|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Who's got the butter? - 4/9/2008 2:41:11 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10911
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Who's got the butter? 
_____________________________
"I think we cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls."
Dead Eye Dick Cheney
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Where are the pancakes? - 4/9/2008 3:18:01 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?
The NIST report does not support the "pancake" theory (nor does it support the waffle or blueberry muffin theory). The NIST report determined that a bowing inward took place due to the mutifloor fires. That's why you can't find any pancakes. LINK. Note Item 2 for discussion.
Very good. Now that we've demonstrated that the authorities "changed their minds" we can proceed. But first, I would like to emphasise that people were pushing the pancake theory until NIST came along in 2005 and came up with another fanciful idea.
Why do you think that the FEMA report would support the pancake theory in the first place? Why do you think that so many Americans bought into that theory? Is it because they're sheep and they believe what the government tells them to believe?
Why do so many Americans blindly follow their leaders? I know that I blindly followed my government's involvement in the Afghanistan war until I came to realise the lies behind it. Why did it take me so long to wake up? I used to be a soldier, so I had a strong patriotic ideal that I wouldn't even seriously listen to things (like these 9/11 theories) that challenged the popular story.
Here are some paragraphs that discuss the switcheroo:
quote:
The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.
The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.
The Truss Failure Theory was was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html
Okay... so, it seems that people love to talk about pancakes. Is that why FEMA came up with that idea? Did they think that idea would capture the minds of the American people? We don't have IHOP where I'm from, so I don't understand the appeal as well as some.
Now, can I have a serious answer to my post? Or, shall we continue to demonstrate how the minds of people are so easily numbed by pancakes?
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Where are the pancakes? - 4/9/2008 3:29:16 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10911
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
It's the butter I got a hankering for. On pancakes, waffles, toast, popcorn, even with vegetables (as long as there's garlic too).
_____________________________
"I think we cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls."
Dead Eye Dick Cheney
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Where are the pancakes? - 4/9/2008 3:36:18 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3523
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?
The NIST report does not support the "pancake" theory (nor does it support the waffle or blueberry muffin theory). The NIST report determined that a bowing inward took place due to the mutifloor fires. That's why you can't find any pancakes. LINK. Note Item 2 for discussion.
Very good. Now that we've demonstrated that the authorities "changed their minds" we can proceed. But first, I would like to emphasise that people were pushing the pancake theory until NIST came along in 2005 and came up with another fanciful idea.
Why do you think that the FEMA report would support the pancake theory in the first place? Why do you think that so many Americans bought into that theory? Is it because they're sheep and they believe what the government tells them to believe?
Why do so many Americans blindly follow their leaders? I know that I blindly followed my government's involvement in the Afghanistan war until I came to realise the lies behind it. Why did it take me so long to wake up? I used to be a soldier, so I had a strong patriotic ideal that I wouldn't even seriously listen to things (like these 9/11 theories) that challenged the popular story.
Here are some paragraphs that discuss the switcheroo:
quote:
The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.
The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.
The Truss Failure Theory was was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html
Okay... so, it seems that people love to talk about pancakes. Is that why FEMA came up with that idea? Did they think that idea would capture the minds of the American people? We don't have IHOP where I'm from, so I don't understand the appeal as well as some.
Now, can I have a serious answer to my post? Or, shall we continue to demonstrate how the minds of people are so easily numbed by pancakes?
As more evidence was reviewed, the data suggested different causation. That's how it works in the normal world. Unlike the aluminum hat world where the conspiracy is decided up front and only data that supports that idea is considered.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Where are the pancakes? - 4/9/2008 3:40:42 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11796
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Wes, you discovered another conspiracy--those pancakes are *blue*!
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Where are the pancakes? - 4/9/2008 4:35:20 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
As more evidence was reviewed, the data suggested different causation.
That's nice to hear. Do you think that they'll examine even more evidence?
