Why the 3rd skyscraper came freefalling down on 9/11
schoenf...@gmail.com
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
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 freefall 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
Ironically, we do not even need to consider Newtonian physics to deduce
that the WTC 7 collapsed in a freefall. We do not even need Newtonian
physics to understand that such kinematical behaviour is the providence
of controlled demolition or directed energy weaponry.
What, Me Worry?
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166449680....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The conversion of a concrete-and-steel skyscraper into clouds of dust and
shredded steel, with no pancaking whatsoever, is evidence all by itself of
massive energy being directed into the structure, which cannot be accounted
for by minor fires (and of course, no jets hit WTC7). The best available
analysis includes a combination of visual analysis of the near-free-fall
collapse (easily verified from numerous videos), photographic evidence of
the wreckage, and the discovery of significant quantities of thermate
residue via chemical analysis of verified WTC7 steel samples. (Thermate is
an incendiary explosive compound used by the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate)
I take issue with statements about "directed energy weaponry" in the absence
of observable evidence. It is sufficient at this time to understand that
WTC7 was, indeed, collapsed deliberately in a controlled explosive
demolition using commonly-available chemical compounds. The remainder of
the investigation into the identities of the specific perpetrators (who
rigged and then detonated the WTC7 structure) and the precise means of
rigging the building(s) for demolition will be discovered in a full
investigation, which was never conducted, but which must be opened.
whofan
> In article <1166449680....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>
>>Ironically, we do not even need to consider Newtonian physics to deduce
>>that the WTC 7 collapsed in a freefall. We do not even need Newtonian
>>physics to understand that such kinematical behaviour is the providence
>>of controlled demolition or directed energy weaponry.
>
>
> confirmed as such in a TV interview.
>
> The problem is in getting the world's media to ask questions and for the
> people in the street who blindly accept anything the government feeds them.
>
Got tinfoil?
SwampMidget
HAHAHAHA!!!! I LOVE reading you guys w/ my morning coffee. Nothin'
like startin' the day w/ a good laugh!
Harlan Messinger
> If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
> from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
> logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
If you had a point to make that would explain why this is in any of the
newsgroups you posted it to other than sci.physics, you forgot to make it.
[Follow-ups set.]
malibu
And which investigation will have a better
chance of happening after January.
It will also be instructive to find out
how President Bush 'saw the first plane hit the building
(a TV must have been on- yeah in your limo-
when such was never televised until 3 weeks later)
and.uh...figgered it was pilot error', according to his
own recorded statement.
Hmmmmm. You got one real bad boy there. Wake up, America.
John
Unknown
sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
over 100 stories.
What a joke.
Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mike
(axolotl) wrote:
> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> over 100 stories.
>
> What a joke.
>
> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>
> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
hmmm.... that seems to make his case even stronger...
Mike
OG
<axolotl> wrote in message news:45870801...@news.simplybits.net...
> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> over 100 stories.
>
> What a joke.
>
> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>
> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
WTC7 was one of the smaller buildings that surrounded the main WTC towers (1
& 2)
WTC7 was 174 metres tall.
>>If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
>>from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
>>logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
>> A freefall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
>>seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
>>kinematical considerations alone:
>>Ironically, we do not even need to consider Newtonian physics to deduce
>>that the WTC 7 collapsed in a freefall.
>>We do not even need Newtonian
>>physics to understand that such kinematical behaviour is the providence
>>of controlled demolition or directed energy weaponry.
>>
Why do you say 'providence' ?
Definition
1. (often initial capital letter) the foreseeing care and guidance of
God or nature over the creatures of the earth.
2. (initial capital letter) God, esp. when conceived as omnisciently
directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.
3. a manifestation of divine care or direction.
4. provident or prudent management of resources; prudence.
5. foresight; provident care.
I don't see what you want 'providence' to mean in this context.
And your logic is as flawed as your literacy.
hhc...@yahoo.com
unlying building resistance, air resistance, and mass in the way.
Harry C.
OG
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4uon40F...@mid.individual.net...
>
The following comments were not, of course, made to axolotl
Unruh
>(axolotl) wrote:
>> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
>> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
>> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
>> over 100 stories.
>>
>> What a joke.
>>
>> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>>
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>>
>> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
>hmmm.... that seems to make his case even stronger...
Ah, yes, they must have attached a rocket to the top to force it down
faster than gravity. Or maybe they installed a gravimeter in the subway
under the centers which increased the local gravity by a factor of 5 or
something to make them collapse. This was all using the gravity control
techniques they learned from the Alien spaceship in Roswell.
However, the premise is bad. WTC 7 was a 47 story tower. It was not one of
the original tall things which are usually called the World Trade Center--
WTC 1 or 2.
Peter T. Daniels
(axolotl) wrote:
> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> over 100 stories.
>
> What a joke.
>
> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>
> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
Even though this has nothing whatsoever to do with sci.lang, as a New
Yorker I must point out that WTC 7 was neither 1 WTC nor 2 WTC; it was
a short tower across the street to the north, which held, in the one
hand, Giuliani's "emergency response center," and on the other, immense
tanks of oil. It suffered damage from falling debris, and the landlord,
Larry Silverstein, decided that it was better to "destroy the building
in order to save it" -- perhaps that meant "abandon heroic measures."
It was in fact the first building in the whole destruction area to be
replaced; it opened for business months ago, and stands largely vacant
because there was already too much office space in Lower Manhattan
compared to the demand for office space in Lower Manhattan. (Which is
why an awful lot of office buildings in Lower Manhattan have been
converted into skyscraper residences.)
schoenf...@gmail.com
(axolotl) wrote:
> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> over 100 stories.
>
> What a joke.
>
> Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
WTC 7 which was a skyscraper a block away from the towers. It was 174
meters in height and it came freefalling down in 6 seconds (see video
in previous post).
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>
> A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
Which is approximately how long the towers took to reach the ground
(+/- a second). In the case of the towers, they fall faster than
freefall (factoring in wind resistance), which would imply the use of
directed energy weaponry.
>
schoenf...@gmail.com
schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> (axolotl) wrote:
> > You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
> > sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
> > per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
> > over 100 stories.
> >
> > What a joke.
> >
> > Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
[CORRECTED MISPRINT]
WTC 7 was a skyscraper a block away from the towers. It was 174 meters
in height and it came freefalling down in 6 seconds (see video in
previous post).
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
> >
> > A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
Which is approximately how long the towers took to reach the ground
(+/- a second). In the case of the towers, they fell faster than
OG
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166487543....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Why is that implied?
Vandar
> (axolotl) wrote:
>
>>You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That
>>sounds off by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet
>>per story, that would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was
>>over 100 stories.
>>
>>What a joke.
>>
>>Oh, I just checked. The roof was 417 meters.
>
>
> WTC 7 which was a skyscraper a block away from the towers. It was 174
> meters in height and it came freefalling down in 6 seconds (see video
> in previous post).
It was a skyscraper acroos the street from the towers and came down in
12 seconds after hours of fire and structural damage.
>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center)
>>
>>A free fall of 417 meters would take 9.2 seconds.
>
>
> Which is approximately how long the towers took to reach the ground
> (+/- a second). In the case of the towers, they fall faster than
> freefall (factoring in wind resistance), which would imply the use of
> directed energy weaponry.
LMFAO!
What, Me Worry?
