| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Test your understanding of physics |
 |
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | | http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l4a.html |
maybe you could test them and correct us by telling us what should happened when the planes hit the towers if they should'nt of done what we saw? in your opinon(no links). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: "Terminal velocity"? |
|
|
Hey Plane son, you have linked to a very interesting site. Knowledge of physics, yup, got a little, having studied it to lower degree level, albeit many years ago now, but the laws of physics haven't changed in millions of years.
Now, all the sceptics on this forum, take a good look and study this page carefully:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3e.html
After studying the page at the above link please answer this question.
If an object falling through air is resisted (ultimately to "terminal velocity") by that air, just what would be the "terminal velocity" of the tops of two 110 story buildings falling through steel columns and beams and concrete structure? Would it still be (A) the same as falling in a vacuum, (B) or through air, or (C) would it be much slower, possibly?? A, B or C?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: Re: "Terminal velocity"? |
|
|
| spiv wrote: | Hey Plane son, you have linked to a very interesting site. Knowledge of physics, yup, got a little, having studied it to lower degree level, albeit many years ago now, but the laws of physics haven't changed in millions of years.
Now, all the sceptics on this forum, take a good look and study this page carefully:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3e.html
After studying the page at the above link please answer this question.
If an object falling through air is resisted (ultimately to "terminal velocity") by that air, just what would be the "terminal velocity" of the tops of two 110 story buildings falling through steel columns and beams and concrete structure? Would it still be (A) the same as falling in a vacuum, (B) or through air, or (C) would it be much slower, possibly?? A, B or C?? |
maybe its best to ask in critics corner, they are the ones saying the towers should of done what was saw and was a natural collapse(no explosives).
my understanding is that it is impossible to accelerate into the path of most resistance. there may well of been enough momentum to crush a few floors but it should of then slowed and fell towards the path of least resistance(tilted and fell off) or just stopped if the weight was balanced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: Top marks.. |
|
|
Top marks for you Marky. And to me this is the very evidence that 911 couldn't have happened the way the 911 Commission (and American Government) explained.
Because of this physics, which is taught at school level, I was extremely surprised, whilst following the thread regarding the chartered engineers (see http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9163&highlight= ) that this basic physics seems to be beyond the grasp of many of these professionals. 
Next time a chartered engineer is engaged to assist you in any building or civil engineering projects, it might be an idea to check out their basic knowledge and grasp of physics first!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
