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

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by schoenfeld.one@gmail.com, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. Guest

    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?docid=-7750532340306101329

    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?docid=-7750532340306101329
    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
     
    , Oct 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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?docid=-7750532340306101329
    >
    > 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 bollocks. 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?docid=-7750532340306101329
    > 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
    >



    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.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Oct 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message news:, 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.
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Oct 17, 2007
    #3
  4. selaboc Guest

    On Oct 17, 10:08 am, 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:
    www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_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.
     
    selaboc, Oct 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Robo-man Guest

    Dude... You forgot to mention that we never landed on the moon either.

    Oh wait a minute... Your Rosie O'donnell arn't you??????
     
    Robo-man, Oct 17, 2007
    #5
  6. On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:08:23 -0700, wrote:

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



    You're a goddamned idiot.
     
    ChairmanOfTheBored, Oct 18, 2007
    #6
  7. On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:02:28 -0400, "Robo-man" <> 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 fuckin' idiot.

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

    Rosie O'Retard!

    Get yer shit together, boy.
     
    Herbert John \Jackie\ Gleason, Oct 18, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    919
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Kevin John Panzke
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    601
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Apr 18, 2006
  3. Clint Kent
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,329
    Aardvark
    Apr 21, 2007
  4. Replies:
    57
    Views:
    1,248
    harvey
    Oct 31, 2007
  5. Rich

    Looks like Polaroid didn't need Ilford after all

    Rich, Jul 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    339
    John Turco
    Jul 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page