9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!

Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! (Read 1092855 times)

Topic Options

PhysicsProf

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #200 on: 2011-12-02, 02:22:11 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 3030

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-12-02, 00:59:33

PhysicsProf:

So here is one of your critical points to support your argument:

ArtistGuy basically answered this and I alluded to the explanation for this a few days ago. Indeed the building could fall at a speed that was very close to free fall.

The explanation is also very simple. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the main vertical support beams (about 50-ish if I recall) all failed at the bottom of the building. So you have the mass of a 47-story office building where the structural integrity of the very bottom of the building, the main vertical support beams, has been catastrophically corrupted.

Once a given vertical support beam looses its proper vertical load-bearing function because its geometry has been changed, and coupling that with the fact that the weight above the beam is immense, that of a 47-story office building, then all hell will break loose.

You deform the vertical lines of the main support beams, then on the massive scale of the office building, those beams may as well be like limp cooked spaghetti. The beams started to twist and deform like curlicues and all of a sudden had no real load bearing capacity and the building started to go down and crush itself out of existence.

The amount of resistance offered by the deforming curlicue wet spagetti support beams relative to the weight of the falling building was negligible and the building went into free fall. Buy the time the building had dropped just one single story and built up some momentum, then the bending spaghetti support beams offered even less resistance relative to the momentum of the falling building and as a result the building was in full near absolute free-fall. Only after the mass of the remaining upper floors of the building started to become comparable to the resistance offered by the crumpling support columns did the decent rate of the building start to noticeably slow down.

That's my take on it and it all fits relative to the observed data as far as I am concerned.

What you seem to be missing in your presentations is a critical examination of the relative magnitudes of forces and effects, and this is extremely important.

So, seriously now, did you ever consider this analysis? This theory of the collapse mechanism for Building 7 came to me shortly after seeing the clip the first time.

The observed free fall acceleration of Building 7's collapse has a boring mundane common sense explanation as far as I am concerned.

MileHigh

Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread!

I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives!

Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s**2.

EMdevices

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #201 on: 2011-12-02, 02:32:11 »

Hero Member

Posts: 805

The observation that the World Trade Center towers fell at almost the free fall speed, is worth pondering but there's some uncertainty. Here's some observations:

1) We don't see when the top piece of the building reaches the bottom, because of all the dust kicked up. That's some serious uncertainty.

2) On the other hand, why is there so much dust? In my opinion, it is way too much for a simple internal mechanical failure that occurs in sequence, way too much, and notice that the bulk of the dust develops towards and at the bottom of the building as it begins to fall.

3) However, it does appear the buildings fell pretty quick, almost at free fall speed if we do some interpolation, where we can't see because of the dust. Note: don't compare free fall with people falling from up there, because a lighter human being has a lower terminal velocity.

4) In order for a building to free fall, it needs all the floors to start falling at the same time, OR, it needs to have a large mass up top that as it falls, it buldozes down through all the obsticles in it's path. I believe this is what is occuring. It's true what the Profesor is saying about momentum cut in half, when one mass hits another of the same mass, but what he left out is the notion that the falling mass of the World Trade Center buildings accumulates as each floor is impacted, and this moving mass getts larger and larger. Therefore, each additional stationary floor encountered barely affects the speed anymore, because of the ratio of the masses grows smaller and smaller. That's the explanation Professor!

Personaly, I don't think much of this demolition theory, except for building 7, which is a fact, but reading other websites now, it appears I'm under the wrong impression. That's the problem with this whole 9/11 debate, it's constantly shifting like quick sand.

EM

ion

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #202 on: 2011-12-02, 02:56:10 »

Group: Elite
Hero Member

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down

From EM

Quote

4) In order for a building to free fall, it needs all the floors to start falling at the same time, OR, it needs to have a large mass up top that as it falls, it buldozes down through all the obsticles in it's path. I believe this is what is occuring. It's true what the Profesor is saying about momentum cut in half, when one mass hits another of the same mass, but what he left out is the notion that the falling mass of the World Trade Center buildings accumulates as each floor is impacted, and this moving mass getts larger and larger. Therefore, each additional stationary floor encountered barely affects the speed anymore, because of the ratio of the masses grows smaller and smaller. That's the explanation Professor!

This would produce an exponential or very non-linear rate of fall, starting very slowly and gathering speed. We don't see this in the data or the visuals.

---------------------------

"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Magluvin

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #203 on: 2011-12-02, 03:16:32 »

Group: Guest

Em said

Personaly, I don't think much of this demolition theory, except for building 7, which is a fact, but reading what other websites now it appears I'm under the wrong impression

Well, why believe in the demo of building 7, and not the others? ;]

As for the top of the building coming down, the pic below shows quite a large upper portion, above the plane entry, very large portion, LOTS of weight, at a tilt. So not all of the falling portion is coming down straight and even. Id like to see a pictrue of this about 1/2 to 1 second later, to see how far off to the side that large portion goes. Not that it still couldnt have an effect of dropping the whole building.

How much does a jet plane of that stature weigh? Yeah its just a shell, but at 500 mph or so, thats a whole lot of impact force.

Throw a bullet at me and I will laugh, put it in a gun and I will bleed.

And, the plane had enough impact(along with fuel, maybe explosives in the plane) to cause enough damage to seemingly break the building, that did allow, that large section(above the entry) to come down. But, it could have just weakened it in that area and the explosives took it down completely in the end.

Just some things that make it all seem possible that the planes could have done it alone. But other things I see and think, tell me somethings more fishy. ;]

Mags

------------------------

911 Twin Towers Collapsing - Isaiah 30 verse 25.jpg

9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!

911 Twin Towers Collapsing - Isaiah 30 verse 25.jpg (150.79 kB, 1308x1068 - viewed 846 times.)

Chet K

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #204 on: 2011-12-02, 03:46:53 »

Group: Ambassador
Hero Member

Posts: 4052

So mags
Whats that a 30 story piece of building in motion? 30 floors each one a full acre in size ...lets say for arguments sake that pic was snapped as it was descending at 3 feet per second?
Now it was a lightwieght experimental building built with bar joists 40,000 square feet lets say it weighed 100 pds a square ft [ very low figures]

4.000.000.00 pds x 30 floors
one hundred twenty million pounds moving down at three feet per second ....on top of a light weight skyscraper with no active fire protection system .
how much do you think it weighed at three feet one inch down...........

Free fall speeds ??

I was in those buildings hundreds of times over there lives .. testing that crappy bar joist for the port authority every time they renovated or opened up a floor for new construction.

I can't believe they didn't just topple from the impact!!

Now building 7.. that i was only in to test the steel for fire proofing attachment ,one thing I can tell you
It looked screwy the way it was built .Monsterous Connections on the early Floors with a funny transition after that.

Very weird design IMO

Who Knows???
Chet

Magluvin	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #205 on: 2011-12-02, 03:55:29 »
Group: Guest	Ram said I can't believe they didn't just topple from the impact!! Tru dat. Maybe if it hit in the middle and not off to the (edit)right, there would have been more impact directly to the core. Tesla could cause a bulding to go into convulsions with a lil tapper box. The other building got hit quite a bit higher than the first, not leaving as much of a top portion to come down as hard as the first. But it all sure was quite timely. ;] Mags

Grumpy

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #206 on: 2011-12-02, 03:58:19 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr

Seriously: Who on the face of this earth is going to do anything about it? Few could.

They control all levels of government (as far as I have been able to tell). Their may be separate factions in intelligence groups, but this is not confirmed.

They control our military, police, medical, energy, and education institutions.

Ex is right. We should be working to free ourselves.

ArtistGuy	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #207 on: 2011-12-02, 04:01:03 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-12-01, 22:21:43 There is (AFAIK) no refutation published of the Jones/Chandler/NIST analysis for free-fall acceleration of WTC7. None. Just this, by NIST. Which shows that it (by my measure, that the roof, left side penthouse) began collapsing a full 7-9 seconds (watch the windows clear from the inside up top, top floors .12-.20), taking out those columns you think were exploded as all that fell down to the below, cascade failing interior column supports. Look at the model. And -then- the thing fails. Fire caused it, 7 hours worth, from 10 floors of fires initially, combined with no sprinklers on much of it (broken main). No conspiracy needed. Same way fires caused the collapse of the big ones from the weakening of floor supports, and buckled interior column support. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk[/youtube]

