Clearly, the reason this was rejected by sci.physics.research was
because the article is NOT about research in physics. Did you read the
charter that Igor directed you to? You've got almost the whole rest of
usenet to post this in, including sci.math (although the article isn't
about mathematics either) and sci.physics.

Philip

Herman Family wrote:
[...]

I am referring to the WTC 7 building, the third building to freefall
collapse on 9/11. This building was a block away from the twin towers,
was not hit by any airliners or other significant debri.

The 2 month-old lease holder, Larry Silverstein (who profited by
several billion after this event), even admits to "pulling" the
building:

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

"David" wrote in message
news:4CSBg.86247$ZW3.46744@dukeread04...

Personally I am not a fan of the law of falling bodies, as established by
Galileo. It does not consider wind resistance. The larger cannon ball
should fall faster due to differences in the ratio of mass and surface
area. A microscopic "cannon ball" may not even fall. Particles of a fine
powder do not fall at the same rate as large objects even when they are
composed of the same material.

www.ILikeIt.Unfranchise.com

I wonder if one buys three 'identical' footballs and leaves one full of air,
fills the second with water and the third with lead, when dropped, would
they all reach the ground simultaneously?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

In article ,
"Sorcerer" wrote:

"Roger Bagula" wrote in message
et...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

If your native language isn't English.


Androcles.


|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
| physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
| established by Galileo.
|
| In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
| referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
| an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
|
| The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
| on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
|
| Here, why don't you decide:
|
| [Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
| =====================================
| Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
| inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
|
| For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
|
| Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
| was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
| post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
| any moderated newsgroups.
|
| Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
| co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
| inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
| email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
| causing an unnecessary delay.
|
| Sincerely,
| Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
|
| =====================================
|
|
|
| [My Original Post]
| ==================
| TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
|
| An examination of this video
|
| http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
|
| reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
| at 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
| aconstant, 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.
|
| ==============================
|
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
| rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
| dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
| to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
| and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
| that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
| obvious?
|
| The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
| brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
|
|
|

In article .com,
"Schoenfeld" wrote:

asaguiar wrote:
Schoenfeld escreveu:

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.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Yes, it shouldn't of have fallen at all. If it burned for maybe another
2 years, parts of it may have broken off and fallen.

No, the steel was weakened because the impact blew off the heat insulation.
Geez, at least read the reports before sounding off and looking so silly.

"Sorcerer" wrote in message ...

"Roger Bagula" wrote in message
t...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.


|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

Schoensmeer, Beluga and Fartocles, Useset's finest
****ting on each other's heap.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...


[anip]

Have a clue, clueless local village idiot:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../LTstretch.gif

Androcles

Peter Kinane wrote:
"David" wrote in message
news:4CSBg.86247$ZW3.46744@dukeread04...

Personally I am not a fan of the law of falling bodies, as established by
Galileo. It does not consider wind resistance. The larger cannon ball
should fall faster due to differences in the ratio of mass and surface
area. A microscopic "cannon ball" may not even fall. Particles of a fine
powder do not fall at the same rate as large objects even when they are
composed of the same material.

www.ILikeIt.Unfranchise.com

I wonder if one buys three 'identical' footballs and leaves one full of air,
fills the second with water and the third with lead, when dropped, would
they all reach the ground simultaneously?

Not when dropped in air.

- Randy

wrote:

Clearly, the reason this was rejected by sci.physics.research
was because the article is NOT about research in physics.
Did you read the charter that Igor directed you to? You've
got almost the whole rest of usenet to post this in,
including sci.math (although the article isn't about
mathematics either) and sci.physics.

Well, one might argue that it's suggestive of mathematical
induction.

http://images.google.com/images?q=ma...duction+domino

Dave L. Renfro

Peter Kinane wrote:
"David" wrote in message
news:4CSBg.86247$ZW3.46744@dukeread04...

Personally I am not a fan of the law of falling bodies, as established by
Galileo. It does not consider wind resistance. The larger cannon ball
should fall faster due to differences in the ratio of mass and surface
area. A microscopic "cannon ball" may not even fall. Particles of a fine
powder do not fall at the same rate as large objects even when they are
composed of the same material.

www.ILikeIt.Unfranchise.com

I wonder if one buys three 'identical' footballs and leaves one full of air,
fills the second with water and the third with lead, when dropped, would
they all reach the ground simultaneously?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

xxein: Haven't heard from you in a long time!