"SwampMidget" <webm...@101click.com> wrote in message
news:1166454416....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How long before you get laid off from your disinfo job, Swampass?
jimpgh2002
<invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1166449680....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[Snip]
>
>> Ironically, we do not even need to consider Newtonian physics to deduce
>> that the WTC 7 collapsed in a freefall. We do not even need Newtonian
>> physics to understand that such kinematical behaviour is the providence
>> of controlled demolition or directed energy weaponry.
>
>We know that WTC7 underwent a controlled demolution. Larry Silverstein
>confirmed as such in a TV interview.
>
Who is "we", junior? It sure doesn't include me. Do you
believe in Santa & the Easter bunny as well?
hhc...@yahoo.com
from the real facts with you rather simplistic but precisely accurate
explanation? No way.
These guys are still lingering on theories about a second shooter on
the 'grassy knoll', the Lincoln's death, and flying saucers. Do you
really believe that the simple explanation of fact will discourage
these guys, who without their conspiracy theories, unlike the rest of
us, have nothing else to live for?
Harry C.
Colonel Panic
<pm...@xxnospamxx.com> wrote:
What do you think caused building 7 to fall?
Peter T. Daniels
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter, do you really believe that you'll lead the conspiracy buffs away
> from the real facts with you rather simplistic but precisely accurate
> explanation? No way.
>
> These guys are still lingering on theories about a second shooter on
> the 'grassy knoll', the Lincoln's death, and flying saucers. Do you
> really believe that the simple explanation of fact will discourage
> these guys, who without their conspiracy theories, unlike the rest of
> us, have nothing else to live for?
I was kind of hoping they'd leave sci.lang alone ...
malibu
Paul Vigay wrote:
> In article <45870801...@news.simplybits.net>,
> axolotl (axolotl) wrote:
> > You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That sounds off
> > by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet per story, that
> > would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was over 100 stories.
>
> WTC Seven for those who can't count.
>
> WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane and was not under 'terror' attack. It was
> "pulled" by Larry Silverstein on Sept 11th (around 5.30pm I believe).
>
> Now... It takes weeks to rig a building for a controlled demolition - so
> how could they rig a building in less than 8 hours? AND, with all the other
> commotion going on across the street?
>
EGG-frickin zacktly!
Find the riggers and track it back, Jack.
Right to who REALLY killed 3000 Americans.
Someone with money and power. Lots of power.
John
Vandar
> In article <181220062146105178%kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd>,
> Colonel Panic <kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd> wrote:
>
>
>>What do you think caused building 7 to fall?
>
>
> ground just shout "conspiracy theorist" or "nutter" and make a few other
> insults but don't actually provide any answers of their own.
They've all been answered.
> Larry Silverstein said on national television that they took the decision
> to "pull the building"
That is not what he said.
jimpgh2002
jimpgh2002
<invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <181220062146105178%kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd>,
> Colonel Panic <kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd> wrote:
>
>> What do you think caused building 7 to fall?
>
>You won't get an answer to that
Wanna bet?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
wby...@ireland.com
<kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd> wrote:
Ummm.... explosions plus gravity?
WB Yeats
OG
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166487694.5...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've not said say why a freefall pattern of collapse 'implies' directed
energy weapons.
How do they work then?
hhc...@yahoo.com
"Now... It takes weeks to rig a building for a controlled demolition -
so
how could they rig a building in less than 8 hours? AND, with all the
other
commotion going on across the street?"
Simple, it was a relatively small structure and already damaged beyond
repair, isolate in a complex that had already been destroyed. Guided by
a structural engineer, a dozen or so small charges carefully placed
would have been all that was needed to bring it down.
Harry C.
Paul Vigay wrote:
> In article <45870801...@news.simplybits.net>,
> axolotl (axolotl) wrote:
> > You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That sounds off
> > by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet per story, that
> > would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was over 100 stories.
>
> Why don't you read properly. The original poster clearly said WTC 7. That's
> WTC Seven for those who can't count.
>
> WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane and was not under 'terror' attack. It was
> "pulled" by Larry Silverstein on Sept 11th (around 5.30pm I believe).
>
> Now... It takes weeks to rig a building for a controlled demolition - so
> how could they rig a building in less than 8 hours? AND, with all the other
> commotion going on across the street?
>
> --
> Paul Vigay __\\|//__ Life,
> (` o-o ') the Universe
> --- http://www.vigay.com --------ooO-(_)-Ooo---------- & Everything --------
> Usenet replies: To email me visit domain in sig and use 'feedback' form.
Unruh
Whatever they are. There is nothing in the arsenal of anyone except maybe
the aliens at Roswell, which would make the buildings fall faster than
freefall. The evidence that they fell in freefall is just what you would
expect.
Ie, this guy is spouting non-sense.
( Actually it is evicence of a giant Godzilla who crushed the buildings
under his giant foot. An invisible Godzilla)
>>
Unknown
<invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <45870801...@news.simplybits.net>,
> axolotl (axolotl) wrote:
>> You're telling us the WTC was only 174 meters in height? That sounds off
>> by about a factor of 2. 174 m = 571 feet. At 10 feet per story, that
>> would make for a 57 story building. The WTC was over 100 stories.
>
>Why don't you read properly. The original poster clearly said WTC 7. That's
>WTC Seven for those who can't count.
Yes, my bad. I apologize.
>WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane and was not under 'terror' attack. It was
>"pulled" by Larry Silverstein on Sept 11th (around 5.30pm I believe).
>
>Now... It takes weeks to rig a building for a controlled demolition - so
>how could they rig a building in less than 8 hours? AND, with all the other
>commotion going on across the street?
I agree - there is some mysterious stuff happening in the case of WTC 7.
However, the apparent free fall collapse rate does not bother me in the
least for any of the collapses. I am going to make a follow up to the
original poster to explain why...
Unknown
each of the various collapses, a huge cloud of dust obscures the pile of
rubble.
Then perhaps a bigger question for you to answer is: How many instances
of a building collapsing without the aid of intentional explosions have
you seen (and timed)? My guess is none. So how is it so obvious to you
that a building SHOULDN'T collapse at free fall rate when brought down by
things other than explosives?
I agree that there is some fishy business going on with WTC 7. However,
the free fall rate of collapse does not mean anything to me. It makes
sense that any very large structure would collapse at nearly free fall
rate, whether or not it was intentionally exploded.
>Ironically, we do not even need to consider Newtonian physics to deduce
>that the WTC 7 collapsed in a freefall. We do not even need Newtonian
>physics to understand that such kinematical behaviour is the providence
>of controlled demolition or directed energy weaponry.
>
mike3
> shredded steel, with no pancaking whatsoever, is evidence all by itself of
> massive energy being directed into the structure, which cannot be accounted
> for by minor fires (and of course, no jets hit WTC7). The best available
> analysis includes a combination of visual analysis of the near-free-fall
> collapse (easily verified from numerous videos), photographic evidence of
> the wreckage, and the discovery of significant quantities of thermate
> residue via chemical analysis of verified WTC7 steel samples. (Thermate is
> an incendiary explosive compound used by the military.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate)
>
> I take issue with statements about "directed energy weaponry" in the absence
> of observable evidence. It is sufficient at this time to understand that
> WTC7 was, indeed, collapsed deliberately in a controlled explosive
> demolition using commonly-available chemical compounds. The remainder of
> the investigation into the identities of the specific perpetrators (who
> rigged and then detonated the WTC7 structure) and the precise means of
> rigging the building(s) for demolition will be discovered in a full
> investigation, which was never conducted, but which must be opened.
