On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:32:31 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:fuvhk5$14e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <48133f98$0$11625$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Reggie <Reggie501@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/latest-news-at-a-glance/911-news-at-a-glanceB
>>>
>>>BC Anchor Who Re****ted on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a
>>>'Conspiracy'
>>>
>>>Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of
9/11--
>>>at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in
>>>detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who re****ted the
>>>collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible
in
>>>the background.
>>>
>>>"A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change re****ters point out in
>>>summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition,
including
>>>a number of engineers.
>
>> The whole world knew that WTC7 was about to collapse. The poor BBC
>> news reader made a mistake and said it "had collapsed" instead of
>> "about to collapse". Jeesh.
>
>CNN made the same "mistake." Looks like they read the script too soon -
>
>> The inevitable collapse of WTC7 was in local TV news on the afternoon
>> of 9/11. I saw it, myself. See [7], below.
>
>Inevitable? Then how come several buildings with far worse damage
Because they didn't have "far worse damage".
> remained
>standing, including the Deutchbank building, which recently survived yet
>ANOTHER extensive fire without any collapse?
It wasn't "extensive", s****t.
>I SAW building 7 collapse on live TV. Controlled demolition by
explosives,
>no doubt about it!
Only to conspiracy wackos like you.
>> Nobody that was an eyewitness to the WTC7 collapse can say there was
>> anything unusual about the way it collapsed.
>
>I saw it on live TV, and I am an engineer.
Yeah, and you should stick to servicing those Xerox machines.
>And I say CONTROLLED DEMOLITION BY EXPLOSIVES!
And you have no credentials, nor facts, to make such a statement.
>And more im****tant than my personal opinion, the inviolate LAWS OF
PHYSICS
>say the same:
No s****t, they don't.
From: agen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 9/11 Truth won't go away
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:42:09 -0400
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:04 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> When are we going to see your physics paper where someone with
>> relevant expertise might comment on it?
>When are YOU going to learn enough physics and math so that you can
evaluate
>the facts in it for yourself? All it takes is a high school course or two
-
>basic physics and algebra. How sad that you allow others to do your
thinking
>for you!
How sad it is that you don't comprehend what you are saying.
>> Repeatedly posting your paper where nobody that identifies themselves
>> as an expert in anything relevant to your paper and challenging us
>> "prove you wrong" is the cowards way.
>The basic laws of physics and algebraic calculations in my paper need no
>"expert" review, although I would welcome any, as they would confirm its
>validity.
>This seems to have hit a nerve with you - as if you are AFRAID it is
true,
>and have no way of disproving it. As I've said, you are in irrational
>denial, or are a ****ll being paid to deny the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>> You are a coward;
>You wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face, so it is YOU that is
the
>coward - especially given your FEAR that the facts I have presented
cannot
>be refuted.
>> You won't speak to a fireman
>Why would I want to, other than to re****t a fire? You certainly have an
>OBSESSION with firemen! Do you think they know more about physics and
>chemistry than an engineer such as myself?
>> Here is the full-text transcripts from all the firemen, by name. Tell
>> us which firemen though there was man-made demolition, the we will see
>> where he was and what he saw.
>How much training in physics, chemistry, and structural engineering is
>required to become a fireman?
>I think that a high school diploma, and not even an academic one, is
enough.
>In other words, most firemen are ignorant on these subjects. But you
>consider the opinions of some (those that agree with you) as Gospel truth
-
>even though they were formed in a state of shock, trauma, and even pain -
>which does not make one's mind very able to discern what is really going
on
>around one.
And no fireman think that the collapse of any of the WTC buildings was
due to a controlled demolition.
>And as you insist on reposting the same biased garbage over and over,
I'll
>once more present my paper here. I don't care what YOU say about it -
I'll
>leave it for better educated, more open-minded readers to judge it for
>themselves.
>SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
>GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
>EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center
>(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos
of
>the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours
after
>the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
>straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
>touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained
relatively
>minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
>damaged remained standing.
>In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
>former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
>"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September
11,
>2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that
day
>goes beyond the pale."
>We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale
>that's "beyond the pale"!
Sure you will.
>Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
>phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
the
>emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
>objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
>assertions?
>The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
>that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to
as
>a "pancake collapse".
No, s****t, the "government" said no such thing. Lie #1.
>According to the government claims, the plane crashes
>and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
>heated the UL-certified structural steel
UL does not certify structural steel. Lie #2.