Chet K	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #208 on: 2011-12-02, 04:05:15 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4052	Mags Tap a steel building and it rings.. these buildings were not built the way the ones that tesla "rang" where. I am tempted to say these buildings where Crap ,Junk .... Built like a cheap hundred story shopping Mall. But ...They were Tuff, They took a Hit that was unfreaking believable .....there design saved tens of thousands of lives .those creeps that did this wanted to Kill Many many more people. It was a miracle!! One thing about building seven being empty ... I think it was mostly always empty [very few tenants] But honestly I didn't do much testing in Building seven, so i am no to sure. Chet BTW Artist guy There were No interior columns in the trade centers ... they were clear span light weight bar joists holding up light weight concrete floors ,from the core to the perimeter! Wide Open one acre floors

ArtistGuy	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #209 on: 2011-12-02, 04:22:17 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-12-02, 02:22:11 Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! That is true but only when and if the masses are the same, M1 = M2. In the case of these buildings, the top floors and materials falling, M1, represent a cumulative mass > M2 in the way. The mass impeding this once they begin falling is only a single floor's mass + surrounding support, if any...however, the mass above is more, so that floor newly hit gets added to the collapsing mass, and barely slows things down at all...then it falls on freely down to the next floor (airspace in between) , smack, that one gives way , and so on, but you know this. WTC7's interior seems to have given way first, allowing the whole outside to fall cleanly...unlike the main towers, it seems this one fell apart from the roof down into the interior (beginning .11-.12 secs), leaving the outside unsupported (time .20 in the video I posted). In the case of the big towers, they pancaked on down, due to the many floors falling from above them. Anyway, all the conspiracy people have to much invested in believing gubment or whomever did it, and will never give up that belief, even in the face of new evidence. That's my belief, and why I should have just stayed out of this. I went to pilot 'truth' site, saw the NTSB videos, and the path that plan took, and it was so leisurely, and so simple, even a rookie like me with only 120 hours, not 600+ could have done it. "Oh look how expertly that wheel/stick is tended to, impossible." Right. Nothing extreme at all. Again, that guy's problem was landing, not flight itself. He didn't have to land here. No landing gear problems either. Whoa, turning off the transponder, who'd a thunk it? They did, apparently...and that's not even a good talking point. Not like they weren't advised about the planes in some fashion, I am sure, or they didn't have a Sporty's Full Dashboard poster to look at for the things. http://www.pilotshop.com/cockpit-poster-757-p-5281.html Again, ground effect not much factor, any sufficient amount of forward stick would have stuck that plane. It's angle of attack that's important, even when in ground effect. Just push harder, it'll dive right in. I will look in to the dispute about the MSL measurements...but what did cut those lightposts? Why did witnesses see a plane fly into the Pentagon? Why were there plane parts inside and out? Well, despite how it might feel nice to think it was a conspiracy, it was because a plane actually hit it, flown by a fanatical whackjob.

Magluvin	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #210 on: 2011-12-02, 04:27:37 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-12-02, 03:58:19 Seriously: Who on the face of this earth is going to do anything about it? Few could. They control all levels of government (as far as I have been able to tell). Their may be separate factions in intelligence groups, but this is not confirmed. They control our military, police, medical, energy, and education institutions. Ex is right. We should be working to free ourselves. Thing is, there are people still trying to do something about it. ;] How do we become free from THEM? These Occupy groups are not the way. Its just pissing them off. What would hurt them more than anything? If the citizens( non gov) collaborated and said, We are not going to do it any more. We are not going to work tomorrow, or ever again. We are going to work with each other, some rich some poor. We are going to farm OUR lands, and grow organic foods that we will share with each other. We will fix our old cars and bicycles, we will fix our old shoes. We will make our own clothes, just like we always have. We will not work for YOU anymore. We will do it till YOU are gone. How will THEY survive, without us. ;] Who will fix THEIR shoes? Congressmen? Who will make THEIR cloths? The senate? Who will fix THEIR cars? Nasa? Who will grow THEIR food? Monsanto? THEY deserve it. Who will do anything for THEM? They would nuke us all. They would release a bio weapon. They might play a nice lil tune on the Haarp for us. ;] Such a coordinated effort like this is what dreams are made of, and movies. ;] But as for what THEY can do, its all very easy and very real. So, any other suggestions? ;] Mags

Chet K	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #211 on: 2011-12-02, 04:32:26 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4052	Yeah I have a suggestion Pray...... Lots Have a good night [goin up to say some prayers] Chet

tysb3	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #212 on: 2011-12-02, 04:40:16 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-12-01, 07:48:07 Yes! The Truth will give us free energy! Is it irony or whishful thinking? Until now, only lies give free energy . see Lutec, Dennis Lee, Johnson, Aviso, MPI, Cycclone and so on Is it not irony, not whishful thinking, just straight - when we will have free energy - we will also know not just who exactly push the red buttons on 911, but The Whole Truth. conspiracy and FE lead us to the same point. otherwise the humanity will disappear.

