Patriotic Synergy

imported post

Amusing.

You've not spent one tenth the time it would take to review all the evidence of those many threads/posts. We both know it.

Because if you had, you would have run across the equations.

Since you try to discredit me without one lick of factual rebuttal, onlymere opinion, I will provide some of the evidence here.

I want to say, I resent the hijacking of this thread and it's attempt to dilute my message of UNITY.

_____________________

This is where I started:

THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11
By former LAPD officer Mike Ruppert
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145

~

Some background information:

4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Freefall Acceleration of WTC7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

Towers collapsed at free fall speed - 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUEnUJdcOA

~

Photographic evidence of explosives use:

Demolition Squib photos:




Gravity does not cause an explosion such as you see in these photos.


Here's how cutting charges are set for controlled demolitions:
Demolition crews setting a cutting charge.


Look similar?




Molten metal pouring out of WTC:

Ground level molten steel:


09-27-2001 red-hot steel from WTC basement:


~

Physics equations:

Newton's Second Law of Motion
Fnet = m * a

(Part1) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI

(Part2) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmQegzMJQE

(Part3) 911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U

~

If you want to learn more, then take the time to study all my data on the PCF.

Calling me names, or deriding my findings without fully reviewing the evidence proves nothing.

Want to silence the 9-11 truth movement?

Show us your physics equations.

They're the only 'authoritative proof' you'll need.

imported post

This has gone way beyond off topic now. IBTL.

I don't refute your "evidence", because I've seen it all before, and I've seen it all refuted before. I won't waste my time arguing with nonsense every time one of you crackpots drags it up once again.

This forum is about the right to carry a firearm openly, and about the underlying constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Explain to me what this ridiculous thread has to do with either?

imported post

I agree, my thread was hijacked by members of this forum and dragged off course.

I merely followed the conversation and defended myself, as I deemed necessary.

If you want to see this thread's relevance to Open Carry laws, go back to the first post and stop there. If you don't see how UNITY amongst patriotic Americans is a boon for the Open Carry crowd, I can't help you.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Patriotic Myopia has set in.

imported post

Enoch Root wrote:

I agree, my thread was hijacked by members of this forum and dragged off course.

I merely followed the conversation and defended myself, as I deemed necessary.

If you want to see this thread's relevance to Open Carry laws, go back to the first post and stop there. If you don't see how UNITY amongst patriotic Americans is a boon for the Open Carry crowd, I can't help you.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Patriotic Myopia has set in.

Click to expand...

For someone that claims to understands physics, you don't seem to know crap about it. I'm not a physics scholar, but even I know what happens when a tall builduing starts pancaking. The air between the floors is forced out as each drops onto the one below. This can give the appearance of explosions. Some of the other photos look Photoshopped to me. The beams that look to be cut off with a torch are most likely where they removed the section of wall that was still standing after the collapse.

The last thing we need to do is associate ourselves with a crackpot entity. Some already accuse us of being crazy as it is. No need to give them more reason to believe we are.

Thinking doesn't always equate to knowledge.

imported post

Enoch Root wrote:

Amusing.

You've not spent one tenth the time it would take to review all the evidence of those many threads/ posts. We both know it.

Because if you had, you would have run across the equations.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that, and you know it.

"I know my claims are completely without merit, but you have to keep reading to get to the next claims for which I do provide evidence, I swear!"

imported post

Want to silence the 9-11 truth movement? Show us your physics equations. They're the only 'authoritative proof' you'll need.

Click to expand...

Fine, I'll give it a go. I found the physics video discussion hilarious. I don't know if the video author was ignorant or just a flimflam man. There are several things blatantly wrong with his so called model:

1) The WTC was not "two blocks" of mass hitting each other. By definition, a building is mostly hollow to allow people in it. In general, it's a set of solid floors, separated by air, that need to be considered individually.

2) He totally ignored the force due to the momentum of falling. In fact, he treated everything in his calculations statically, i.e. as if they are at rest. The collapsing portion does not hit the stable portion and stop, then we calculate again. By definition if the falling section did stop, the bottom would support it. If you don't think momentum makes a difference, take a heavy weight like a 25 pound dumbbell or free weight. Lay it carefully on your foot and think about how it feels. Now raise the weight to 3.8 meters (12.5 feet) and let it go directly over your foot. Let me know how the integrity of your foot holds out.

3) In his time calculations, he generated a dubious deceleration. First of all, the stable portion of the building does not "accelerate" up. When you take a glass of water off a table, does the table jump up in the air? Of course not. There is a tiny compression when putting the glass on the table and a tiny contraction when the glass is removed. In a heavy steel supported building, there will be significant compression and contraction, but the building is not going to shoot up in the air.

4) Along with (3), he calculated an acceleration (actually deceleration), then promptly dropped the 9.8 m/sec for gravity in the rest of the calculations, including in his calculations of the time of collapse. This is ok if the falling section actually stops, which it does not.

So, I'll use some of his own numbers to show how it really should be calculated. First, the topmost floor of the stable portion of the building has to hold the rest of the building above it up. We can ignore the rest of the building below that floor for the most part, it doesn't matter if it's 361 meters in the air or supported directly by the ground. Once the topmost floor collapses the rest of the building is doomed, which I will explain at the end.

The mass of the top section, he stated, is 68,181,838 kg. I think that's what he was using, because you have to use kg to get force in Newtons. It's a dubious number, but we'll take it at face value. He then stated that the velocity of this block after falling 3.8 meters is 8.63 m/s. So far so good.

Let's consider the topmost floor that this section is falling on. As he stated the floor has supported the top section all its life since construction completed. So, it was designed to support 68,181,838 kg of weight, plus the occupants and furnishings, plus a safety factor. A typical safety factor for known material properties is about 1.5. For unknown properties and extremely critical situations it's 4. Let's just go overboard and use a safety factor of 5. I think we can agree that that also takes care of the people and furnishings. I'm guessing they really used a safety factor of 2 in the WTC.

So, if we take the safety factor of 5, we assume the mass of the top section to be 5 x 68,181,838 kg, or 340,909,190 kg...we'll round to 341 million kg. We multiply that by 9.8 m/s and have a total force of 3341 million Newtons. This is the amount the top floor of the stable portion of the building can support before collapsing, with our factor of 5 in there. Now what is the force due to the falling section?

Again, the mass of the falling section is 68,181,838kg (note we're not using people or furnishings now, if we included them the force would increase). The velocity was calculated at 8.63 m/s. This gives us a momentum (mass x velocity) of 588,409,262 kg-m/s. Now to calculate force from momentum, we need the time in which the force is applied, and unfortunately we have to go a bit deeper than Newton's laws a bit for this one. We'll assume the support structure of the bottom section is continuous for calculating this, since the interior support structure of the WTC was all connected in terms of conducting compression waves (sound). The impact time is the time it takes for a sound wave to go through the material and back to the impact sight, i.e. delta-T = 2x(Length/speed of sound). The height of the bottom section, according to the video, was 361 m. The speed of sound in steel is approximately 4500 m/s. We now have delta-T = 2x(361 / 4500) = 0.16 seconds. As the video author states, with that much momentum the compression of air and crushing of furnishings (or people) results in a negligible resistance.

So since force is the momentum change over time, we can agree that in order for the stable floor to support the falling floor, the impact force has to be less than 3341.8 million Newtons. So we have Force = Momentum / Time, we have 588,409,262 kg-m/s divided by 0.16 seconds = 3,677,557,887 Newtons, or 3677 million Newtons. This is greater than the stable floor can support, with a safety factor of 5! Therefore, the stable floor collapses.

Now to get back to why we only care about the topmost floor. We now have the added mass, which will accelerate due to gravity, and we also have the initial velocity when the floor failed (again the author ignored this, and calculated at rest). While we know the lower floors are designed to handle the large mass per floor, the velocity is increasing along with the added mass of each floor. Therefore the momentum is increasing and therefore the successive impact force. Once one goes, they all go assuming isotropic floors.

We'll calculate the initial velocity of the next impact just using the ratio of force, in this case 90% of the velocity is removed during the impact (remember we're using a safety factor of 5 which is pretty big). So the collapsing section was 8.63 m/s, the next impact will be at 8.63 m/s (just due to gravity) + .863 m/s (due to the initial velocity) This is additive of course: next one is at 9.49 m/s + .949 m/s or 10.44 m/s. We are ignoring air resistance here, but there's a fairly large air velocity as the floors collapse, hence the reason for debris flying sideways....it's just like stepping on a pop bottle (vertically) with a loose lid: our vertical force of our foot causes a horizontal action due to the escape of air pressure.

We could calculate the time of collapse here, but it's a much harder equation since we're steadily accelerating, the momentum is increasing, the impact time is decreasing as the building falls, and the impact force is increasing all the way down. I'll leave that calculation to the guy in the video, since he's such a genius.


The above is the only authoritative proof I need, but I'm sure it won't silence the 9-11 conspiracy nutcases.

Edit: By the way it looks like a controlled demolition because this is exactly how controlled demolitions work. The exception is they only do the ground floor since the momentum of the whole building will bring it down in a more controlled manner. One thing I didn't mention about the WTC collapse is the falling section must be collapsing in the opposite direction "upwards" (for every action there is a reaction, our friend Newton again).