- **C Programming**
(*http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f42-c-programming.html*)

- - **Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...**
(*http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t546005-looks-like-the-conspiracy-theories-really-were-true-after-all.html*)

Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came
crashing down on the day of 9/11. The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report. Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed? If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the demolitions industry! How do we know WTC 7 was demolished? If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall from the roof of WTC 7, then you got it - WTC 7 underwent a free fall. This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT! PROPOSITION 1: It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical, http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 Collapse start time: 17 seconds Collapse end time: 23 seconds Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds PROPOSITION 2: A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6 seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean) kinematical considerations alone: Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration * total time^2 or s = ut + 1/2at^2 where s = 174 m (height of building) u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse) a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at a constant) Thus, 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2 Solving for t t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8) = 5.9590 ~ 6 seconds |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really weren't true after all...<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1193046701.678432.216850@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com... > Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came > crashing down on the day of 9/11. At least one other building fell when hit by debris from one of the towers - IIRC the Vista Hotel, which sat between the two towers, but several other buildings were badly damaged and at least one was demolished shortly afterwards as it was dangerous. > > The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 > > There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report. > > Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed? Probably, but being hit by thousands of tons of steel and masonary already plunging downwards at high velocity can make it come down faster than free fall speed. > > If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the > demolitions industry! > > How do we know WTC 7 was demolished? > > If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall > from the roof of WTC 7, then you got it - WTC 7 underwent a free fall. 6 seconds is free fall from 180m, so how tall was WTC7? > > This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did > so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED > DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT! Er wrong again, the two towers pretty much collapsed like a deck of cards, with only the top section tipping over. But anyway, what are you actually trying to prove? |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1193046701.678432.216850@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com... > plonk. dan |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really weren't true after all...In comp.lang.c R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
> some response to spam Any chance you could take this charming discussion somewhere other than comp.lang.c? I assure you that no one here is interested. (F'ups set.) -- C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise. cbmanica(at)gmail.com | ----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam. |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1193046701.678432.216850@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com... > Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came > crashing down on the day of 9/11. Most people in the UK that I know of could not care less about your obsession with the WTC, The only thing to have come out of all this is people not being able to move as freely as they should be |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came > crashing down on the day of 9/11. > > The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 > > There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report. > > Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed? > > If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the > demolitions industry! > > How do we know WTC 7 was demolished? > > If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall > from the roof of WTC 7, then you got it - WTC 7 underwent a free fall. > > This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did > so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED > DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT! > > PROPOSITION 1: > It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the > ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical, > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 > Collapse start time: 17 seconds > Collapse end time: 23 seconds > Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds > > PROPOSITION 2: > A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6 > seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean) > kinematical considerations alone: > > Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration * > total time^2 > > or > > s = ut + 1/2at^2 > where > s = 174 m (height of building) > u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse) > a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at > a constant) > > Thus, > 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2 > > Solving for t > t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8) > = 5.9590 > ~ 6 seconds > And the explosives were put in the building by Elvis and the mystery shooter on the grassy knoll. And they were of explosives were supplied by the aliens that are still alive that crashed in Roswell in 1947. |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really weren't true after all...Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@vinland.freeshell.org> writes:
> In comp.lang.c R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> some response to spam > > Any chance you could take this charming discussion somewhere other > than comp.lang.c? I assure you that no one here is interested. > > (F'ups set.) Well done. You just woke the thread up for those of us with properly configured spam filters and thread scoring who hadn't seen it. Well done indeed. |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...On Oct 22, 5:51 am, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came > crashing down on the day of 9/11. > > The third building, WTC 7, can be seen here > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 > > There is no mention of this building in 911 Omission Report. > > Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed? > > If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the > demolitions industry! > > How do we know WTC 7 was demolished? > > If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall > from the roof of WTC 7, then you got it - WTC 7 underwent a free fall. > > This means as the each floor was falling straight to the ground it did > so without crashing into anything on the way. ONLY CONTROLLED > DEMOLITION CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT! > > PROPOSITION 1: > It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the > ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical, > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329 > Collapse start time: 17 seconds > Collapse end time: 23 seconds > Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds > > PROPOSITION 2: > A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6 > seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean) > kinematical considerations alone: > > Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration * > total time^2 > > or > > s = ut + 1/2at^2 > where > s = 174 m (height of building) > u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse) > a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at > a constant) > > Thus, > 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2 > > Solving for t > t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8) > = 5.9590 > ~ 6 seconds whatever you are trying to say, it is still a sign of the end of this age. prettybaby http://spiritofart123.blogspot.com |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all..."Essex Laptops - Andy Usher" <news@essexlaptops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n92dnVDxdOuINoHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net... > > <schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1193046701.678432.216850@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com... >> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came >> crashing down on the day of 9/11. > > Most people in the UK that I know of could not care less about your > obsession with the WTC, The only thing to have come out of all this is > people not being able to move as freely as they should be You're joking. Everytime I get held up in a bloody queue at the airport it makes me hate those ****ing Muslim extremists even more. -- Niel H |

Re: Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really weren't true after all..."Richard" <rgrdev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0nuu4-1ta.ln1@news.individual.net... > Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@vinland.freeshell.org> writes: > >> In comp.lang.c R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> some response to spam >> >> Any chance you could take this charming discussion somewhere other >> than comp.lang.c? I assure you that no one here is interested. >> >> (F'ups set.) > > Well done. You just woke the thread up for those of us with properly > configured spam filters and thread scoring who hadn't seen it. Well done > indeed. tiy didnt have to open or reply to it, no one cares about the post and no one cares about your spam filter, jog on |

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.