Magluvin	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #213 on: 2011-12-02, 05:15:40 »
Group: Guest	If you havnt seen it in the news yet, its horse meat for everyone. Literally, approving horse meat for food. Mags

EMdevices	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #214 on: 2011-12-02, 08:28:57 »
Hero Member Posts: 805	The NIST video is ridiculous. As more floors collapse internally the shell is relived of weight, so the likelihood of its collapse gets diminished not increased. In the video the whole building is seen going down, typical of demolition , which they claimed. The controversy is why the story was changed. By the way, taking out the columns at the bottom, say 1st and 2nd floor, is all that was needed. The noise from the charges would be minimal and blend in with the overall collapse noise, so that NIST guy thinks were stupid.

Peterae

Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #215 on: 2011-12-02, 09:02:50 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 3989

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuV9Q-n73Q0[/youtube]

MileHigh	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #216 on: 2011-12-02, 12:48:44 »
Group: Guest	Peter: That clip that you just posted looks like some dude took some pictures of a plane used for aeronautical research and then called it a "chemtrail plane." It's so horrible to see the twisting of ideas by twisted minds like the guy that made that clip. "A cloud buster placed in your backyard will actually disperse the chem trails." Really? That's absolute nonsense and is nothing but pure hucksterism saying "Please buy my plans, come to my web site!" That kind of stuff is just god-awful. EM: The NIST video put up by ArtistGuy about Building 7 looked pretty dam good and sensible. I hadn't seen it before and I had forgotten how you could see the penthouse area on the left collapse first. The analysis of the failure of the building seemed to make sense and it still can tie into what I said relative to PhysicsProf's statements. Mags: Quote Thing is, there are people still trying to do something about it. ;] How do we become free from THEM? These Occupy groups are not the way. Its just pissing them off. What would hurt them more than anything? If the citizens( non gov) collaborated and said, We are not going to do it any more. We are not going to work tomorrow, or ever again. We are going to work with each other, some rich some poor. We are going to farm OUR lands, and grow organic foods that we will share with each other. We will fix our old cars and bicycles, we will fix our old shoes. We will make our own clothes, just like we always have. We will not work for YOU anymore. We will do it till YOU are gone. You need to watch the movie "Taking Woodstock" followed by the movie "Gimme Shelter" followed by the Star Trek episode "The Way to Eden." The communes all disappeared in the early Seventies, dude! MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #217 on: 2011-12-02, 13:07:52 »
Group: Guest	Back to Building 7: PhysicsProf: Quote Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread! I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives! Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s2. I don't even need to study up on Newton in this case. Your modelling makes no sense at all. There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE! The NIST video showed how the building collapsed and there was a fundamental common point with what I stated in that all of the center vertical support columns buckled and then we were in spaghetti territory. As the building falls and destroys itself from the bottom up the falling mass of the building is slowly decreasing from an erosion process of sorts and what's being compacted at the bottom of the building goes nowhere, it's just being compacted. There is nothing that has to "get out of the way" so as to not impede the destruction of the building allowing it to fall at near free-fall speeds. So your entire model for the collapse of the building necessitating explosives to "get stuff out of the way" is wrong. There is no need to get anything out of the way. Looking at the NIST video, essentially the same process ultimately happens. At a certain point all of the main support columns have snapped and the building is crushing itself out of existence where a floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building. Hence a near free fall. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-12-02, 23:32:09 by MileHigh »