What "converts a concrete-and-steel skyscraper into clouds of dust and
shredded steel" in an explosive demolition is NOT the explosives, but
rather
GRAVITY. If GRAVITY can provide the necessary energy when explosives
are used, it can sure the heck provide the necessary energy without
explosives being used. Furthermore, how does the destruction of WTC 7
prove anything about the two towers? From every video I've seen of the
collapse of the Towers it appears that failure occurs around the area
where the AIRPLANES impacted and the top of the tower coming down
smashes the floors below. The AIRPLANES are the "explosive devices"
that were used to demolish the buildings and they did a GREAT job of it.
visions of effty
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166577071....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Huh?????? What are you smoking?
Bryan Olson
> If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to freefall
> from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
> logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a freefall.
>
> 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
Bad vantage point. Try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w&search=wtc7
You can see the collapse stars several seconds before the
other video shows. In both videos, we see it the building
collapse until it's obscured by other buildings, not until
it hits the ground.
The whole "freefall" thing is just a mistake.
Followups to sci.skeptic
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
> The conversion of a concrete-and-steel skyscraper into clouds of dust and
> shredded steel, with no pancaking whatsoever, is evidence all by itself of
> massive energy being directed into the structure, which cannot be accounted
> for by minor fires (and of course, no jets hit WTC7).
WTC7 was pommeled by debris from the WTC1. It was built over a
generating station and contained large tanks of fuel oil.
> The best available
> analysis includes a combination of visual analysis of the near-free-fall
> collapse (easily verified from numerous videos), photographic evidence of
> the wreckage, and the discovery of significant quantities of thermate
All nonsense. The collapse was not near free-fall. The best analysis
was inconclusive as to the exact chain of failures --n ot surprising,
since the instigating conditions were so complex and so unlike
anything seen before. Unique events have unpredicted consequences,
always have, probably always will.
Bryan Olson
> In article <181220062146105178%kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd>,
> Colonel Panic <kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd> wrote:
>
>
> ground just shout "conspiracy theorist" or "nutter" and make a few other
> insults but don't actually provide any answers of their own.
>
> to "pull the building"
I think you're lying about that. On what national TV show did he
say "pull the building"?
I can tell you he did *not* say it on the 2002 PBS documentary,
'America Rebuilds', from which the clip in the post that began
this thread was taken. He was talking about the firefighting
effort, and said "pull it", not what you have in quotes.
> - so the next question is, how long does it take to
> rig a building for pulling? Much more than 8 hours, AND with all the other
> commotion going on!
You mean set up the cables and all? Looks pretty complicated.
Here... you can see some of the set-up as they pull Building 6
down some time later:
http://www.911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
Building 6 had been damaged in the 9/11 attack, but stood. They
had to make sure it fell in a controlled manner, unlike the
buildings that fell in the attack. So they pulled it with cables.
Some of inside-job nuts say that "pull" is jargon for demolish
with explosives. It seems they just made it up, so they could lie
and claim that Larry Silverstein said WTC7 was deliberately
demolished; that one word being the only one Silverstein used that
a viewer would need special help understanding.
So if you're wondering why people 'just shout "conspiracy theorist"
or "nutter"' at your theories, remember there are some darn good
reasons.
mike3
Yes, you read it right. That's where most of the energy comes from --
Gravity. The gravitational energy contained in the building is what
shatters and pulverizes the concrete. All the explosives do is just
knock out the columns so that can happen.
James Beck
<kerne...@originalrecipe.bsd> wrote:
A flaming jet engine fell on it, punched a hole through the top two
floors and set the building on fire. In addition, NIST footage shows a
10-story gash on the south side that they currently think penetrated
about 25% of the building. Additional fires were observed on the 4th
and 5th floors. The 5th floor fire burned for 7 hours. Despite the
extensive damage, the NIST investigators are not absolutely certain of
the cause of the collapse. That's hardly surprising since emergency
personnel were forced to evacuate rapidly after the south tower
collapsed, and there would have been a dearth of objective observers.
For my part, I think conspiracy theories formulated in the gap between
'highly probable' and 'certain' are a waste of time. OTOH there are
several questions one might ask of our government. Among them:
1) Why did Guiliani move his command post to ground zero?
2) Why was the emergency response following the collapse(s) so
incompetent and poorly coordinated?
3) Why did the government lie to the public about the release of
asbestos, PCBs and other toxic chemicals?
4) Why were people encouraged to return to work (and school) in lower
Manhattan in spite of the known health risks?
I'm sure you can think of many more questions.
schoenf...@gmail.com
WTC 7 appears like a standard demolition.
The towers on the other hand fall faster than freefall which, those who
accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
used.
Corroborating evidence includes :
[1] A 'surgical hole' in the middle of WTC 6
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image22.jpg
[2] Toasted cars
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image8.jpg
[3] Cars with missing door handles and melted engine blocks 7 blocks
away from the WTC
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image9.jpg
[4] Spontaneous conversion of steel into dust (seen in videos).
[5] Much more that a cursory, independent and objective analysis can
provide.
> How do they work then?
Put it this way - Academia physicists, entrenched in their 17'th
century vanity-priority mindset, fell behind a long time ago...
T Wake
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166976664.1...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>>
>> You've not said say why a freefall pattern of collapse 'implies' directed
>> energy weapons.
>
> WTC 7 appears like a standard demolition.
>
> The towers on the other hand fall faster than freefall which, those who
> accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
> for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
> used.
>
You are certifiable.
Unruh
>The towers on the other hand fall faster than freefall which, those who
>accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
>for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
>used.
What the hell is a "directed energy weapon"? All weapons are "directed
energy", so you mean someone must have used a BB gun?
...
>Put it this way - Academia physicists, entrenched in their 17'th
>century vanity-priority mindset, fell behind a long time ago...
Ah. Roswell again.
John Black
usenet...@gishpuppy.com says...
It is truly amazing that these people can even feed themselves. "faster
than free fall ... directed energy weapon", LOL!!!
John Black
noload
I totally agree. If anything, he made my holidays even more cheerful. I
had a good laugh after reading his tripe.
Peter T. Daniels
Unruh wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >The towers on the other hand fall faster than freefall which, those who
> >accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
> >for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
> >used.
>
> What the hell is a "directed energy weapon"? All weapons are "directed
> energy", so you mean someone must have used a BB gun?
A light saber? Or, from an earlier era, a phaser?
Gordon Burditt
>>accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
>>for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
>>used.
>
>What the hell is a "directed energy weapon"? All weapons are "directed
>energy", so you mean someone must have used a BB gun?
I think the important one is an airplane travelling at a fairly
high speed horizontally and down vertically.
Some weapons are not particularly directed; they just blast out
energy in all directions, like hand grenades, bombs, and radiation
and blast wave from a nuclear explosion. Shaped demolition charges,
guns, lasers, particle beam weapons, etc. would be "directed energy"
weapons.
