Collapse vs Demolition
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 15:35 spudnik wrote: > I *did* focus upon WTC7, but does the numbering infer that > it was the seventh bild. to be built?... I think, not. >> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >> "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. > thus&so: > if it's any consolation, I get the next-to-last word on it; > I'd rather wear a pseudorandom pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes, > then try to debate in the context of your New sciencE -- > just think of all of the permutations, dood. > > thus&so: > that is sufficiently all, to be said on Benford's God-am law; > can we not necessarily use e? (not "sumorial, although I know that > there is a 'real' analog of the factorial, dood?") >>>> "Generalization to digits beyond the first". >> For base-b, the probability of d being the n-th digit >> (n > 1) is: >> b^{n-1}-1 >> --- 1 >> > log ( 1 + ------ ) >> --- b bk + d >> k=b^{n-2} >> >> that the probability of the first >> digit being d is: >> 1 >> log ( 1 + - ) >> b d > > thus&so: > sorry; I'm going to stop saying, thence he died, and > abuzing my time with this monolog. thanks for all fish! > I'm just saying, go jumpt into a pool of spacetime, or > timespace, as long as it's deep! >> read more �... > > thus&so: > yeah, but are the glasses, 3d, or the clocks -- or neither or both? >> ... so, I said, "Hey, Einstein, space and time are made of rubber! >> "Just kidding, dood." >> I am, however, not implying that he was a surfer, but >> he did know the canonical surfer's value ... of pi. > > thus&so: > it's just his bot, as far as I can tell, > without researching it ... googoling would be way > too much positive feedback, and that's unpositively moderate > anyway, what difference between lightwaves and rocks > o'light, vis-a-vu the curvature of space (as > was uncovered by You now who & you know whO-oo, > in the 18th and BCE centuries (or 2nd and Minus Oneth millenia ?-) > also, don't forget the ... well, their are a few of them! >> If colleagues know, what good? > > thus&so: > ... time, considered to be perpendicular to all > of the three spatial directions; at least, in some abstract sense. > anyway, I invented the terminology; so ,there.... um, > perpendicular Universes: > > --BP's cap™ call of brokers the group! association > http://tarpley.net Party on dood.... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Jul 2010 04:04 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >spudnik wrote: > >> where I skipped-to in that video >> Rodriquez was holding forth, presumably about his interpretation, >> that "the bombs went off in the lower basement and, >> seven seconds later, the plane hit!" (no audio, here.) > >> well, that's his interpretation. anway, it behooves the Truthers, >> that "controlled demolition" is just a subset of "catastrophic >> collapse," >> and not the other way around (those planes didn't cause a trashfire, >> such as neve-before had demolished a skyscraper; >> they were huge bombs). > > Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >impossible without demolition. Why? > Please explain how WTC7 could have dropped at the rate of free fall It didn't. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Jul 2010 14:08 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's > >> Why? > > You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. > > Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >or object encounters no significant resistance. "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. > Obviously, a steel >frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight "melted and vaporized steel columns" >can >not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. Why? > The belief that it can, >is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic "I'm right and you must agree with me!" Yawn. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Henry on 13 Jul 2010 14:58 Ray Fischer wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >>> Why? >> You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >> Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >> evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. >> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >> or object encounters no significant resistance. > "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. Well, technically, no resistance at all. Even air resistance will reduce the rate of acceleration to less than free fall, but the change can be so minor that it's difficult to observe. >> Obviously, a steel >> frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight > "melted and vaporized steel columns" Could not have been the result of the minor, ordinary office fires that were in WTC7, which is more proof of demolition. >> can not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. > Why? Wow... First, if an object or structure accelerates at the rate of free fall, *all* of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion, and no energy is available to crush, bend, and break 10s of thousands of tons of structural steel. Obviously that would *greatly* reduce or stop the acceleration. A steel structure that's capable of supporting several times the weight of the building would produce significant resistance. Free fall can only take place when there is no resistance. Look at some of the presentations on this website. The author is a physics teacher and presents the information very articulately. Let us know if you disagree with any of his research. It's been peer reviewed, and so far, no one has been able to find any errors. http://www.911speakout.org/ -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Jul 2010 22:52
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Obviously, a steel >>> frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight > >> "melted and vaporized steel columns" > > Could not have been the result of the minor, You claim that "melted and vaporized steel columns" could support "several times [their] own weight". You can't even keep your own story straight. >>> can not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. > >> Why? > > Wow... First, if an object or structure accelerates at the rate of >free fall, I don't accept your premise. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |