|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 142)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
so you're almost like a Neo-con? |
LOL. nothing of the sort. im a centrist, by and large. i dont believe in rudimentary and simplistic labels.
how you think a socialist could EVER become a neo-con though is beyond me. im sure you'd be quite surprised at my libertarian leanings as well ;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
LOL. nothing of the sort. im a centrist, by and large. i dont believe in rudimentary and simplistic labels.
how you think a socialist could EVER become a neo-con though is beyond me. im sure you'd be quite surprised at my libertarian leanings as well ;) |
How about a former Trotskyist like Irving Kristol? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Saturday, 06 October 2007
Direct challenge to Popular Mechanics - Show us the Physics & Math to back up your ludicrous & “physically impossible” 911 gravity collapse assertions
Here are the clear facts of the ~ 417 m tower destruction:
Physics Proof showing 9/11 was a Demolition.
by J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems) (Lancaster England)
First we must identify what we already know as FACT: -
Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. Let us take the taller to be conservative. We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation. We know the towers fell in 10 Seconds due to the siesmic records and the copiouse video evidence. Secondly we must convert to SI units: g is measured in metres per second per second, d must be measured in metres, t in seconds. Distance fallen d = 416.97 Metres. g = 9.81 m/s2 . t = 10 Seconds Let us find out how much time it would take to fall the actual hight 417 m in an ideal vacuum. We know that air resistance always slows a falling body, we will disregard air resistance & other slowing effects so as to keep the maths simple whilst at the same time giving a realistic accurate conservative value.
It is physically impossible for the strongest, heaviest and (3 times working design load) bottom 80+ floors to offer near zero resistance to the falling floors except when there is a controlled demolition. Period!
Popular mechanics claims in public literature that on 911 it is perfectly acceptable for a falling body to take, what is, the path of greatest resistance.
Physical Systems (Lancaster England) openly and publicly challenges “Popular Mechanics” magazine New York, to demonstrate one single experiment, which shows a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance (Reproducibly), or they remove and recant their ludicrous & physically impossible gravity destruction scenario from the public record.
If 6 months from the date of this formal public challenge (Saturday, 06 October 2007) “Popular Mechanics” Magazine can not reproducibly demonstrate a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance as a result of Gravity alone, then it is Ample evidence to everyone that the Popular Mechanics Magazine assertion that Gravity alone could destroy the twin towers and building 007 at near freefall speed IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE “Popular Myth” & deliberate “Popular Mechanics” DECEPTION or indeed honest misunderstanding Re the laws of Physics.
Physical Systems (Lancaster England) can demonstrate that a falling body ALWAYS, without exception, takes the path of least resistance (Reproducibly). In the case of controlled demolition the path of least resistance is often within the building footprint as seen with the destruction of WTC001, WTC002 & WTC007 on Sep 11 2001 and many other such demolitions.
Kind regards,
J. A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)
http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/...in-public/1451/ |
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
9/11 Survivor Anthony Saltalamacia Speaks Out - Confirms Explosions
|
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
|
o if only grade 10 physics equations could explain everything in the world................ i'm glad that you posted this cunning use of arithmetic. Everything is so much clearer now.....
full structural failure (collapse) is most often a very sudden and catastrophic failure. note recent bridge collapses (the one in the US and the one two years ago in Laval quebec) both of these failed in a matter of a second.... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
o if only grade 10 physics equations could explain everything in the world................ i'm glad that you posted this cunning use of arithmetic. Everything is so much clearer now.....
full structural failure (collapse) is most often a very sudden and catastrophic failure. note recent bridge collapses (the one in the US and the one two years ago in Laval quebec) both of these failed in a matter of a second.... |
So you're now saying that it wasn't a progressive collapse at all but rather a simultaneous one?
Isn't that contradictory to Popular Mechanics' pancake theory? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
So you're now saying that it wasn't a progressive collapse at all but rather a simultaneous one?