> to the point where it was
>significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
>repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
everything
>else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
Not without fireproofing and active fire response. Lie #3.
>According to the "pancake theory", this pur****ted (all physical evidence
was
>quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
>tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
>repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
>sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
It's called dynamic load, s****t.
>There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
>facts:
>* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
core
>columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
Yes, it can.
>* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
>alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Yet, you can't demonstrate what the collapse time should have been,
can you?
>Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they
didn't
>check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
do,
>even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that
incredible
>pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
simple,
>unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform
a
>reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
>such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
>American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>How Gravity Acts:
>Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
>noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
>observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of
gravity
>at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
>magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
>become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
>certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a
large
>ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
>same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
>fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
Which means that air resistence is at best neglible, if not
nonexistent. Remember that for later.
>So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight)
upon
>anything sup****ting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
>greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
>falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
>accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
second
>for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
heavier
>objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
>per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
>falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling
at
>64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
>on.
>Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
falling
>at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged
16
>ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
fallen
>16 feet.
For the first second. You neglect to mention that the object
continues to accelerate. In the case of the WTC towers, the upper
part of the building was traveling a couple hundred miles an hour by
the time it got to the ground.
>Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
>harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in
any
>high-school physics book:
>* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>And
>* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
1/2
>x G x T x T)
>So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
and at the end of 11 seconds, that object will have fallen 1936 feet.
The WTC towers were 1362 and 1368 feet tall.
>So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144
feet
>and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
So what?
>Checking Our Work:
>We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
using
>conservation of energy.
>We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
changes
>form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
in
>a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
>gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
>heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
>bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
converted
>into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
>[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
to
>shatter or even pulverize concrete.
>In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
>concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
>potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
stored
>up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever
is
>holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
>gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
>converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
energy.
>The equation for potential energy is:
>* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
H)
>The equation for kinetic energy is:
>* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object
has a
>mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
>momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
144
>= 4608
>The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
1/2
>x 9216 = 4608
Except the falling object in this case had a mass considerably more
than "1". Why do you neglect to calculate the kinetic energy
represented by the upper floors of the WTC towers falling on the lower
floors?
>So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
Seeing
>that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
>simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
independent
>analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
energy.
>Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
>perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact,
you
>may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped
out
>of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
will
>a solid metal ball.
And in the case of large heavy objects, like steel beams (and your
Galileo example) air resistence can be neglected. It just doesn't act
on the object.
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys135d/modules/m4/2ndLaw.htm
"The force of gravity
Assume you are standing on a 20m high platform with a ball in your
outstretched hand. At t = 0 you let go of the ball and it starts
falling towards the ground below. At t = 0 the ball has zero
velocity. At some later time, but before it hits the ground, its
velocity is in the downward direction. Its speed is increasing as it
falls. The ball is accelerating. Why is a falling ball accelerating?
Which force is acting on it?
The force of gravity is acting on the falling ball. On the surface of
the earth, the direction of this force is always downward, towards the
ground. It pulls on all objects with mass.
As the object gains speed, other forces also act on it. The force of
friction on a moving object is always directed opposite to the
object's velocity. It always tries to slow down the object. The
magnitude of this force depends on the shape of the object, its speed,
and the medium in which it is moving. For many smooth, dense objects
the magnitude of the frictional force at low speeds in air is very
small compared to the gravitational force and we can safely neglect
it.
Assume we are dropping two smooth, spherical objects of different
m*****, such as a bowling ball and a marble, at the same time. If the
force of gravity acting on the two objects had the same magnitude,
then the bowling ball would accelerate less and gain less speed in the
same amount of time. The marble would hit the floor first. In an
experiment, however, the two objects hit the floor at the same time.
They gain the same speed in the same time. This mean that the force
of gravity acting on the bowling ball must have a greater magnitude
than the force of gravity acting on the marble. The force of gravity
acting on an object must be pro****tional to the mass of the object.
We write
Fg = mg.
We also have Fg = ma from Newton's second law, so g = a. The
pro****tional constant g is called the acceleration due to gravity. On
the surface of the earth g = 9.8m/s2 and its direction is downward.
The force of gravity acting on an object is called its weight.
