The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Replies: 19   Last Post: Aug 13, 2006 3:04 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
John P.

Posts: 29
Registered: 8/4/06
Re: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Posted: Aug 10, 2006 4:22 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message

>> The bigger question is, why do people continue to ask how the WTC
>> buildings
>> fell at freefall speed, which the claim to be around 9.5 seconds for the
>> towers and 6.5 seconds for WTC 7, when the evidence indicates the towers
>> fell in 14+ seconds and WTC 7 in 13?

> Because people can use a clock, they can count seconds, and they can
> see for their own eyes.

There is some incogruity there. If one can use a clock and see, then one
cannot come up with 9.5 seconds for either tower or 6.5 for WTC 7.
In this video, you'll note that at around the 12 second mark, the camera
operator turns the camera towards the collapsing tower one final time. It is
still collapsing and has about 40 floors or so to go. That would put the
collapsed firmly at something over 12 seconds, in the neighborhood of 14-15
seconds. How would one use a clock and eyesight to see that as 9.5 seconds?
In this video, you can see the initiation of the WTC 7 collapse - the
mechanical penthouse on the left, collapsing through the roof. For 6
seconds, you cannot see what is happening, then you can see the reminder of
the collapse. You get a total collapse time of right at 13 seconds. How
would one use a clock and eyesight to see that as 6.5 seconds?

> The need is to account for the evidence. Either Galileo was wrong or

Galileo did fine. Perhaps he just had a better watch than most alternate
conspiracy theorists have?

> WTC 1,2 & 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by a combination of fuel laden 767's crashing
into them and the resulting fires. The evidence and facts allow anyone to
arrive at that conclusion. There is no evidence and are no facts to support
any of the alternate theories - they are based on false information, some
times doctored evidence, misinterpretation of evidence, bad guesses, bad
science, or just wishful thinking.

WTC 7 was brought down by the same thing that brought down 24 other
buildings in the area around the WTC towers - the collapsing towers. How
could anyone not grasp how 1 out of 25 buildings collapsed while at the same
time readily understanding how the other 24 were damaged or destroyed by the
collapsing towers?

The building was heavily damaged and had extensive fires. There is no
evidence that allows one to arrive at any conclusion other than the damage
and the fires causing the collapse.

> If H is the average floor-height and N is the total number of floors
> inthe building, then the optimal collapse solution for the pancake
> model is N separate freefalls each of height H.

> The video evidence clearly shows 1 freefall of height N*H for each
> building.

It clearly doesn't. The buildings were not designed to handle the huge
dynamic loads placed on the structure once the collapse initiate. There are
no structural engineers that see anything suspicious or wrong about the way
they collapse or the amount of time it took for them to collapse. Les
Robertson was *surprised* (and thankful) that they stood as long as they

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.