911NutPhysics.

[daws101]

Nutty 9-11 Physics

oh my. lots of physics in that... blog...lol

the kid troll obviously slept through junior high school science classes.the kid troll cant get around bld 7 and the witness testimony of barry jennings.he can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey he is so he is getting desperate now.lol.

hahahahahahahah. berry Jennings was a liar, he's dead and can't be re interviewed.
since it was not a dying declaration, it can't be taken as fact and has no value as evidence.
wtc7 what's to" get around" you have no evidence that it did nothing but collapse.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

911 Truther Fail - YouTube

the crowd goes wild!

 

[daws101]

Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube

how many times are you gonna post that clip before you realize it's shit!

 

[eots]

the opinions of top level military experts and research scientist is shit ??

 

[daws101]

the opinions of top level military experts and research scientist is shit ??

yes it is because it's "opinion"opin·ion noun \ə-ˈpin-yən\

Definition of OPINION
1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem
2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective
See opinion defined for English-language learners »
See opinion defined for kids »
Examples of OPINION
We asked for their opinions about the new stadium.
In my opinion, it's the best car on the market.
The article discusses two recent Supreme Court opinions.
Origin of OPINION
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
First Known Use: 14th century

NOT FACT: fact noun \ˈfakt\

Definition of FACT
1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
See fact defined for English-language learners »
See fact defined for kids »
Examples of FACT
Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.
He did it, and that's a fact.
Origin of FACT
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
First Known Use: 15th century


PLEASE NOTE THE DIFFERENCE.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'll take the opinion and experience of those patriots over an asshole disinformation sock troll like dawgshit101 any day.

 

[daws101]

I'll take the opinion and experience of those patriots over an asshole disinformation sock troll like dawgshit101 any day.

see post #26

 

[LOki]

I distrust the government but as a realistic conservative I think government is staffed with mostly well-intentioned but incompetent people — not because they're dumb, but because bureaucracies are dumb. These conspiracy theorists reverse this entirely. They think government is evil-intentioned but supremely, even divinely, competent. That's crazy-talk, Count Chocula.

I literally laughed until I cried.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I'll take the opinion and experience of those patriots over an asshole disinformation sock troll like dawgshit101 any day.

He's just here to troll and seeking attention.

 

[Godboy]

I'll take the opinion and experience of those patriots over an asshole disinformation sock troll like dawgshit101 any day.

He's just here to troll and seeking attention.

Hes here to make you guys look like the fools you are, and hes done a great job with it.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsSA3d9qBpE&feature=feedu]Brand new footage 7 World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Brand new footage 7 World Trade Center - YouTube

and ....what's your point?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Brand new footage 7 World Trade Center - YouTube

Typical TRUTHER YouTube. Start the film of the collapse after the East Penthouse has already fallen through the building. (But you do get a nice view of the sky through the upper floor windows in this film).


And why did they show Allen Funt making the first comments after the collapse film?

 

[daws101]

Brand new footage 7 World Trade Center - YouTube

Typical TRUTHER YouTube. Start the film of the collapse after the East Penthouse has already fallen through the building. (But you do get a nice view of the sky through the upper floor windows in this film).


And why did they show Allen Funt making the first comments after the collapse film?

because they couldn't get the sham wow or easy chop guys.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I e-mailed him a couple of years ago. He does not talk about how the steel has to be distributed down a skyscraper for a very tall building to hold itself up. That makes the top of the north tower destroying the rest quite problematic.

A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

The people claiming to be physics experts and then EXPLAINING how the airliners ultimately destroyed the buildings consistently leave out certain facts about skyscrapers which are necessary just to they can hold themselves up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo]WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World - YouTube[/ame]

Like there Ryan Mackey talks but he never actually builds a model. Then he misuses the conservation of momentum equation when the stationary mass cannot accelerate without crushing the support beneath simultaneously so it could not possible attain that velocity. But it impresses people who can't do the math anyway.

So we have propaganda physics. But after TEN YEARS the physics profession has made itself look silly anyway except to people who don't understand it. So how many people can be kept ignorant and confused about grade school physics FOR HOW LONG because the physics is NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

psik