Reply With Quote
...by 'speed' I'm assuming you mean velocity? are we talking scalar or vector?What is the speed of the object after two seconds?
Kinetic energy is a 8th grade topic, hey RG, since were doing energy calculations, what was the potential energy of the collapsing segment of tower?At the instant it starts falling, its speed is zero. It has no kinetic energy, and no momentum or kinetic energy.
...by 'speed' I'm assuming you mean velocity? are we talking scalar or vector?What is the speed of the object after two seconds?
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
dammit dammit dammit you beat me.
- Mars
Alright I was being a bit mean and picky. I apologize completely, but even you gotta admit it was a bit funny.
As I have said over and over, I fully agree that gravity is a constant on the surface of the earth, minute variations aside.
Wheeee, I see someone has been reading up. This makes me happy. This is the first time anybody who has been trying to actually "prove" controlled demolition has ever tried to learn anything about real physics in the year+ that I have been posting my calculations on various forums.
I did indeed mean velocity, although in the case of consideration of a falling object with only one vector the terms speed and velocity can be used pretty much interchangably.
I also asked the question: How far did that object fall in those two seconds?
(shakes head)
Wrong.
http://flight77.info/85videos.html
The owner of the site did not state anywhere that the videos were not released.
Further, I am pretty sure all of the videos were released, as you can view quite a few of the 85 videos from this list on the main page.
A reasonable person would actually read through the website before making such a declarative statement...
By potential energy, I assume Dan is talking about gravitational potential energy. This is the total amount of possible “falling” energy if you drop something from any given height.
For the uninitiated/casual observer, the likely thrust of Dan’s question is to steer the conversation to the debunked “pulverized concrete” theory , as the idiot who put that abomination of science/logic out into the interwebs started with potential energy, and tried to prove that the towers fell “too quickly” by assuming that all the concrete in the twin towers was powdered.
PE=mgh
m= mass
g= gravity, i.e. gravitational acceleration or 9.8 m/s
h= height
G is a constant, 9.8 m/s/s
H is a height of 80 stories of 3.65 meters or almost exactly 292 meters. Remember we will assume that the top thirty stories of a 110 story building start falling. 110-30=80
So now that we have g and h, we can plug them in thusly:
PE=m(9.8)(292) or PE=m2861 (rounding decimal down)
This means that, any object, if dropped from 292 meters and ignoring air friction, will hit the ground with a force of roughly 2800 times the mass.
Here is an important point. What is mass? What is weight?
Weight is a force. It is the amount of force required to hold an object of a certain mass stationary against the pull of gravity. (see Newtons third law) When you climb on a scale you are really measuring the amount of force required to hold you at equilibrium (motionless) against gravity.
Think about what this means. This means that an object falling from 292 meters will seem to strike the ground with a force or “weight” of 2800 times what it weighed when it was held stationary, 292 meters above the ground.
The ground will then absorb the falling energy and then hold the body at equilibrium again after that energy has been absorbed to hold that mass at equilibrium/rest.
Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.
The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”
Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”
Does this pass the common sense muster?
Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.
This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.
Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.
Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?
Ouch is right.
Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.
KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm
KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm
For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.
Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.
Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bull ?
The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more re ed, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.
Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along…
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-17-2008 at 03:58 PM. Reason: minor grammar error
Those Bodies were later Identified as construction workers in the area at the time of unmanned drone aircraft hits pentagon.
Where's your link?
In case no one noticed, mouse just makes up
Where is the list of eyewitnesses identifying this aircraft?
you're an idiot, unless contruction workers meant people that wore khakis and collared shirts with dress casual belts. Go yourself for degrading these people.
show us where the missing people are, or STFU!
It takes a big man to admit that, you've grown as a legit debater by leaps and bounds in the time you've been here RG and it will help you in your life endeavors....time well spent....
I post a Link you post another Link that says my Link is bogus then I post a Link that shows your link is full of etc....