People like me are calling for an investigation of the demolition theory. Independent investigations have determined that thermate explosives were used in the demolition of those three buildings.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Resistance? What resistance? *shrug* - 4/9/2008 10:23:24 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Following is an excerpt from one of Dr. Steven Jones' recent papers:
quote:
The rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC 7
Consider the collapse of building seven, a 47-story skyscraper in the WTC complex which was never hit by a plane. We can learn a lot by measuring the time for descent of the southwest corner of the roof as it begins its steady drop to the ground. A simple way to perform this measurement yourself is to use a stopwatch and time the descent of the southwest corner of the roof from several different perspectives. Videos can be found at wtc7.net. Some activity in the central area of the building can be seen since a kink appears. Shortly after, the southwest corner of the roof begins a steady fall to the ground. The time has been measured to be (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds.
Personally, when I first saw these videos at WTC7.net and noticed the straight-down symmetrical collapse of this building, my curiosity was roused as a scientist.12 Of course, you should observe the collapse yourself and consider if the rapid collapse of the building does not look a bit strange and worth further scrutiny.
Is 6.5 seconds a reasonable collapse time? For comparison, consider how fast a brick dropped from the corner of the roof would fall. How long does it take the brick to hit the ground? The answer is 6.0 seconds (and that’s in a vacuum). The roof fell at very nearly free-fall speed!
EDITED TOS 8 - Edited by Kath because I included more than three paragraphs. Please, go to the link provided for the whole story.
Jones, S. (2007, May). Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method. Journal of 9/11 Studies, pp. 61-62.
This is what really captured my attention too, so I can really relate to Dr. Jones' words. When I saw WTC7 go down in 6.5 seconds I was astonished and I immediately knew that something wasn't right. There is no way that 47 stories can collapse in that time if the resistance beneath it is still somewhat intact. Here are the results and conclusion of a collapse examination of WTC7 that an Accident Analyst, Heikki Kurttila, D.Eng. did:
quote:
The results are as follows:
The height of WTC 7: 174 m
The observed collapse time: 6.5 s
The fall of an apple from the top of the tower: 7.0 s
The fall of an apple from the top of the tower in a vacuum: 6.0 s
The resistance factor during the observed collapse time: 0.16
Conclusion
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g (thereby fulfilling the EU requirements).
With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15).
The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Did you read that? An apple, when wind resistance is factored in, would take LONGER to fall than WTC7 did. Does that make any sense to you?
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/10/2008 5:20:40 PM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Resistance? What resistance? *shrug* - 4/10/2008 11:13:05 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3523
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g (thereby fulfilling the EU requirements).
With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15).
The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Did you read that? An apple, when wind resistance is factored in, would take LONGER to fall than WTC7 did. Does that make any sense to you?
You're comparing apples to buildings. Totally illogical. A penny and an apple fall at different rates Rock paper and scissors all fall at different rates. It means nothing, but it sounds impressive to the unknowledgable.
Acontrolled demolition works because it causes internal structural failure. That's why it appears the same. The causes of the structural failure are different. Take a 2x4x6 and prop it up with a #2 pencil. Knock the pencil down with your hand. Reset the board and pencil. Take a 38 ounce aluminum bat and knock the pencil down. The board will fall the same way.
Ample evidence exists that airplanes loaded with jet fuel struck the buildings causing uncontrolled fires. No evidence exists that Tom Cruise Mission Impossible guys planted thousands of pounds of explosives that were triggered by Dr. Evil after the planes, piloted by brainwashed Saudi Arabians (or were remote controlled according to some). Therefore the conclusions of the government investigators are more logical.
< Message edited by cow451 -- 4/10/2008 11:19:18 AM >
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Resistance? What resistance? *shrug* - 4/10/2008 5:06:44 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g (thereby fulfilling the EU requirements).
With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15).
The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Did you read that? An apple, when wind resistance is factored in, would take LONGER to fall than WTC7 did. Does that make any sense to you?
You're comparing apples to buildings. Totally illogical. A penny and an apple fall at different rates Rock paper and scissors all fall at different rates. It means nothing, but it sounds impressive to the unknowledgable.
Acontrolled demolition works because it causes internal structural failure. That's why it appears the same. The causes of the structural failure are different. Take a 2x4x6 and prop it up with a #2 pencil. Knock the pencil down with your hand. Reset the board and pencil. Take a 38 ounce aluminum bat and knock the pencil down. The board will fall the same way.
Ample evidence exists that airplanes loaded with jet fuel struck the buildings causing uncontrolled fires. No evidence exists that Tom Cruise Mission Impossible guys planted thousands of pounds of explosives that were triggered by Dr. Evil after the planes, piloted by brainwashed Saudi Arabians (or were remote controlled according to some). Therefore the conclusions of the government investigators are more logical.
Please, pay attention. We're talking about WTC7 right now. The post of mine that you responded to has nothing to do with planes hitting buildings. It has to do with the rate at which WTC7 fell.
I think you missed the point I was making about the apple. This apple would take LONGER than WTC7 did to fall 174 metres (the height of WTC7). On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, that building collapsed in 6.5 seconds. An apple takes 7.0 seconds to fall from that height if you factor in wind resistance. If you doubt what I'm saying you should look at the data Accident Analyst, Heikki Kurttila, D.Eng., provided:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
You expect us to believe that, according to the "official" story of the WTC7 collapse, this building would fall faster than a 100g spherical object (apple) would fall from the same height?
Your mocking arguments might work on the simple-minded, but those of us who examine the OBSERVED facts are not so easily fooled.
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/10/2008 5:23:39 PM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Resistance? What resistance? *shrug* - 4/10/2008 6:44:16 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3523
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g (thereby fulfilling the EU requirements).
With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15).
The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Did you read that? An apple, when wind resistance is factored in, would take LONGER to fall than WTC7 did. Does that make any sense to you?
You're comparing apples to buildings. Totally illogical. A penny and an apple fall at different rates Rock paper and scissors all fall at different rates. It means nothing, but it sounds impressive to the unknowledgable.
Acontrolled demolition works because it causes internal structural failure. That's why it appears the same. The causes of the structural failure are different. Take a 2x4x6 and prop it up with a #2 pencil. Knock the pencil down with your hand. Reset the board and pencil. Take a 38 ounce aluminum bat and knock the pencil down. The board will fall the same way.
Ample evidence exists that airplanes loaded with jet fuel struck the buildings causing uncontrolled fires. No evidence exists that Tom Cruise Mission Impossible guys planted thousands of pounds of explosives that were triggered by Dr. Evil after the planes, piloted by brainwashed Saudi Arabians (or were remote controlled according to some). Therefore the conclusions of the government investigators are more logical.
Please, pay attention. We're talking about WTC7 right now. The post of mine that you responded to has nothing to do with planes hitting buildings. It has to do with the rate at which WTC7 fell.
I think you missed the point I was making about the apple. This apple would take LONGER than WTC7 did to fall 174 metres (the height of WTC7). On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, that building collapsed in 6.5 seconds. An apple takes 7.0 seconds to fall from that height if you factor in wind resistance. If you doubt what I'm saying you should look at the data Accident Analyst, Heikki Kurttila, D.Eng., provided:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
You expect us to believe that, according to the "official" story of the WTC7 collapse, this building would fall faster than a 100g spherical object (apple) would fall from the same height?
Your mocking arguments might work on the simple-minded, but those of us who examine the OBSERVED facts are not so easily fooled.
The height from which two objects fall is relevant to nothing. The question about WTC7 falling has nothing to do with any food group (except perhaps red herrings). Building 7 took at least EIGHT seconds, with some parts hitting the ground in EIGHTEEN seconds, according to seismological data. LINK
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Resistance? What resistance? *shrug* - 4/11/2008 1:03:32 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The height from which two objects fall is relevant to nothing. Building 7 took at least EIGHT seconds, with some parts hitting the ground in EIGHTEEN seconds, according to seismological data. LINK
There certainly has been much discussion about what caused the seismic readings. I'm looking into this subject, but I haven't come to any conclusions yet. One of the ideas I'm investigating is how those seismic readings support the idea of explosives. If you're interested in seeing a discussion on that, then check out the following:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread318887/pg2
(see "LaBTop posted on 5-12-2007 @ 03:00 PM")
I haven't made my mind up on the seismic readings yet, but that is something I'm looking into.
