Velocity Reviews > C++ > Looks like the "conspiracy theories" really were true after all...

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

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-20-2007
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

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,

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

O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - I 0wn j0000000
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-20-2007
On Oct 19, 8:02 pm, (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
>
>
> 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,
>
> 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

Die.

lws8
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-20-2007
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> 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
>
>
> 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,
>
> 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
>

Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-20-2007
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
::
::
:: Can fire make a building come crashing down at free fall speed?

No, but standing next to two collapsing towers JUST might.

Sigh!

Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-20-2007
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> 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!

Curiously no demolition professional agrees with that. Only conspiracy
theorists, who have no professional experience in demolition, claim that.

Markus Pitha
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-22-2007
Hello,

Juha Nieminen wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> 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!

>
> Curiously no demolition professional agrees with that. Only conspiracy
> theorists, who have no professional experience in demolition, claim that.

Surely, but I saw at a tv show that the steel of the destroyed building
was twisted in a way only a controlled detonation could accomplish that.
There are still too many inconsistencies and what did Bush dealed out
with the Bin Ladens as they were in the USA at this time? Or fact is
that the WTC wasn't very profitable. It caused a lot of costs. Days
before the attack, people reported that on some floors they suddendly
worked with heavy machines on the outer walls and access was forbitten
to these floors....
However, one can think what they want, but my thought is that we only
know the tip of the iceberg.
It was always the plan to monitor the citizens and now they have an
alibi to to do it. A good coincidence, isn't it?. Whereby I'm already
sick of this stupid terrorism lies in our media all around the world.
Every politician in the modern industry nations uses this terrorism lie
to monitor us more and more and the people and believe all this crap.
I didn't investigate but I guess that nowadays are not more terrorism
attacks in the whole world as before 2001. All this terrorism crap is
built up by our media.
Even here in Austria where I live, politicians here use these terrorism
climate to try to make laws to be allowed to spy out home computers
although we never had any terrorism problems in our small country.
Moreover I wonder how stupid a terrorist must be to doesn't find a way
to avoid those computer monitoring crap.

Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a

 10-24-2007
Markus Pitha wrote:
>> Curiously no demolition professional agrees with that. Only conspiracy
>> theorists, who have no professional experience in demolition, claim that.

>
> Surely, but I saw at a tv show that the steel of the destroyed building
> was twisted in a way only a controlled detonation could accomplish that.

Yes, because a random "tv show" is more reliable than the word of
countless professionals in the field of demolition. Everything they say
on TV must be true.

> It was always the plan to monitor the citizens and now they have an
> alibi to to do it. A good coincidence, isn't it?.

Ah yes, the good old "they got a good excuse to reduce privacy, so
the whole thing must have been staged".

Whether or not such an event is used for political purposes is in no
way proof about it being staged.

Stephen Grossman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 12-13-2007
In article <471a0f1d\$0\$5059\$(E-Mail Removed)>, Juha Nieminen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > 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!

>
> Curiously no demolition professional agrees with that. Only conspiracy
> theorists, who have no professional experience in demolition, claim that.

He will be reported to the Ministry of Conspiracies as soon as I learn
"Wink, wink, nudge, nudge."

--
Is it the real turtle soup or merely the mock? COLE PORTER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.att.net/~sdgross