The Physics Community Is A Historical Laughing Stock

An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completedat
second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.

Let's do a simple calculation:

distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2

Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.

Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.

Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is a
constant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2

Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590

Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen, further deducing that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST'VE
COLLAPSED SIMULTANEOUSLY.

No minor fires can do that, _ONLY_ synchronized explosions can.

That, ladies and gentleman, evidently exceeds the boundaries of the
competence of our 'leading physicists' - the Wittens of the world, the
Wheelers, their loyal groupies, those so called 'experts' who love to
sell fables on gravitation and call others 'laymen', those who love to
tell others that they 'have no chance'.

It is clueless idiot like you that history will record as the laughing
stock, if even that is worth recording.

Harry C.

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...
An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

Take a close look again. The collapse of WTC-7 looks like the collapse
started from the very bottom. The upper floors were still intact.
What does that mean?

On the other hand, WTC-1 and WTC-2 started collapsing from where the
"wounds" were. On top of that, one of the towers had its building
above the "wound" pulverized when it started to lean over. What does
that mean?

An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

hmm... you're right.. and how could've them arabs snuck in and put all
those explosives in there anyways?



Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

In article .com,
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
An examination of this video


Hey, Doofus, posting crap 3 times just makes it 3 times as crappy! Stop the
damn spam!

Schoenfeld wrote:


hmm... you're right.. and how could've them arabs snuck in and put all
those explosives in there anyways?



Do you suck arab cock? Daily?

dda1 wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:


hmm... you're right.. and how could've them arabs snuck in and put all
those explosives in there anyways?



Do you suck arab cock? Daily?

Reality crumbling all around you, crackpot Varney? Don't worry, under
your Patriot Act II are canniving little terrorist, maybe you'll get a
chance to suck some "arab cock" at guantamo bay with your friends at
NIST..

tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

But if I were an exhausted fire-fighter with injured people all around,
and I knew that even a fraction of an unoccupied forty-seven story
building were on fire, looming over a few salvageable buildings, I
would probably make the same decision to ask that it be demolished.

Spoonfed wrote:
tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

FEMA made these findings:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.


Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..

According to a cnn internet poll, over 90% of the US population also
agree / or partially agree with this stuff.. You guys are in the
minority..

Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories



But if I were an exhausted fire-fighter with injured people all around,
and I knew that even a fraction of an unoccupied forty-seven story
building were on fire, looming over a few salvageable buildings, I
would probably make the same decision to ask that it be demolished.