Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...

Reply
Thread Tools

Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...

 
 
schoenfeld.one@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
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.
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) 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?
>


Yes, mist definitely it can.

> If you think it can, patent the idea and make billions in the
> demolitions industry!


Why? its far less controllable than systematic demolition or controlled
explosions, generates more pollution, is more dangerous and moe expesnive.

>
> How do we know WTC 7 was demolished?
>


WE do not. Neither do you. You just believe what you want to believe.

> 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.
>


Exactly. Thats what heppens when you destroy the lower section of any
building BY ANY MEANS to the pint at which a progessive collapse occurs.

> 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!
>


Utter *******s. Uncontrolled demolition is exactly the saame reult.

> 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.
> = 5.9590
> ~ 6 seconds
>



Totally irrelevant: you have missed the whole point. In a steel framed
building once Euler buckling of a structure like that begins, the effect
is rapid and dramatic. Euler buckling is an instability issue: once it
starts it finishes..it does NOT happen gradually.

You can test of for yourself by bulding a tower out of e.g. balsa wood
and sticking a weight on top. Light a small fire in the base and watch..

Oh sorry. You don't do engineering do you? only conspiracy theory.
Easier to believe that the whole thing is a Jewish plot than that the
trade center and the adjacent buildings were simply not very well
designed, and certainly not designed for the sort of stresses and
temperatures they found themselves subjected to.

In general a steel frame building is designed to withstand about 45
minutes of fire. In that time the building is expected to have been
evacuated and the fire brought under some sort of control. In fact the
buildings just about stood that long. What had not been anticipated was
that they would be subjected to such a large fire for so long, with
people trapped above it, and with no means of fighting it. The designers
went only as far as the regulations and standards insisted that they
should. No one insisted that, in the event that a very intense fire did
continue for 45 minutes plus in the lower parts, that the structure
should fail 'gracefully' : Indeed to engineer such a structure is a huge
challenge. To do it economically is almost impossible. You probably want
a geodesic type structure, and even those are not immune from
catastrophic failure.

If you have a real interest in understanding the truth, study some of
the WWI airframse and the reports of how aircraft broke up under fire to
get a bit of a picture.










 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
In message news:(E-Mail Removed), The Natural
Philosopher sprach forth the following:

> You just believe what you want to believe.


You know you don't. Have. To live like a refugee.
 
Reply With Quote
 
selaboc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
On Oct 17, 10:08 am, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Most people don't know that there were actually 3 buildings which came
> crashing down on the day of 9/11.


What does this have to do with Anime, Linux, DVDs or the TV series
Angel?????

even though I know it's a waste of time replying to trolls:

> Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?
> ....
> 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.


Since the building took longer than 6 seconds to collapse, it is your
kooky conspiracy theory that has collapsed at free fall speeds
see:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...d_Trade_Center

Free fall?
[edit] Claim
7 World Trade Center fell in 6.8 seconds -- in free fall speed.

[edit] Fact
The collapse did not occur at free fall speed. It took 16 seconds,
with the east mechanical penthouse beginning to collapse 8.2 seconds
before any more obvious signs of total collapse (as seen on videos).

www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the
collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than
the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud
which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the
buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams
had a rocket pointed to the ground.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robo-man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
Dude... You forgot to mention that we never landed on the moon either.

Oh wait a minute... Your Rosie O'donnell arn't you??????


 
Reply With Quote
 
ChairmanOfTheBored
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2007
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:08:23 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?



You're a goddamned idiot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Herbert John \Jackie\ Gleason
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2007
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:02:28 -0400, "Robo-man" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Dude... You forgot to mention that we never landed on the moon either.
>
> Oh wait a minute... Your Rosie O'donnell arn't you??????
>

That would be "You're", ya ****in' idiot.

Also, you forgot to mention "the plane that never hit the Pentagon",
and her name is:

Rosie O'Retard!

Get yer **** together, boy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]????? bdb112 Python 45 04-29-2009 02:35 AM
Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all... schoenfeld.one@gmail.com C++ 7 12-13-2007 09:45 PM
Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all... schoenfeld.one@gmail.com Digital Photography 57 10-31-2007 03:32 PM
Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all... schoenfeld.one@gmail.com C Programming 14 10-24-2007 02:30 PM
Sorry to break the news, but looks like all of those warnings were real! The Clint Kent Computer Support 10 04-21-2007 12:49 PM



Advertisments