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 ]
John P.

Posts: 29
Registered: 8/4/06
Re: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Posted: Aug 10, 2006 10:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message

>> 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.


That's an excellent observation. ... but wrong. I am unconcerned with the
9/11 commission report. I am looking at a video in which the tower has not
yet completely collapsed at the 12 second mark. I suggest that one would
have a very hard time believing that this tower somehow fell in 9.5 seconds,
while seeing a portion of it still standing, and the collapse continuing, at
the 12 seconds.

> 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.


Did it? I'd appreciate any links or references you could provide that would
help me to understand this. Of the information I have read from engineers to
date, the buildings did not fall at freefall speed and there was nothing
suspicious about the speed or manner in which they collapse.

Much of the information I have read from engineers on this topic, points out
rather quickly that the WTC towers *were* mostly air.

You should note that large pieces of wreckage,which *would* be falling at
freefall speed, fall faster than the building is collapsing. (they get ahead
of the collapse). Obviously, if the building were falling at freefall speed,
this would not be observed.

>> 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'.


Nope. If there was no remainder of the collapse, the building would still be
standing. The collapse initiates with the mechanical penthouse falling into
the building (indicating a failure of the structure below the mechanical
penthouse).

Here's how you can see this for yourself. Watch the video again. The image
of WTC 7 comes in around 57 seconds - "Now here we're going to show you..."

Look at the top left of the building - on the roof. The mechanical penthouse
is still there.

At 1:02, you see the mechanical penthouse collapse into the building - "Now
we go to video tape..."

You have just witnessed the initiation of the collapse at time 1:02.

From about 1:05 until 1:10, you cannot see anything happening in the video.
Something might be happening (such as the mechanical penthouse crashing down
through each floor all the way to the basement), or, maybe nothing is
happening (the penthouse dropped one floor and stopped).

The last time we can see any of the building is at 1:15.

Starts at 1:02, ends at 1:15 - that's 13 seconds, no matter how you slice
it.


>> 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...


Spin? Are you denying that these buildings were damaged or destroyed on
9/11? What happened to them? What caused their damage or destruction?

>> 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

The Clowns for Truth site was funny the first time or two I read it... but,
the jokes are old and stale now.

Which of their jokes do you like the best?
Hijackers are still alive?
The flight 93 CVR picking up passenger conversations? (Scholars can't read a
transcript?)
Christie Whitman telling workers at ground zero that it was OK to breathe
the dust?

One of my favorites was always from Prof. Jones - the king clown - He claims
to have talked to a demolitions expert who has used controlled demolition to
bring down hundreds of buildings just like the WTC towers.

That's pretty amazing considering that the tallest steel framed structure
brought down by controlled demolition to date is only 27 stories and
designed nothing at all like the WTC towers. Prof. Jones should have checked
this guy's credentials a little better.

Then again, Alex Jones is pretty funny - he claims that in the Madrid Tower
fire, *none* of the steel beams were damaged or "even weakened"! LOL! I
guess he missed the part where the steel structure *collapsed* to the 17
floor, because of the fires.

He also came up with this one - WTC 7 had *no* damage from the WTC tower
collapsing on it other than a few broken windows, some dust and small fires!

Alex must have an inability to view pictures or videos.

The Clowns for Truth also came up with this whopper - The invisible
government had every bomber and SSBN on station and every US nuke ready to
launch, including all codes being input. 'They' told President Bush that if
he didn't go along with their 19 Arab hijackers story, they would launch
these nukes to start a global nuclear war!

Amazing - not a single enlisted guy has felt he should mention this to
anyone. ... but they posted pictures of prisoners in Iraq.

If you buy into these nutjob stories, you need serious help.





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.