On the surface of the earth all objects experience the same
acceleration due to gravity in the downward direction, regardless of
their mass. The acceleration due to frictional forces is always in
the direction opposite the object's velocity, and differs from object
to object. However, when we are justified to neglect friction, then
we can say that all dropped objects accelerate at the same rate."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html
"So in conclusion, the elephant falls faster than the feather because
it never reaches a terminal velocity; it continues to accelerate as it
falls (ac***ulating more and more air resistance), approaching a
terminal velocity yet never reaches it. On the other hand, the feather
quickly reaches a terminal velocity. Not requiring much air resistance
before it ceases its acceleration, the feather obtains the state of
terminal velocity in an early stage of its fall. The small terminal
velocity of the feather means that the remainder of its fall will
occur with a small terminal velocity. "
>That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
>gets expended doing the work of pu****ng a lot of air out of the way in
order
>for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
potential
>energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
of
>32 ft/sec/sec.
>In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
>falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
>energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity
reduces
>its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
per
>second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
>overcoming frictional resistance.
>This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
equations
>predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase
without
>limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
>propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.
At
>that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
>increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
>incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
air
>creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
>terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
upward,
>they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
maintained.
>Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
person
>attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
And the debris from the WTC never reached terminal velocity.
>A Quick Recap:
>Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to
precise
>physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
>resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it
would
>without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air
resistance
>it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
>fall a given distance.
>Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start
by
>using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
>free-fall from the towers' height.
>Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>Time = 9.2
>So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
>ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds,
the
>free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
over
>200 mph.
>But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
No, that is not true. See above.
>Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able
to
>imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
>arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
>objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
>example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
>mph.
Only if the person extends their arms and legs to slow themselves
down. One can fall faster than that with the right orientation. Oh,
and BTW, it takes some 12-15 seconds for a human body to reach 120
mph.
>Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
>than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach
the
>ground.
Not according to real physicists. See above.
>Observations from 9/11:
>On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Re****t, we are told, in the
government's
>"complete and final re****t" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
>seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
>government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they
could
>not lie about this.
No, it's not. The 9/11 Commission Re****t is not a scientific, peer
reviewed do***ent.
>But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
>seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
air.
Yet you can't tell us what the correct time should have been, can you?
>This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the
>air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
>undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands
of
>times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central
steel
>core columns, had successfully sup****ted the mass of the tower for 30
years
>despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
And neither can steel if you know the difference between static load
and dynamic load.
Here's a test that's been suggested to people like you before.
Get a 50 pound sack of flour.
You can carry that in your arms, right?
Have someone climb a ladder with that 50 pound sack of flour up say 20
feet and drop it to you.
See what happens when you try to catch it.
>Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way
of
>the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air
would?
>Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
upper
>floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
>you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
>minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
than
>10 seconds!
If you can't say, then how do you know? You don't, so much for your
"scientific" physics paper.
>What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
not
>have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
>rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to
be
>physically impossible!
>Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
>high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
>glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better
word.
>Never mind what happened to all the sup****ting steel core columns! The
>energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
amount
>of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
>sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
close
>to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
>expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
glass,
>eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
>The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
have
>done all these things at once.
>Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
WHERE
>DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
It came from a many millions of pounds of building that existed above
the crash zones.
>Conclusions:
>In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed
>duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
>following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance
to
>the collapse.
Wrong. And unsup****ted in your "scientific" paper.
>* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure
>of energy.
Wrong. And unsup****ted in your "scientific" paper.
>* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.
Wrong. And unsup****ted in your "scientific" paper.
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
>gravity.
Wrong. And unsup****ted in your "scientific" paper.
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
Wrong. And unsup****ted in your "scientific" paper.
>None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
can
>be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
>the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
myth
>of 9/11.
>The Bottom Line:
>The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
>conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
>FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
>collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
>explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
You haven't even calculated the amount of energy involved in the
collapse, s****t.
>It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
>destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
>free-fall time.
Yet you have shown no scientific evidence to sup****t this
"conclusion".
> This fact
Which isn't a "fact" sup****ted by any evidence that you've presented.
>debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
>collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
impacts.
>The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
>towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather
they
>came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
Yet you have not demonstrated what the duration of the collapse should
be. So much for your "science".
>So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
>story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
>premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you
to
>decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
>presumptions, is also flawed.
Since the "official" story isn't a pancake collapse, you're wrong from
the beginning.
>The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
>also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
>similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
>made no attempt to explain it.
Because, as you've been told many times, it wasn't in their charge to
do so.
|