Now, what is a directed ignorance weapon?
schoenf...@gmail.com
The directed energy weaponsI know of include high-intensity directed
electromagnetic waves (i.e. lasers/masers) and high-intensity
particle-beams. There are also variants like Laser-induced plasma
channels which are high-intensity lasers (with special frequency) that
convert surrounding air particles into plasma. Not only do such weapons
exist, they are a billion dollar industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-Induced_Plasma_Channel
http://www.ionatron.com
I am almost certain (without direct evidence) that _much_ more
sophisticated but classified technologies exist. I would call these
'gravitoelectromagnetic' weapons using principles of physics not even
remotely understood by mainstream physics establishment (who are too
consumed with Einstein-worship to see the abundant empirical
falsifications of mainstream gravitation theory).
> Now, what is a directed ignorance weapon?
Ignorance is widespread, complacency pandemic. Most people here laugh
at the mere notion of 'directed energy weapon' and yet it's a highly
profitable billion dollar industry.
Like I said, academia scientific establishment fell behind a long time
ago..
Luc The Perverse
news:1167021219....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> I am almost certain (without direct evidence) that _much_ more
> sophisticated but classified technologies exist. I would call these
> 'gravitoelectromagnetic' weapons using principles of physics not even
> remotely understood by mainstream physics establishment (who are too
> consumed with Einstein-worship to see the abundant empirical
> falsifications of mainstream gravitation theory).
Huh?
While I do not doubt that the government has classified technology - I think
you might be pushing it with weapons that are too complex to be understood
by physicists outside the "elite" circle.
I mean what are you trying to say? Because the government has billions of
dollars to waste that this makes its scientists impervious to self imposed
veils?
Or I suppose every time an unworthy physicist begins to figure out the
discrepancy, his brain emits a characteristic vibration pattern which is
picked up from the super duper secret moon sized space station and they
squelch him using special radiation that is outside the realm of normal (non
government) physicist's comprehension coming from another satellite hidden
in a fourth dimensional tear in space.
I will give it one concession - if the government has technology which is
truly beyond the comprehension of normal institutions - then I would have to
assume it was given to us (something I could not entirely rule out) from a
higher power, or a more advanced race - and they have elected to keep it
secret.
--
LTP
:)
schoenf...@gmail.com
Luc The Perverse wrote:
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167021219....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > I am almost certain (without direct evidence) that _much_ more
> > sophisticated but classified technologies exist. I would call these
> > 'gravitoelectromagnetic' weapons using principles of physics not even
> > remotely understood by mainstream physics establishment (who are too
> > consumed with Einstein-worship to see the abundant empirical
> > falsifications of mainstream gravitation theory).
>
> Huh?
>
> While I do not doubt that the government has classified technology - I think
> you might be pushing it with weapons that are too complex to be understood
> by physicists outside the "elite" circle.
>
> I mean what are you trying to say?
The truth is already known to you - you are just unable to interpret
it. It is in the part of your mind which you have relegated to the
status of 'kookery' and for 'crackpots'.
> Because the government has billions of dollars to waste that this makes
> its scientists impervious to self imposed veils?
If you've ever worked in Academia you would see that it's manifestly
entrenched in a 17th century "vanity-priority" mindset. The empirical
is simply not the sole basis for judgement in Academia-related research
- the evidence must first conform to the preferred social-political
paradigm if it is to be considered.
An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
plundering of immense resources in entertaining notions of unobservable
'dark matter/energy' in unobservable dimensions in the form of
multi-dimensional unobservable strings. Such is the scale of this
delusion that according to the standard model of cosmology, only 3% of
the universe consists of _observable_ entity. Most physicists have no
problem with these notions, and hence the problem.
> Or I suppose every time an unworthy physicist begins to figure out the
> discrepancy, his brain emits a characteristic vibration pattern which is
> picked up from the super duper secret moon sized space station and they
> squelch him using special radiation that is outside the realm of normal (non
> government) physicist's comprehension coming from another satellite hidden
> in a fourth dimensional tear in space.
I agree, it is common for understanding to be traded for the laziness
to acquire it (as you've demonstrated).
Bryan Olson
> The truth is already known to you - you are just unable to interpret
> it. It is in the part of your mind which you have relegated to the
> status of 'kookery' and for 'crackpots'.
Well, that much you have correct. We already know the stuff you
post is kookery. Wrong information, cross-posted to irrelevant
newsgroups.
[...]
> An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
> evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
> rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
Ah, good. Personally I take the relativity-deniers even less
seriously than other kinds of crackpots, because I worry others
could build nukes.
Followups to sci.skeptic and sci.physics.
--
--Bryan
Luc The Perverse
news:1167035778....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The truth is already known to you - you are just unable to interpret
> it. It is in the part of your mind which you have relegated to the
> status of 'kookery' and for 'crackpots'.
The purpose of the mind and intellect is to apply reason to otherwise
perceived chaos. If I blindly accepted everything I heard on Usenet - I
doubt the garbage having filled my head would allow me to continue to
participate in our game called "life".
>> Because the government has billions of dollars to waste that this makes
>> its scientists impervious to self imposed veils?
>
> If you've ever worked in Academia you would see that it's manifestly
> entrenched in a 17th century "vanity-priority" mindset. The empirical
> is simply not the sole basis for judgement in Academia-related research
> - the evidence must first conform to the preferred social-political
> paradigm if it is to be considered.
That is a very broad generalization. My question is - what makes the
government above this?
Of course "government" is such a broad term. Is our government the only one
that knows about it - or is it many governments, or all "developed"
governments?
> An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
> evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
> rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
> plundering of immense resources in entertaining notions of unobservable
> 'dark matter/energy' in unobservable dimensions in the form of
> multi-dimensional unobservable strings. Such is the scale of this
> delusion that according to the standard model of cosmology, only 3% of
> the universe consists of _observable_ entity. Most physicists have no
> problem with these notions, and hence the problem.
And the only people who know this are the government and you . . . I am
quite lucky to have met you ;)
Joking aside - all theories are wrong - I don't think we will ever have a
formula that calculates reality.
Take Newton for instance - his work in physics helped people to understand
the world around them - a world that thought that the planets were being
pushed around by angels - needed to learn about inertia, gravity etc.
Newtonian physics was a step in the right direction.
Einstein didn't replace Newtonian physics, he supplimented it with
information that can be ignored for a large number of problems that Newton
himself wouldn't have been able to observe. When it comes to time to solve
a problem - you look at the pieces composing the problem and choose the most
appropriate toolset.
> I agree, it is common for understanding to be traded for the laziness
> to acquire it (as you've demonstrated).
I'm sorry - I don't know what you are saying and I am too lazy to figure it
out.
Seriously - I am not above conspiracy theories, and secret technologies. I
would not be at all suprised if I found out that the NSA had a working
quantum computer able to crack arbitrary large RSA keys. I wouldn't go so
far as to say it is probable, only "it would not suprise me"
>> I will give it one concession - if the government has technology which is
>> truly beyond the comprehension of normal institutions - then I would have
>> to
>> assume it was given to us (something I could not entirely rule out) from
>> a
>> higher power, or a more advanced race - and they have elected to keep it
>> secret.
Ah I thought of one more possibility (in reply to my original statement).
If the government were able to create AI that was vastly superior to human
intellect, it could turn around and give us information and intel "beyond
human reasoning" Again - I don't think we are anywhere near that point.
I do see what you are saying though - a physicist was mad that no one
believed his thesis on subspace weapons, so he decided to destroy some giant
buildings in new york, but he wasn't wearing his tin foil hat, so big
brother caught wind of it and got some Arab guys to fly a few planes into
the buildings real quick to avoid the possible repercussions of development
in the world of physics.
I'm not one to point the finger and yell "kookery" (as you say) - I just
believe some theories need to be thought through a little before they are
voiced. (I may not yell kookery, but when something sounds silly I may be
a bit of a smart ass about it.)
Even people who believe the 9/11 story presented by the government will
concede that there are some inconsistencies - and specifically the idea that
there were explosives in the building have merit to them, whether they are
true or not.
On the other hand, I have yet to hear any convincing evidence that directed
gravitation field beam weapons (or whatever was said) have been used, other
than an obscure reference to the buildings collapsing too quickly (which is
inconsistent with in depth analyses which I have watched to satiate my
interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories)
I am not even opposed to the idea that such a weapon exists.
This is my main point:
The government would not use a secret technology, which it wants to keep
secret to perform operations that could be accomplished with conventional
technology.
Secrets can only stay secret for so long. Either they are unimportant, and
go away, or they grow to the point that they get out of the bag.
Eventually, if there is a conspiracy to distort knowledge on physics,
someone will come out with a better model to sway people of importance (by
better model I mean not involving unsubstantiated claims in a crossposted
newsgroup message involving a terror attack) Really, physics surrounds
us - so fundamental flaws in theory need not be linked with a terror attack,
except for propaganda.
Until I hear the newspaper article, "10 physicists die - cause of death
unknown", or "8th university professor in physics department mysteriously
develops amnesia" - I am going to have a hard time swallowing conspiracy
theories like this. I am not like most - instantly delete - I am willing to
give it a read - even think about it.
But I wasn't joking - if I didn't throw out ideas that sounded ridiculous I
could sit around in a corner 24 hours a day saying "what if this . . . what
if that . . ." which is not very useful existence.
It will a reach a point where some things don't matter. What if . . . .
every time I buy chicken, it is really turkey - and everyone is in on it . .
it's just a giant joke to make me look stupid. I mean . . I've never
personally witnessed the slaughter of a chicken to make my casserole.
That's why you take the blue pill. Because some things just don't matter -
and when you give up life making sense in pursuit of "ultimate and pure
truth" you just get garbage back out, because truth and reality are
inherently relative (trying hard not to make two movie/book comparisons in
the same paragraph . . struggling . . . )
--
LTP
:)
Bryan Olson
> The directed energy weaponsI know of include high-intensity directed
> electromagnetic waves (i.e. lasers/masers) and high-intensity
> particle-beams.
Where did you see these bring down buildings? How could the
fall of the towers look to you like something you've never seen?
[...]
> I am almost certain (without direct evidence) that _much_ more
> sophisticated but classified technologies exist.
So you believe what you know full well you pulled out of your,
uh, imagination.
> I would call these
> 'gravitoelectromagnetic' weapons using principles of physics not even
> remotely understood by mainstream physics establishment
You imagine someone used weapons you imagine to exist to
destroy the towers, because that's what you imagine it would
look like.
Followups to sci.skeptic.
--
--Bryan
Antony Clements
> entrenched in a 17th century "vanity-priority" mindset. The empirical
> is simply not the sole basis for judgement in Academia-related research
> - the evidence must first conform to the preferred social-political
> paradigm if it is to be considered.
>
> An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
> evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
> rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
> plundering of immense resources in entertaining notions of unobservable
> 'dark matter/energy' in unobservable dimensions in the form of
> multi-dimensional unobservable strings. Such is the scale of this
> delusion that according to the standard model of cosmology, only 3% of
> the universe consists of _observable_ entity. Most physicists have no
> problem with these notions, and hence the problem.
*deep breath*
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a growing proponent in
academia that argues that there is no such thing as fact because what
humanity see's as fact is merely a construct of the mind to allow us to have
some grasp of what humanity see's as reality and that what we see as reality
is really only a marginal amount of what is actually happening in a time
frame and manner that is almost entirely beyond human comprehension. It is
what allows 'kooks' and 'crackpots' to exist. take the X-1 for example,
everyone said it was physically impossible to break through the sound
barrier because it would tear the aircraft apart. At the time it was an
observable 'fact'. This of course was debunked when it actually occured. it
took a 'crackpot' to see beyond the imposed limits of understanding
constructed by the mind. it raised the bar a little of what is possible and
'impossible' as does every 'breakthrough'. Another example is the commonly
held belief that an object can not reach past 50% of the SoL (speed of light
for all you non amateur physicists), 51% of the SoL would tear apart an
object into it's component molecules. And yet recently Hawking has proposed,
using physics, an outline for an area of physics that would allow for
construction of a propulsion unit that would push an object to close to 70%
of the SoL. This propulsion unit would allow us to reach the nearest galaxy
(andromeda i believe) in about 12 years rather than the 4.something billion
years it would take using current technology. Athough i do believe he has
some of his figures wrong. 30% of the 'known' universe is visually or
radiologically observable. The rest is uncondenced energy (noticeable
background radiation) and things we can not see, either because it absorbs
all radiological and visual attempts to probe it (absorbing all frequencies
of known EM radiation) aka dark matter, or it is too far away for even the
hubble to see, or too small to appear as more than just a speck of dust.
What is uncondenced energy? The kind of energy that existed for a brief
moment 'on a human scale' after the 'big bang', also known as absolute pure
energy, that has no mass of it's own of any kind and does not interact with
any form of mass (the only energy capable of reaching past the speed of
light and thus proving general relativity) and once that energy starts to
slow down it 'condences' into quarks and so on and so forth, of course,
there is a small flaw in current big bang theory. If nothing can interact
with absolute pure enegry then there is nothing to slow it down and cause it
to condence other than another source of absolute pure energy. Two sine
waves of the same magnitude, frenquency, and phase will collide and feed
back on themselves, in essense they cancel each other out, otherwise they
pass through each other but some of the energy of each wave is lost.
Noticeable cosmological background radiation is not absolutely pure because
it interacts with any mass that it encounters.
Jos...@nospam.com
***No, in actuality it is called a "controlled media", Orwellian
style.
Peter T. Daniels
Antony Clements wrote:
> > If you've ever worked in Academia you would see that it's manifestly
> > entrenched in a 17th century "vanity-priority" mindset. The empirical
> > is simply not the sole basis for judgement in Academia-related research
> > - the evidence must first conform to the preferred social-political
> > paradigm if it is to be considered.
> >
> > An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
> > evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
> > rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
> > plundering of immense resources in entertaining notions of unobservable
> > 'dark matter/energy' in unobservable dimensions in the form of
> > multi-dimensional unobservable strings. Such is the scale of this
> > delusion that according to the standard model of cosmology, only 3% of
> > the universe consists of _observable_ entity. Most physicists have no
> > problem with these notions, and hence the problem.
>
> *deep breath*
> I think what he is trying to say is that there is a growing proponent in
> academia that argues that there is no such thing as fact because what
> humanity see's as fact is merely a construct of the mind to allow us to have
> some grasp of what humanity see's as reality and that what we see as reality
Just curious: why do you put an apostrophe in <sees> but not in any of
your other 3rd singular verbs?
