+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 29 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 462

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslims

    ...from a physics and available video evidence perspective


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    715

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    That can be proved by saying Afghan caves didn't house high-tec laboratories to produce thermite & develop thermo-nuclear detonations to demolish the WTC.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by $ick3nin.vend3tta View Post
    That can be proved by saying Afghan caves didn't house high-tec laboratories to produce thermite & develop thermo-nuclear detonations to demolish the WTC.
    What I try to produce is self-evident evidence all laid out clearly, verifiably and understandable for students of maths or science at school level.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Free fall in vacuum is 400 feet in 5 seconds?? Nothing can fall faster than that??

    Where did you go to school?

    Free fall in vacuum is a constant acceleration, equivalent to 9.82 m/s*square. It's not a constant speed!

    However, due to air resistance, a falling object will reach terminal velocity eventually, which is dependent of the object in question. As an example, the terminal velocity for a human body is about 56 m/s ( = over 150 feet per second). Since air resistance is dependent on the relation between mass and surface exposed to the air drag, we can safely assume that building debris has a higher terminal velocity than a human body and also reaches that speed faster.

    I guess your "school level science" crumbles already, just like WTC 7 did...
    Last edited by Kelderek; 12-14-2010 at 11:49 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    Free fall in vacuum is 400 feet in 5 seconds?? Nothing can fall faster than that??

    Where did you go to school?

    Free fall in vacuum is a constant acceleration, equivalent to 9.82 m/s*square. It's not a constant speed!

    However, due to air resistance, a falling object will reach terminal velocity eventually, which is dependent of the object in question. As an example, the terminal velocity for a human body is about 56 m/s ( = over 150 feet per second). Since air resistance is dependent on the relation between mass and surface exposed to the air drag, we can safely assume that building debris has a higher terminal velocity than a human body and also reaches that speed faster.

    I guess your "school level science" crumbles already, just like WTC 7 did...
    I think you have bitten off more than you can chew.

    Of course gravity is an acceleration, and of course there is a terminal velocity in atmosphere. At sea level on Earth absent air resistance it takes 5 seconds for an object to fall 400 feet from a stationary start. Now, are you challenging this?
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by rodin View Post
    I think you have bitten off more than you can chew.

    Of course gravity is an acceleration, and of course there is a terminal velocity in atmosphere. At sea level on Earth absent air resistance it takes 5 seconds for an object to fall 400 feet from a stationary start. Now, are you challenging this?
    According the laws of gravity, the velocity after 5 seconds is 49.1 m/s, if you do not consider air resistance.

    Since the acceleration is linear, it's easy to calculate that the distance travelled under ideal conditions is 123 m. Or 403 ft. I think we can agree on that.

    What I'm challenging is the notion that debris from WTC was falling "as fast as anything can fall on Earth" and that your calculations point at a major issue.

    If we take air resistance and other factors into account, a reduction from the ideal 403 ft to the actual 330 ft during five seconds is not out of the ordinary at all. A building s mostly air, when it crumbles, it might very well happen very close to free fall conditions. Building debris is high in density and with comparatively little air resistance, it has a very high terminal velocity and it accelerates under what is probably very close to ideal conditions. An almost 20% reduction in velocity due to air and other factors looks very plausible to me.

    BTW, we all saw it happen, we know it's true, so what is the problem?
    What you are aiming at is the difference between a building falling as a result of a structural failure caused by the fall of the Twin Towers and a controlled demolishion caused by something else. Nothing in your post sheds any light on that issue.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    According the laws of gravity, the velocity after 5 seconds is 49.1 m/s, if you do not consider air resistance.

    Since the acceleration is linear, it's easy to calculate that the distance travelled under ideal conditions is 123 m. Or 403 ft. I think we can agree on that.

    What I'm challenging is the notion that debris from WTC was falling "as fast as anything can fall on Earth" and that your calculations point at a major issue.

    If we take air resistance and other factors into account, a reduction from the ideal 403 ft to the actual 330 ft during five seconds is not out of the ordinary at all. A building s mostly air, when it crumbles, it might very well happen very close to free fall conditions. Building debris is high in density and with comparatively little air resistance, it has a very high terminal velocity and it accelerates under what is probably very close to ideal conditions. An almost 20% reduction in velocity due to air and other factors looks very plausible to me.

    BTW, we all saw it happen, we know it's true, so what is the problem?
    What you are aiming at is the difference between a building falling as a result of a structural failure caused by the fall of the Twin Towers and a controlled demolishion caused by something else. Nothing in your post sheds any light on that issue.
    The fall was >330 feet (looks like 350-360) in <5 secs. I would say that is borderline too fast for a free fall collapse in air. Lets say it WAS a perfect symmetrical freefall-in-air collapse. That cannot happen due to any kind of natural structural failure, since a natural failure commences at the weakest part, it does not simultaneously happen over the whole building.
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by rodin View Post
    The fall was >330 feet (looks like 350-360) in <5 secs. I would say that is borderline too fast for a free fall collapse in air. Lets say it WAS a perfect symmetrical freefall-in-air collapse. That cannot happen due to any kind of natural structural failure, since a natural failure commences at the weakest part, it does not simultaneously happen over the whole building.
    If the structural weakness is in the lower part of the building, it all falls simultaneuously. The upper part falls as fast as the lower parts. That's the way gravity works.