Now, to the meat of this discussion. WTC7 is measured to have fallen in 6.5 seconds from the SW corner. The measurements are started from the time the building actually begins to fall. What is the point of starting the clock before the building starts to drop?
quote:
Preliminary investigations do not include the mechanics of the actual collapse, concentrating instead on the events leading up to it. The FEMA report begins its "timed collapse sequence" with a seismic event recorded at 5:20:33 pm. FEMA marks this as the time the building "begins to collapse." At this time, the report says, the east and west mechanical penthouses — the structures at the very top of the building — are still intact. Approximately thirty seconds later, FEMA says, video evidence shows the east mechanical penthouse begin to disappear into the building. Five seconds later the west penthouse also disappears, and at 5:21:10 "WTC 7 collapses completely."[39] This is roughly the point at which proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis begin timing the collapse, noting that the observed times correspond with the free, unimpeded fall of the roofline: just under seven seconds.[5] SOURCE
[5] Jones, Steven E. (2006-09). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse". Journal of 9/11 Studies 3. Retrieved on 2006-01-13.
[39] FEMA report re WTC7, page 5-23.
quote:
Speed: How fast did the southwest corner of the roof fall? (Students and I measure
[6.5 +- 0.2] seconds for the SW corner of WTC 7, after this corner begins its steady fall.)
Jones, S. (2006, September). Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings CompletelyCollapse? Journal of 9/11 Studies. p. 4.
The pertinent section of that link you gave reads:
quote:
7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
Even your source acknowledges that the north wall comes down very fast. If their 7 second figure is correct, that would put the speed of the collapse of the north wall just as fast as the apple. Isn't that nice? The north wall falls at the same speed as an apple with only wind resisting its fall. I'm sure that Sir Isaac Newton would agree that it was a controlled demolition.
My source indicates that the time for collapse, measured from when the SW corner began to fall, is 6.5 seconds. The 8 seconds (8.2 according to NIST preliminary report) that you are claiming is based on the observed "kink" in the penthouse that is characteristic of a controlled demolition. Once again, we're measuring from when the building actually begins to fall. When it does, it is very close to free-fall speed in a vacuum (6.0 seconds) and FASTER than a 100g spherically-shaped apple.
Also, the observed acceleration is consistent with the regular acceleration of gravity. The following link has a table and series of photos demonstrating that.
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Material ejected from WTC at terminal velocity. - 4/11/2008 2:39:47 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
"Physics Tool Kit, a software tool commonly used in physics classes, can be used to measure the ejection speed of massive debris from the World Trade Center."
These two clips show masses shooting out of the WTC as it collapses. These masses are traveling at terminal velocity and are measured in these clips at about 70 mph. See http://www.911speakout.org for more.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ah2hTMOlD5s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=djwBCEmHrSE
"4-ton girders were found as much as 600 feet from the base of the North Tower of the World Trade Center after its collapse. This raises obvious questions. How fast must they have been ejected from the collapsing building to land that far away? What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
The observations in these clips are highly suggestive visual proof that explosives were used. Comments?
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/11/2008 4:46:13 AM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Material ejected from WTC at terminal velocity. - 4/11/2008 8:28:36 AM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 774
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
Is this a good time to bring up the melted mix of concrete and steel, or should I wait?
The Twin Towers make total sense when you add in thermate. How else would steel I-beams melt into pools? Certainly not from jet fuel!
One thing I have never seen mentioned is the attempt to say Bin Laden planted explosives at the base of the towers as well as had the planes hit. Then none of us would have been the wiser. It would have been classic Bin Laden to crash a plane into the building, have everyone run to it to help and then blow up the building.
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
THE question! - 4/11/2008 4:21:08 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
A serious question for all those who believe the government report that WTC7 collapsed due to damage received from WTC1 and fires:
Imagine there were two apples at the top, SW corner of WTC7. One apple actually inside the building and the other five metres outside the building at the exact same height. The apple outside has only the wind resistance to slow its descent to the ground, but the apple inside the building has up to 47 floors of concrete and steel to slow its fall. If you take into consideration the possible resistance of wind for the outer apple versus the steel and concrete for the inner apple, which would you predict as the apple with the fastest descent?
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/11/2008 4:27:13 PM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE answer! Butter. - 4/11/2008 4:49:01 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10911
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Greased with the butter that shoulda been on the pancakes.
Or maybe it was....
_____________________________
"I think we cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls."
Dead Eye Dick Cheney
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
