Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
schoenfeld1@gmail.com

Posts: 278
Registered: 3/16/05
Re: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Posted: Aug 10, 2006 6:10 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


John P. wrote:
> "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.
>
> http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view&current=WTC2Collapse.flv
> 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?


Even the 9/11 Omission Report claims a figure of 10 seconds. You are
operating under some notion that +/- 2 seconds from vacuum freefall
saves the official account. Freefall includes some wind resistance,
which is what is always observed in controlled demolitions. Roughly,
the resistance for the towers should've been perhaps a second or two,
maybe half a second for WTC 7. On the other hand, in order to save your
official theory, the resistance from all that concrete and steal beams
had to be the same as air.



> http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view&current=911NewsReport.flv
> 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?


There is no 'remainder of the collapse'. It takes 6 seconds for the
towers to collapse from start to finish - the video clearly shows that.
You must be confusing the smoke as some sort of indicator that it 'is
still collapsing'.

> > 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.


Ha Ha Ha.. good one.. 24 other buildings collapsed just like wtc 7 all
caused because of the twin towers.. nice way to spin it...

> 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
> did.


www.st911.org




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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.