Isn't that contradictory to Popular Mechanics' pancake theory? |
on the contrary, the progressive collapse would not involve significant time delays from floor to floor. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
on the contrary, the progressive collapse would not involve significant time delays from floor to floor. |
Those 47 box columns had to offer some resistance, though. Much more so than just the air between the floors (the very same air that Mr. Blacker's computations left unaccounted for.)
Anyway, why don't you put your mind where your mouth is and show this guy up on his challenge to Popular Mechanics? I'd definitely have a lot of respect for you if you did that and although I almost hate to say it, I think that it would actually be kind of cool :toothless |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Those 47 box columns had to offer some resistance, though. Much more so than just the air between the floors (the very same air that Mr. Blacker's computations left unaccounted for.)
Anyway, why don't you put your mind where your mouth is and show this guy up on his challenge to Popular Mechanics? I'd definitely have a lot of respect for you if you did that and although I almost hate to say it, I think that it would actually be kind of cool :toothless |
the key thing that he did not take into account however is impulse and momentum. while neglecting air resistance, any mass in free fall is subject to an acceleration due to gravity of 9.81 m/s^2 at sea level (this varies with altitude)
an unbalanced force acting on a body will cause acceleration. now these 47 columns provide a certain value of resistance up to their buckling strength. the instant the floors above collide with the first intact floor, not only does the momentum generated impulse meet teh failure load of these columns, but it would exceed it significantly, this is now a net acting force on that slab in the downwards direction. now that particular slab which has begun to fall is not only subjected to teh acceleration due to gravity of aproximately 9.81 m/s^2 but the acceleration due to the unbalanced force generated by the impulse of the impact of the previous floors. as the collapse progresses, this effect is compounded ie: the further down it fell, the faster it was moving.
a simple analogy would be to stand on top of a building with two tennis balls, one you drop from shoulder height and the second you throw straight down. the thrown ball will hit first. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
the key thing that he did not take into account however is impulse and momentum. while neglecting air resistance, any mass in free fall is subject to an acceleration due to gravity of 9.81 m/s^2 at sea level (this varies with altitude)
an unbalanced force acting on a body will cause acceleration. now these 47 columns provide a certain value of resistance up to their buckling strength. the instant the floors above collide with the first intact floor, not only does the momentum generated impulse meet teh failure load of these columns, but it would exceed it significantly, this is now a net acting force on that slab in the downwards direction. now that particular slab which has begun to fall is not only subjected to teh acceleration due to gravity of aproximately 9.81 m/s^2 but the acceleration due to the unbalanced force generated by the impulse of the impact of the previous floors. as the collapse progresses, this effect is compounded ie: the further down it fell, the faster it was moving.
a simple analogy would be to stand on top of a building with two tennis balls, one you drop from shoulder height and the second you throw straight down. the thrown ball will hit first. |
So who do you suggest had an arm big enough to throw both World Trade Center towers and then later in the evening, WTC tower 7? Zeus? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
So who do you suggest had an arm big enough to throw both World Trade Center towers and then later in the evening, WTC tower 7? Zeus? |
I believe he meant that the combined momentum caused by the floors falling down on the supported floors was bigger than the weight bearing limit of the supported floors, therefore it would fall faster than just free fall. I am not aware of how many floors came crashing down on the supported floors, but we can assume that it was quite a bit of weight and that the supported floors could only bear a small fraction of that weight, therefore they collapsed, adding to the speed already present in the mass that made them collapse. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I believe he meant that the combined momentum caused by the floors falling down on the supported floors was bigger than the weight bearing limit of the supported floors, therefore it would fall faster than just free fall. I am not aware of how many floors came crashing down on the supported floors, but we can assume that it was quite a bit of weight and that the supported floors could only bear a small fraction of that weight, therefore they collapsed, adding to the speed already present in the mass that made them collapse. |
So do you mean the 47 HUGE steel SUPPORT BEAMS were sucking the building into the ground?
I don't see the logic here. How does it so easily violate physics? |
|
|
|
|