> is really only a marginal amount of what is actually happening in a time
> frame and manner that is almost entirely beyond human comprehension. It is
> what allows 'kooks' and 'crackpots' to exist. take the X-1 for example,
> everyone said it was physically impossible to break through the sound
> barrier because it would tear the aircraft apart. At the time it was an
> observable 'fact'. This of course was debunked when it actually occured. it
> took a 'crackpot' to see beyond the imposed limits of understanding
> constructed by the mind. it raised the bar a little of what is possible and
> 'impossible' as does every 'breakthrough'. Another example is the commonly
> held belief that an object can not reach past 50% of the SoL (speed of light
> for all you non amateur physicists), 51% of the SoL would tear apart an
> object into it's component molecules.
Evidently subatomic particles don't count as "objects"!
> And yet recently Hawking has proposed,
> using physics, an outline for an area of physics that would allow for
> construction of a propulsion unit that would push an object to close to 70%
> of the SoL. This propulsion unit would allow us to reach the nearest galaxy
> (andromeda i believe) in about 12 years rather than the 4.something billion
> years it would take using current technology.
It's the nearest star (alpha Centauri) that's 4+ light years away, not
the nearest galaxy.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Antony Clements wrote:
>> > If you've ever worked in Academia you would see that it's manifestly
>> > entrenched in a 17th century "vanity-priority" mindset. The empirical
>> > is simply not the sole basis for judgement in Academia-related research
>> > - the evidence must first conform to the preferred social-political
>> > paradigm if it is to be considered.
>> >
>> > An example is the status of modern cosmology. Abundant observational
>> > evidence falsifies General Relativity with extreme prejudice. Yet,
>> > rather than accept empirical falsification, Einstein-worship demands
>> > plundering of immense resources in entertaining notions of unobservable
>> > 'dark matter/energy' in unobservable dimensions in the form of
>> > multi-dimensional unobservable strings. Such is the scale of this
>> > delusion that according to the standard model of cosmology, only 3% of
>> > the universe consists of _observable_ entity. Most physicists have no
>> > problem with these notions, and hence the problem.
>>
>> *deep breath*
>> I think what he is trying to say is that there is a growing proponent in
>> academia that argues that there is no such thing as fact because what
>> humanity see's as fact is merely a construct of the mind to allow us to have
>> some grasp of what humanity see's as reality and that what we see as reality
>
>your other 3rd singular verbs?
>
>> frame and manner that is almost entirely beyond human comprehension. It is
>> what allows 'kooks' and 'crackpots' to exist. take the X-1 for example,
>> everyone said it was physically impossible to break through the sound
>> barrier because it would tear the aircraft apart. At the time it was an
>> observable 'fact'. This of course was debunked when it actually occured. it
>> took a 'crackpot' to see beyond the imposed limits of understanding
>> constructed by the mind. it raised the bar a little of what is possible and
>> 'impossible' as does every 'breakthrough'. Another example is the commonly
>> held belief that an object can not reach past 50% of the SoL (speed of light
>> for all you non amateur physicists), 51% of the SoL would tear apart an
>> object into it's component molecules.
>
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Antony Clements
> your other 3rd singular verbs?
because i can't write for shit, probably why i only just passed english in
high school.
>> is really only a marginal amount of what is actually happening in a time
>> frame and manner that is almost entirely beyond human comprehension. It
>> is
>> what allows 'kooks' and 'crackpots' to exist. take the X-1 for example,
>> everyone said it was physically impossible to break through the sound
>> barrier because it would tear the aircraft apart. At the time it was an
>> observable 'fact'. This of course was debunked when it actually occured.
>> it
>> took a 'crackpot' to see beyond the imposed limits of understanding
>> constructed by the mind. it raised the bar a little of what is possible
>> and
>> 'impossible' as does every 'breakthrough'. Another example is the
>> commonly
>> held belief that an object can not reach past 50% of the SoL (speed of
>> light
>> for all you non amateur physicists), 51% of the SoL would tear apart an
>> object into it's component molecules.
>
> Evidently subatomic particles don't count as "objects"!
>
who said they don't? i didn't. if it has mas then by relativity it can not
reach the speed of light or beyond. this is where the abstract mathematic
construct of a static reference frame comes in.
> It's the nearest star (alpha Centauri) that's 4+ light years away, not
> the nearest galaxy.
i stand corrected. but the point still remains. crackpots and kooks tend to
think outside the box more than what other scientists do. that's not to say
that they don't, just that they don't make as many leaps and bounds and tend
to take things slowly in a proveabe way. but the rest, me being one of them
to an extent, tend to throw out most established 'fact' and set up a goal
and work to achieve that goal without the construct of what is possible or
not. it may take a while to develop, but when the necessary tools are there,
crackpots have a field day by making new observations and taking the old
ones and reinterpreting them in light of the new tools. the last i checked
Hawking is most definitely NOT a 'kook' or 'crackpot'.
Antony Clements
people consider fact is really only a construct of the mind so that the mind
can make sense of things. it is also open to interpretation and point of
view relative to what is being observed. in other words, gibberish to you is
not gibberish to someone else.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>i'm not saying he is or isn't gibbering. what i am saying is that what
>people consider fact is really only a construct of the mind so that the mind
>can make sense of things. it is also open to interpretation and point of
>view relative to what is being observed. in other words, gibberish to you is
>not gibberish to someone else.
>
>
Bryan Olson
> i'm not saying he is or isn't gibbering. what i am saying is that what
> people consider fact is really only a construct of the mind so that the mind
> can make sense of things. it is also open to interpretation and point of
> view relative to what is being observed.
Alas, reality doesn't work like that. There are lots of ways one
might, in one's own mind, make sense of a 200 foot drop outside
one's window. Step out that window and whatever idea of reality
you had constructed in your mind will not matter, as your mind
will soon be splattered on the sidewalk.
> in other words, gibberish to you is
> not gibberish to someone else.
However one describes it, the OP had the story wrong.
--
--Bryan
Antony Clements
> might, in one's own mind, make sense of a 200 foot drop outside
> one's window. Step out that window and whatever idea of reality
> you had constructed in your mind will not matter, as your mind
> will soon be splattered on the sidewalk.
a normal person will percieve this and not jump out a window, a person who
is waste on acid or LSD for example will not percieve this and attempt to
fly. the end result is the same but the perception is different relative to
the person and their circumstance. which was my entire point.
>> in other words, gibberish to you is not gibberish to someone else.
>
> However one describes it, the OP had the story wrong.
he has his eqautions mixed up granted. an object that weighs 1 lb will fall
at a maximum velocity of 9.8m/s, this increases with every pound. i'm not
sure of the exact ratio though, i think it's about 75% per pound. this is
why an average male of roughly 180 lbs will have a terminal velocity of
around 60 mph or roughly 96.6 kph. that's 96600 metres per hour for all you
people who can't do the conversions. that's 1 mile a minute or 1.61km per
minute, 26.83 metres per second. this means that when the person hits the
ground they will hit with a force of 2.7380952G's. people have survived that
with severe injury, granted they are very few and far between, but they
still have survived. someone do the math for a 400 tonne building, i can't
be bothered.
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <4590b3f5$0$16556$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Antony
Clements" <antony....@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>>i'm not saying he is or isn't gibbering. what i am saying is that what
>>people consider fact is really only a construct of the mind so that the mind
>>can make sense of things. it is also open to interpretation and point of
>>view relative to what is being observed. in other words, gibberish to you is
>>not gibberish to someone else.
