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 ]

Posts: 278
Registered: 3/16/05
Re: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Posted: Aug 12, 2006 1:13 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

> >>
> >> 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.

You're right, the the north tower did not collapse in the 6 seconds
'conspiracy theorists' claim WTC 7 collapsed in.. I never thought of it
in that way, thanks for clarifying that up, Goldstein...

> > 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.

There is virtually no information from NIST/FEMA/government on WTC 7.
You are demonstrably a liar.

> 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.

> >>
> >> 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.

> >
> 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]

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