I am hip to your game Chump. I am a long time lurker first time caller....I have seen your dog and pony show many times! It's like a foghat concert,(nothing new) your like that rubbery tomato in the bottom of the fridge that no one wants to really eat and is either to lazy or their Oprah Winfrey guilt trip minds to toss it out.
Your like that VHS tape of Big Top Pee Wee, no one really wants to play you we just want to keep you around.....you know eBay later.
Also! your lapdog RandomMethGuy? Look, just cuz he just discovered Google, and is going Link happy does not give him any Political status unless he can prove me, and others wrong.
You, and your double wide trailer trash posse's free ride is over......... it's time you asshats prove to us 9/11 was not planned..............
when it's all in plane sight!
http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis.html
Where is the Video?
Six months after the attacks, as many Americans began to stand up and ask questions concerning the official story of what happened at the heart of the nation’s military establishment, Pentagon officials responded by releasing five fuzzy frames of what they claimed was a 757 plowing into the side of the Pentagon. We were told that a surveillance camera located across from the heliport pad took these photos. However, these five frames seemed to raise more questions than they attempted to answer. First of all, why is the date code on the first frame dated September 12, 2001 (5:37 P.M.)? That’s one day and eights hours too late. Secondly, the resolution of the frames
was so incredibly low that they did not allow for a thorough analysis of the images that we were being shown. Thirdly, the one frame labeled “plane” did not show anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a Boeing 757. Are we truly expected to believe that there was only one security camera capable of capturing the most heinous attack ever carried out against the nucleus of U.S. national defense? Upon further examination of this area of the Pentagon, one can clearly count at least five additional security cameras, two of which were unmistakably aimed directly where the plane would have impacted with the Pentagon.
It is also worth mentioning that there was three privately owned security cameras all trained in the direction necessary to capture video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. One at a gas station across I-395, one on the rooftop of the Hilton International Hotel, and another located at the Virginia Department of Transportation, which would have captured the plane descending over Interstate 395. Literally, within only a few minutes after the attack, Federal officials arrived at all three locations and confiscated the videotapes. The contents have never been released to the public.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER:
Summarizing similar discrepancies relating to the World Trade Center attacks, Marc Bernback, who was introduced on air as an employee of Fox News, stated on live television that the plane he saw crash into the South tower came down so low that he could make out the fact that the “commercial airliner” had no windows. This was repeated twice in the same interview. Even the Fox anchorperson asked, “Could these have been cargo planes?” Marc went on to describe a blue, circular logo located on the front of the plane. He also alluded to the fact that this plane “did not look like it was from around here;” speculating that the plane may have come from a military base - not a commercial airport. The producers of “In Plane Site” later interviewed Marc Bernback and he stands firmly behind his on-air account. “The plane had no windows…”
That's some funny there mouse.....I am hip to your game Chump. I am a long time lurker first time caller....I have seen your dog and pony show many times! It's like a foghat concert,(nothing new) your like that rubbery tomato in the bottom of the fridge that no one wants to really eat and is either to lazy or their Oprah Winfrey guilt trip minds to toss it out.
Also don't talk about mouse unless your Hanna Montana.com bookmark having , carrot waxing ass meets him in the Troll forum for a real smack off!
I don't think you have errrn'd that status just yet.
Last edited by In plane site; 04-18-2008 at 02:32 AM. Reason: Beer?
A plane sighting of mouse . . .
Translation:
"I know my stuff has been thoroughly debunked, and that you will immediately post stuff that will make me look like an idiot if I post a link.
BTW, I am still waiting on you to test out your theory with that hundred pound bag of bull ...
Ah yes, the power of google means that I don't have to try very hard to prove you wrong...
If you click on the link above and look at the very top of the page you can see where even other conspiracy theorists think the "drone" theory is stupid.
It always gives me a warm glow when paranoid people turn on each other as somehow being part of the evil conspiracy because the "other" conspiracy theory is so stupid that it has to be part of an evil disinformation campaign.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