>>
>>> No, it is just evident that somebody (the OP) is gibbering.
>>
>Most entertaining, thank you.
Frankly, babies' gibberish has more meaning than what I've just
read.
/BAH
T Wake
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:emr1fi$8ss...@s984.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
And certainly makes more sense.
jmfb...@aol.com
It vaguely reminded me of a phase I went through when I was
recovering from two semesters of studying existentialism
(this was the humanities course requirement at that time).
But I never, ever let it spill over into my math and science
thinking hours.
/BAH
noload
> an object that weighs 1 lb will fall at a maximum velocity of 9.8m/s
Wrong. The acceleration due to gravity is ~9.8 meters per second per
second. And that's for all objects, regardless of how much they weigh.
Vandar
> Unruh wrote:
>
>>schoenf...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>The towers on the other hand fall faster than freefall which, those who
>>>accept the empirical as the sole basis for physics, must be accounted
>>>for in some way. It appears that a directed energy weapon may have been
>>>used.
>>
>>What the hell is a "directed energy weapon"? All weapons are "directed
>>energy", so you mean someone must have used a BB gun?
>
>
> A light saber? Or, from an earlier era, a phaser?
No no no...
Phasers are in the future.
Light sabers were "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..."
So it had to be light sabers, unless you want to claim time travel is
possible, which is just ridiculous.
Vandar
> Now, what is a directed ignorance weapon?
A TV that only gets FOX?
Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <rC2kh.56$i5....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>Clements" <antony....@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>i'm not saying he is or isn't gibbering. what i am saying is that what
>>>people consider fact is really only a construct of the mind so that the mind
>>>can make sense of things. it is also open to interpretation and point of
>>>view relative to what is being observed. in other words, gibberish to you is
>>>not gibberish to someone else.
>>>
>>>> No, it is just evident that somebody (the OP) is gibbering.
>>>
>>Most entertaining, thank you.
>
>read.
>
David Taylor
>
> he has his eqautions mixed up granted.
Sorry, but no. His equation was correct (ignoring air resistance).
> an object that weighs 1 lb will fall at a maximum velocity of 9.8m/s,
Absolute nonsense. An object that weighs 1lb will continue to accelerate
until it hits the Earth, or until the upwards force from air resistance
equals the force of gravity.
> this increases with every pound. i'm not
> sure of the exact ratio though, i think it's about 75% per pound. this is
> why an average male of roughly 180 lbs will have a terminal velocity of
> around 60 mph or roughly 96.6 kph.
No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
> that's 96600 metres per hour for all you
> people who can't do the conversions. that's 1 mile a minute or 1.61km per
> minute, 26.83 metres per second. this means that when the person hits the
> ground they will hit with a force of 2.7380952G's. people have survived that
> with severe injury, granted they are very few and far between, but they
> still have survived. someone do the math for a 400 tonne building, i can't
> be bothered.
There's not much point, since your maths is completely wrong.
--
David Taylor
noload
> No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
> their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
> will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
> velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
>
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but increasing the
mass of any object will *not* increase the force from gravity on the
object. Gravitational force remains a constant.
Look at it like this: You have two objects, the exact same distance
above ground. One weighs 10 kilograms, and the other weighs 1 gram.
Release them both simultaneously, and they will strike the ground at the
exact same instant, air resistance being negligible.
David Taylor
> David Taylor wrote:
>
>> No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
>> their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
>> will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
>> velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but increasing the
> mass of any object will *not* increase the force from gravity on the
> object. Gravitational force remains a constant.
Gravitational acceleration remains a constant and gravitational field
strength remains a constant (assuming, for both, we're reasonably close
to the Earth's surface). The force acting on the body due to gravity
is given by Fg = mg (where g = 9.81ms^-2) and is far from constant.
> Look at it like this: You have two objects, the exact same distance
> above ground. One weighs 10 kilograms, and the other weighs 1 gram.
> Release them both simultaneously, and they will strike the ground at the
> exact same instant, air resistance being negligible.
Your conclusion is correct, but for the wrong reason.
The acceleration is given by a = F/m. As above, Fg= mg, so a = g.
Thus both objects accelerate at 9.81ms^-2. The 10kg object has
a force of 98.1N acting on it, the 1g object has a force of 0.00981N
acting on it. The 10kg object is 10,000 times more massive than the
1g object and helpfully the force on the 10kg object is 10,000 times
more massive than the force on the 1g object -- so they accelerate
at the same rate.
But take some sort of aerodynamically stable shape, which results in (say)
98.1N of air resistance when falling at 20m/s. If an object of this
shape had a mass of 10kg, it would have a terminal velocity of 20m/s.
If you then doubled the mass of the object (leaving the shape and size
unchanged), the weight of the object would be 196.2N, and the
air resistance would be 98.1N -- it would accelerate (initially) at
about 4.9ms^-2.
My argument may be slightly going in circules, but it's boxing day....
and I'm right, anyway.
--
David Taylor
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>David Taylor wrote:
>
>> No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
>> their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
>> will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
>> velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
>>
>
>mass of any object will *not* increase the force from gravity on the
>object. Gravitational force remains a constant.
>
>Look at it like this: You have two objects, the exact same distance
>above ground. One weighs 10 kilograms, and the other weighs 1 gram.
>Release them both simultaneously, and they will strike the ground at the
>exact same instant, air resistance being negligible.
>
Aha. And that's because their acceleration is the same. The force,
isn't.
noload
> On 2006-12-26, noload <nol...@dot.com> wrote:
>> David Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
>>> their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
>>> will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
>>> velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
>>>
>> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but increasing the
>> mass of any object will *not* increase the force from gravity on the
>> object. Gravitational force remains a constant.
>
> Gravitational acceleration remains a constant and gravitational field
> strength remains a constant (assuming, for both, we're reasonably close
> to the Earth's surface). The force acting on the body due to gravity
> is given by Fg = mg (where g = 9.81ms^-2) and is far from constant.
>
We are perfect agreement. I was responding solely to the phrase "the
force from gravity", i.e. gravitational pull, which is always constant.
So, we are both right.
noload
David Taylor
> David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2006-12-26, noload <nol...@dot.com> wrote:
>>> David Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, an average male has a terminal velocity due to air resistance and
>>>> their shape. However, increasing their mass (for a given shape)
>>>> will increase the force from to gravity, thus increasing the terminal
>>>> velocity reached before air resistance balances it out.
>>>>
>>> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but increasing the
>>> mass of any object will *not* increase the force from gravity on the
>>> object. Gravitational force remains a constant.
>>
>> Gravitational acceleration remains a constant and gravitational field
>> strength remains a constant (assuming, for both, we're reasonably close
>> to the Earth's surface). The force acting on the body due to gravity
>> is given by Fg = mg (where g = 9.81ms^-2) and is far from constant.
>>
>
> We are perfect agreement.
I don't see how.
> I was responding solely to the phrase "the
> force from gravity", i.e. gravitational pull, which is always constant.
Sorry, but _by definition_ increasing the mass of an object will increase
the force acting on that object due to a gravitational field (of a fixed
strength).
> So, we are both right.
In what way are you right?
--
David Taylor
noload
Look. I interpreted the phrase "the force from gravity", as
"acceleration due to gravity". You should be able to discern that from
my argument, where two object with different mass will fall at the same
speed, when released simultaneously from the same height. Got it? Get it.
David Taylor
So, you weren't right. Force and acceleration are related by one of
the very first things I learned in high school physics -- Newton's
second law. F = ma. N.B. that is not F = a.
> You should be able to discern that from
> my argument, where two object with different mass will fall at the same
> speed, when released simultaneously from the same height. Got it? Get it.
I discerned that you got something wrong, but not what. You may really
have believed that gravitational force remained constant -- that's
what you SAID. You may have made a mistake, but you returned to tell
me you really were right, but not why you were right.
Also, your argument makes no sense in the context of my original
post. I was attempting to show that increasing the mass of some
object will increase its terminal velocity. It does, because the
object will stop accelerating only when the upward force from
air resistance is equal to the downward force from gravity. Increase
the force from gravity, and a higher speed is required to balance the
forces. In this situation, even the acceleration from gravity is not
a constant 9.81ms^-1. As the object accelerates, the air resistance
becomes non negligable, and starts counteracting the force from
gravity. The acceleration reduces to zero as the force from air
resistance equals that of gravity.
So, you claimed that something, either gravitational force or
gravitational acceleration (what you said and what you say you meant)
was constant. In the context of my post neither are.
Presumably, you thought I was falling into the standard trap of
thinking a heavier object will fall/accelerate faster than a lighter
one in a vacuum (but remember, my post wasn't about a vacuum).
Perhaps you would have been best stopping after "I'm not quite sure
what you're trying to say", then I could have tried to explain a bit
better. Or, at least, had you stopped before "we are both right",
most of this would never have happened.
--
David Taylor
Luc The Perverse
news:slrnep2t09.13...@outcold.yadt.co.uk...
> Gravitational acceleration remains a constant and gravitational field
> strength remains a constant (assuming, for both, we're reasonably close
> to the Earth's surface). The force acting on the body due to gravity
> is given by Fg = mg (where g = 9.81ms^-2) and is far from constant.
The problem is that you are educated.
If you were a moron you would realize that actual physics is only known by
the government and everything we learn in Unis is nothing but lies.
--
LTP
:)
noload
that it's not. But it's not going to work. Someone once said, "Happiness
is learning how to deal with idiots." So, I'll try this one more time,
but if you don't get it this time, then you have a much bigger problem
than I already imagine.
I interpreted the phrase "the force from gravity", as "acceleration due
to gravity". You should be able to discern that from my argument, where
two objects with different mass will fall at the same speed, when
released simultaneously from the same height. It's really just that simple.
Now get it.
Kope
David Taylor
> that it's not. But it's not going to work. Someone once said, "Happiness
> is learning how to deal with idiots." So, I'll try this one more time,
> but if you don't get it this time, then you have a much bigger problem
> than I already imagine.
I'll ignore your personal attacks on me and stick to the physics.
> I interpreted the phrase "the force from gravity", as "acceleration due
> to gravity".
That interpretation was wrong, since a force is not an acceleration.
Therefore, you were wrong. Therefore, "we are both right" is also wrong.
> You should be able to discern that from my argument, where
> two objects with different mass will fall at the same speed, when
> released simultaneously from the same height. It's really just that simple.
Of course it's simple: you were wrong (and maybe a troll, who knows).
What's difficult is getting you to accept that. Not that I'm going
to try any longer.
--
David Taylor
noload
Nuclear Physics course while in the Navy.
I also know that we were referring to the same concept. I interpreted
the phrase 'the force from gravity', as 'acceleration due to gravity'.
We were talking about the same thing, just using different words.
Now, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I really couldn't
care any less. Because, I know I am right, and that's all that matters
to me.
David Taylor
> Nuclear Physics course while in the Navy.
A course in how to pronounce "nuclear" does not count.
> I also know that we were referring to the same concept. I interpreted
> the phrase 'the force from gravity', as 'acceleration due to gravity'.
> We were talking about the same thing, just using different words.
No. They are different things. I was most definitely talking about
the force. You were (if you're not lying now) talking about the force
and calling it an acceleration. Either way you're wrong or a liar.
--
David Taylor
noload
I thought you said, "I'll ignore your personal attacks on me and stick
to the physics." And now here you are attacking me. Does the word
"hypocrite" mean anything to you?
No. You know I'm right, but you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
Here, this will prove I'm right:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d2c164d0e63d7106?hl=en&
Also, g = 9.81 m/s², not 9.81ms^-2. You were wrong about that. ;)
noload
BTW, that last line was supposed to be a joke, notice the ;)
So don't go getting your panties all in a wad.
T Wake
"Kope" <kope...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167169467.5...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>i am a radical muslim please read my blog.
>
>
Unless your website is a satire you are insane (and even if you aren't
insane you have no grasp of either Islamic or Christian history)
Tim Smith
noload <nol...@dot.com> wrote:
> Look at it like this: You have two objects, the exact same distance
> above ground. One weighs 10 kilograms, and the other weighs 1 gram.
> Release them both simultaneously, and they will strike the ground at the
> exact same instant, air resistance being negligible.
In the real world, air resistance is almost never negligible. Take two
identical shoe boxes, for example, one with shoes in it, and one empty,
and drop them from your outstretched arms. Even over that small a
distance, air resistance will be enough to make the empty one reach the
ground noticeably after the other.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter T. Daniels
No, no, phasers were invented in 1965, light sabers in 1977.
noload
You are correct. If the two objects were the same shape and size though,
then air resistance would in effect be negligible.
David Taylor
Two shoeboxes ARE the same shape and size. They just have a different
density and mass. Yet the heavier one will hit the ground first
due to the non-negligible effect of air-resistance.
--
David Taylor
noload
That is correct. I should have described them as "two objects,
relatively small in size, so that there would be very little air
resistance,..."
Tim Smith
noload <nol...@dot.com> wrote:
> > In the real world, air resistance is almost never negligible. Take two
> > identical shoe boxes, for example, one with shoes in it, and one empty,
> > and drop them from your outstretched arms. Even over that small a
> > distance, air resistance will be enough to make the empty one reach the
> > ground noticeably after the other.
> >
>
> You are correct. If the two objects were the same shape and size though,
> then air resistance would in effect be negligible.
No, if they are the same size and shape, the effect of air resistance is
very noticeable.. Let the objects be called O1 and O2, with mass M1 and
M2. The force of gravity on O1 is -M1*g, and on O2 it is -M2*g. (I'm
using a coordinate system where negative forces are down, and positive
forces are up). The acceleration from gravity is the force divided by
the mass, or -g, in both cases. (Hence, the result that in a vacuum, O1
and O2 would fall at the same rate).
The force due to air resistance will be a complicated function of the
velocity and of the size and shape (and material?) of the two objects.
It will not be a function of the mass, though. If the objects are the
same shape and size and outside composition, this will basically be just
a function of velocity. Let's call it R(v) (resistance at velocity v).
Then at a given velocity, the force on O1 due to air resistance is
R(v)/M1, and on O2 it is R(v)/M2. If M1 is 10 kg and M2 is 1 g, then
the acceleration due to air resistance is 10000 greater on O2 than on
O1, at any given velocity.
--
--Tim Smith