    Furthermore, your measurments are not accurate enough to support your calculations. Can you determine if it's 330 or 350 feet based on blurry video captures? Can you dermine if it's more than 5 secs or less than 5 secs if you don't know which frame rate the original video used? Or if the frame rate has been changed in the conversion to YouTube?

    You're on very thin ice here, if you are to "prove" that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down, you need a little more than this... Right now, you are assuming that it was deliberately brought down and you are trying to build a weak case to support that possibility. Of couse it's a possibility, but nothing you say makes it the only possibility. And it's still just a possibility, nothing more.
    Proving it is something else.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    If the structural weakness is in the lower part of the building, it all falls simultaneuously. The upper part falls as fast as the lower parts. That's the way gravity works.

    Furthermore, your measurments are not accurate enough to support your calculations. Can you determine if it's 330 or 350 feet based on blurry video captures? Can you dermine if it's more than 5 secs or less than 5 secs if you don't know which frame rate the original video used? Or if the frame rate has been changed in the conversion to YouTube?

    You're on very thin ice here, if you are to "prove" that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down, you need a little more than this... Right now, you are assuming that it was deliberately brought down and you are trying to build a weak case to support that possibility. Of couse it's a possibility, but nothing you say makes it the only possibility. And it's still just a possibility, nothing more.
    Proving it is something else.
    NIST admits to 'almost freefall speed' I merely provide a nice easy way for verifying this for the interested reader

    The only way to cause a collapse as observed is to cut away the bottom supports and simultaneously cut all main support columns with incisions at intervals from top to bottom. Otherwise if the bottom floor, say, is cut away, the building drops one floor, hits the ground, and then decides if it wants to collapse further. Thus introduces delay at minimum.

    In any case what natural event would cause an entire first floor to collapse at once right round the perimeter of a large building?
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,826

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Your proof is bull shit.

    You don't show the South face of the building which was heavily damaged by the fall of WTC 1.

    You did not mention the measurements the FDNY did with surveying equipment which showed the structure of the building as unsound.

    You do not show the unchecked fires that raged through the building for hours.

    You fail conspiracy ass hole.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    Quote Originally Posted by rodin View Post
    NIST admits to 'almost freefall speed' I merely provide a nice easy way for verifying this for the interested reader

    The only way to cause a collapse as observed is to cut away the bottom supports and simultaneously cut all main support columns with incisions at intervals from top to bottom. Otherwise if the bottom floor, say, is cut away, the building drops one floor, hits the ground, and then decides if it wants to collapse further. Thus introduces delay at minimum.

    In any case what natural event would cause an entire first floor to collapse at once right round the perimeter of a large building?
    A heavy building does not collapse one floor at a time. The floors provide very little vertical support, simply because they are not intended to. Most of the weight in a tall building like WTC 7 is in the vertical structure, when that collapses, everything else follows.

    What you call "the only way" this could happen is based on your assumption that it did not happen the way it's officially explained. You try to build a case from a fabricated assumption, not from observation of the actual event. How many buildings have you seen collapse due to a 911-like event? What kind of factual evidence do you have to support an opinion on how it's supposed to look like?

    Conspiracy theories very often fall into this trap. The theory comes first, then a case is built to support the theory. It never works. How do you know that your elaborate explanation on how "support columns are cut away" is the only way for it to happen? You don't.

    If you are to build a case for a controlled demolision, find the people who did it and explain why they did it. Find evidence on how it was done. Explain how they could rig it in a building that was in daily use without being detected. Don't build a case around a blurry video and disregard everything else you need for the theory to be credible.

    Why do conspiracy nuts always fail to explain the obvious? The only thing you manage to do is build a weak case on half-baked assumptions that can't be verified in any way, shape or form. Sorry, that's not good enough.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,826

    Re: I will prove 911 has nothing to do with Muslim

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    why are these 911 truther so stupid?

    1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

    2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesnt look straight." He then says "It didnt look right".

    3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

    4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

    5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

    6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

    7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

    8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

    9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
    10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
    11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
    12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

Similar Threads

  1. I will prove 7/7 was a set-up
    By rodin in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-30-2011, 07:32 AM
  2. Why Do Muslims kill Muslims?
    By KishmeernTuches in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-02-2008, 12:45 AM
  3. muslims yes muslims are attacking innocent people
    By pawnstar in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-06-2007, 09:02 AM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-27-2006, 11:15 AM
  5. Muslims killing Muslims since at least 799AD
    By Worried_in_the_USA in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 08:41 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •