupid boy, stay away from the chemical fumes. You don't understand a thing. You don't say "NIST said something" but then provide a cite to a kooksite. That's not NIST, Try again, dearie. <chuckle> So childlike!
From: Henry on 13 Oct 2009 13:07 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Iarnrod wrote: >>> There is no force on planet Earth that could divert that 30-story >>> upper block sideways that far. >> Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South >> Tower. >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html >> >> Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal >> destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed >> through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off >> the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is >> tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite >> corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo >> evidence. >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html >> >> As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, >> fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are >> being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building >> was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly >> reduced. >> Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced >> weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as >> the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the >> rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's >> some information on the perimeter columns. >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html > So what? So the block rotated. Iron head said it didn't. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the rotating block on it? > There was no man-made demolition at WTC. Then why did you say "the amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC tower would have been immense." According to you, it couldn't have fallen without explosives. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: knews4u2chew on 13 Oct 2009 13:35 On Oct 13, 9:18 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <hb21ca$9b...(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >AllYou! wrote: > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>> WTC 7 was gutted from inside and fell into itself in near perfect > >>> symmetry at near free fall speed. > > >> It did fall rather symmetrically, but not only did it not fall at > >> free-fall speed, > > > Your conspiracy kook lies certainly are stupid, blatant, and > >easily exposed. Thanks to the efforts of 9-11 Truth experts, > >even NIST has finally been forced to admit that WTC7 did in > >fact drop at free fall speed,. > > You've been lied to. > We know. The "official" story is nothing but lies. Buildings don't pulverize and fall at nearfree fall speed from "office fires" not withstanding "planes and jet fuel" which did not do enough damage negate the 47 core and 200 plus outer columns. > NIST never said WTC7 fell at literal free-fall speed. Not even close. > Liar. But then again you are a Spook paid to lie. > -- > Al Dykes (Spook) Are you going to explain how the top of WTC 2 righted itself and disintigrated up while falling directly into the center core which has the MOST resistance rather than following the Law of Conservation of Momentum and toppling off to the weak side which ws damaged by the "plane?" Are you going to explain and prove the mechanism by which steel beams weighing tons are launched 600 feet from a "falling" building? I didn't think so.....
From: Iarnrod on 13 Oct 2009 13:36
On Oct 13, 11:02 am, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor <9-11Kook...(a)noexperts.org> foamed:: > Iarnrod spanked Hankie in her Famous Woodshed of Truth: > > >Hankie hallucinated: > > Link deleted because it does not show anything like your delusional > > mind claims, > > If that were true, you wouldn't have to delete it. False. My statement remains true independently of any other actions I take. Is THAT the best you could come up with after all those years cleaning your betters' chemical beakers in the Cornell science lab before you were fired? That you "imagine" some mystical conneciton between the falsity of yoru calim and my decision to select and delete it from my reply? You "think" that has an impact on whether your disproven calim can be made true? At least this explains the "thought" process by which you infer cartoon magic gravity defying thermite and silent and invisible Wile E Coyote explosives, Hankie. <snicker> > You would want others to see it, too. You have no right to infer what I want. If your fellow rightard kkkooks want to foam over your debunked links, they have alrady read it in your post, Hankie. >. But since we know that you're insane Projection. Everything you've claimed has been conclusively proven to be physically impossible. The insanity is all yours. |