Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

Looks like SA wants to do some research.

This thread is more than 5 years old and over 1,000 posts long.

Get doing your research, boy.

[RandomGuy]

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…

BTW... That hundred pound bag of bull , if dropped from 12.32 feet would hit with the same force as a stationary bag of bull held motionless weighing 1152 pounds.

That is why you don't see people catching other people jumping out of 2nd story windows with their bare hands.

I would note in ALL the years that this thread has been here, not a single truther bothered to check my figures to catch my deliberate error.

[Nbadan]

Debunked. There were no cell phone calls from the planes.

Fact fail, and already more than addressed in this thread.

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

[Nbadan]

I would note in ALL the years that this thread has been here, not a single truther bothered to check my figures to catch my deliberate error.
RandomGuy is offline Reply With Quote

So what? You can't even explain how cell phone calls were made from planes traveling in excess of 500mph and why NIST won't release its building 7 research data....

[Nbadan]

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the pit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

[RandomGuy]

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

Indeed there were phone calls made from the planes.

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.

If you can't figure that out, you aren't looking in the right places, and this has been explained to you already. I'm not doing your work for you.

[Nbadan]

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.

I'm looking at the 911 Commission report..saying that there were cell phone calls..where are you looking?

[RandomGuy]

"Press reports"

Wowie zowie. You got me.

Unnammed, unquoted "press reports" as told to you by a 9-11 truther website.

I can't imagine how I ever doubted it.

[Blake]

Comprehension fail...

Your an asshat, I've already proven that your sacred 911 Commission report, RG's 911 Bible, states that at least 2 phone calls were made from the hijacked airplanes...

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

[RandomGuy]

I'm looking at the 911 Commission report..saying that there were cell phone calls..where are you looking?

At my watch. Good night. This isn't going anywhere.

[RandomGuy]

(the thread that is...I have to sleep and the "cell phone" claim will still be there tomorrow my time to address it is at an end for now.)

[Nbadan]

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

[Nbadan]

the seat-back phones?

incredible that anyone still believes that it was cell phone calls.

Tell that to the 911 Commission reports which seems to not distinguish between the clarity of a cell phone call and the clarity of a seat back phone...

[Nbadan]

The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to do ents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici.../11_Commission

[Nbadan]

Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../16989631.html

[Nbadan]

From the report itself...

Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from
GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and
colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the
ground with firsthand accounts.They enabled the passengers to gain critical
information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World
Trade Center.77

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/r...Report_Ch1.pdf

[Nbadan]

I urge everyone who is interested in making an informed decision on 911 to watch explosive evidence and ask RG and other duck-and-coverers why NIST won't release its data into tbe collapse of WTC7

[ChumpDumper]

lol another two hour video

dan, you never even bothered to join a protest for two hours.

You're a phony.

lol explosive

[RandomGuy]

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

Blake is not RG.

[Blake]

Tell that to the 911 Commission reports which seems to not distinguish between the clarity of a cell phone call and the clarity of a seat back phone...

K, why do you feel these two impossibly made cell phone calls are of such great importance.

[Blake]

Blake is not RG.

Conspiracy!

[RandomGuy]

Head meet sand...same old RG....yell, conspiracy theorists and duck and cover....some things never change..

You mean like your ty sources dated from 2004?

Two calls, both made on the same plane, out of 64 calls made were from actual cell phones, from an estimated al ude of less than 1000 feet, and both were dropped in less than 2 minutes.




Both calls were about what one would expect from 2001 technology.

As I said, this has been deunked YEARS AGO.

The "truth" movement lies and lied to you Dan. Sorry you can't see that.

[Parker2112]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12....affadavit.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12....affadavit.pdf

http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm

http://thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/index.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/spa.../john-lear.htm

http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_ufo2.htm

No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted

Mr. Lear is not an expert in the crashing of planes.

But , let's assume he is right, and all the other counterveiling evidence is wrong.

What do you think hit the Towers?

[RandomGuy]

At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding...

In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes.

One man's opinion. All the video evidence, all the eyewitness acounts is all stacked up against him. He's right and everybody else is wrong.

Normally ad hominems are illogical, but in this case, it goes directly to his credibility for his other statements.

Not the most reliable of witnesses. I doubt he would hold up well under cross examination.

The image of the crash was caught on video from multiple vantage points on live television and amateur video, while approximately 100 cameras captured Flight 175 in photographs before it crashed

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/us...y-of-loss.html

The guy claims that the pictures of the wreckage found on the roof of WTC is also impossible.

I suppose it was put there by the magic debris fairy in the middle of one of the world's largest, most crowded cities with no one noticing?