ion	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #218 on: 2011-12-02, 14:49:59 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	A real chemtrail plane (if such things do exist) would not need to be filled with computer equipment, just large cannisters of whatever they wanted to mix via venturi effect with the atmosphere. The guy further destroys any credibility by tying it in with cloudbusting , as if dispersing the clouds would neutralize the toxins somehow. I have a lot of Wilhelm Reich's books that I read back in the 70's and more recent video's that touch on the subject of cloudbusting, but his main work in psychotherapy laid the foundation for bioenergetics. I'm on the fence about chemtrails and cloudbusting. Just not nearly enough SOLID data to support the claims. I therefore put this into my 99.99% junk science folder, awaiting more data. Seeding the clouds with toxins would seem like a very inefficient way of poisoning the populace, when they have so many very efficient and direct means with the food supply chain and water supply. Additionally, you would expect the planes to be circling heavily populated areas, but there are a lot of straight lines directly out into the country where there is far less population. Inefficient for sure. A lot of junk conspiracy theories on the web appear to be a diverting means to keep people unfocused on the real issues, which are far more provable like blatant government corruption, corporatism, militarism and the imperial strivings of empire. We may not always agree, but I agree with MH on the chemtrail video. « Last Edit: 2011-12-02, 16:45:13 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #219 on: 2011-12-02, 14:58:34 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: ION on 2011-12-02, 14:49:59 This would seem to be a diverting means to keep people unfocused on the real issues, which are far more provable like blatant government corruption, corporatism, militarism and the imperial strivings of empire. They keep us drunk with pleasures while they take control. Quote from: Magluvin on 2011-12-02, 04:27:37 So, any other suggestions? ;] Mags Become as self-sufficient as you can. Then you don't need them. My father always advocated moving into the mountains and pulling the road in behind him.

eatenbyagrue	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #220 on: 2011-12-02, 15:33:37 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-12-02, 02:22:11 Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread! I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives! Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s2. Are you sure you are really a physics professor? This analysis of your has just been debunked in a few minutes by amateurs.

tysb3	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #221 on: 2011-12-02, 15:53:39 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-12-02, 14:58:34 My father always advocated moving into the mountains and pulling the road in behind him. that way doesn't work already now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yw3RiMdS7sE

ion	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #222 on: 2011-12-02, 16:41:54 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	From Eatenbyagrue: Quote Are you sure you are really a physics professor? This analysis of your has just been debunked in a few minutes by amateurs. Now hold on there pilgrim! One shoddy "shoot from the hip" opinion by MH using wet limp spaghetti models does not constitute debunking. I can assure you the Professor is indeed a Prof with a long teaching career and many peer reviewed papers, and yes some of the naysayers here have all the earmarks of amateurs. Their "quick draw" analysis is way below credible. If you were even an incompetent detective you would have figured out who the Prof is by now. He gave his identity away many times. You have not been paying attention or are just rather dense. On another issue: Regarding the chemtrails , what would add some credibility is air samples at ground level before and after a spraying showing a marked increase of new toxins or identifiable strains. I have not seen this information if it is available and will stand corrected if it is presently available. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

ion	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #223 on: 2011-12-02, 17:00:46 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	MH said (to ION) Quote "Kiss my ass." Thank you for the kind offer. Should I ever be moved to so grace a horses posterior I will certainly take you up on this. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

PhysicsProf	Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #224 on: 2011-12-02, 17:03:09 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3030	Thanks, ION. My wife and I enjoyed the blue-grass concert last evening and now this morning I find further "misunderstood physics" to contend with. First MH, then NIST and the artistguy. Here goes. Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-12-02, 13:07:52 Back to Building 7: PhysicsProf: I don't even need to study up on Newton in this case. You modelling makes no sense at all. There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE! [snip for brevity] Looking at the NIST video, essentially the same process ultimately happens. At a certain point all of the main support columns have snapped and the building is crushing itself out of existence where a floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building. Hence a near free fall. MileHigh 1. MH: "The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building." NO, by Newton's Third Law, the upward and downward forces are equal in magnitude (and opposite in direction). I realize this fact is hard for many to accept, because I've taught Newtonian physics for over 21 years and I found that people just could not believe that the Third Law "really works", but it does. One has to properly isolate the two interacting objects to understand the Third Law correctly (I've found with hundreds students), in this case the falling mass and the resisting "compacting mass". 2. MH: "floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. " Hold on -- this removes kinetic energy from the fall, so that free-fall at g= 32.2ft/s2 as observed and admitted to by NIST in their final report (as I noted above) would not be possible. Another way to look at it is that the Third-law reaction force upward from the "compacting mass" would slow the fall so that free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s2 as observed would not be possible. 3. Note also that you are saying that there IS MASS IN THE WAY, mass getting compacted, although you started out by saying "There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE!" You contradict yourself, do you not? I look forward to your point-by-point response, MH. I rather anticipate an effort to say that Newton's Third Law does not work here; but it does. Next, the NIST video and artistguy...