Space Thread!

[marcopolo123]

here is the vid
[video=youtube;Pd8B-8Au-Wk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk[/video]

WTF caused those horizontal ejections? think about it

 

[mindphuk]

the WTCs collapsed in about 10 seconds...thats fast dude!!..you have CONCRETE AND STEEL in the way!!! how is that even possible? (there is an answer for that ofcourse)

Of course multiple cameras show it taking 14-15 seconds, not 10. The rubble and debris is falling faster than the building collapses. This alone proves the towers did not fall at free-fall speeds.

[video=youtube;qLShZOvxVe4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4[/video]

 

[marcopolo123]

ok sure 15 seconds to turn 100 floors into dust, and why did they turn to dust? and what are those horizontal ejections in the vid i posted...please dont tell me its compression from the falling floors, because if its a compression discharge then trapped air is what would be ejected not beams and concrete dust

 

[cannabineer]

My guess is thatonce the upper portion has been falling for, oh, 2 seconds, it's moving 40 to 50 mph. At those speeds it is hitting stationary steel and concrete. The colliding portions are experiencing tens of Gs, crushing the concrete and shearing the steel like so much drywall under a sledgehammer. With so much of the building's core first crushed by the impact, then cooked by the fire, the upper portion will quickly reach a speed where the only thing that'll stop it is something poorly compressible, like asphalt and bedrock.

I don't know for a fact that that is what happened, but it makes sense to me. Scale has interesting effects. Toy cars can withstand tens of MPH of collision (real mph, not scaled). Real cars cannot because they are big, and the structural members cannot be scaled. The WTC towers were so big that a dynamically appropriate 1:250 scale model could realistically be made of toothpicks and pie crust.
Oh, and I noticed I never posted that Electric Universe website ... it's thunderbolts.info. A classic instance of what began as Pathological Science and went on into full-house mysticism. cn

 

[marcopolo123]

asphalt and bedrock are poorly compressible but so is concrete...and steel doesnt compress and turn into chuncks or pieces. Steel buckles under compression. It doesnt simply turn into chuncks of I-beams.
You migh be right about the coliding portions crushing everything but if u do a quick calculation based on the FREE FALL, which means there is NOTHING in the way even air is excluded, and the floor heigt is 13'4" so that would comeout to be 20.537 mph not 40 or 50. Now lets put some steel and concrete in the way and im quit sure that the speed is going to reduced significantly.

If we say that thats how they fell down then the collapse of the building would slow down foot by foot due to the loss in kinetic energy when it collides of the floors below that HAVE NOT been touched by a single flame. It juslt like when you play pool, you hit the cue ball and when it collides with the other ball it transfers some kinetic energy, therefor it slows down but it makes the other ball move but as at slower rate than the cue ball. Based on that FACT that you can observe when you play pool we can conclude that those top 30 floors that fell down onto the building would keep on slowing down no matter what kind of material is in the way, even if you put wood in the way it would still slow it down and inch by inch you can calculate the deceleration. What if you put steel and concrete in the way? It is impossible for an object thats moving at speed to collide with something and keep moving at the same speed.

You can observe that the buildings are falling at a constant rate from the top to the bottom, which is a big problem here.

For mr. mindphuck

my original freefall calculation (9.2 s) did not even deal with wind resistance, its hard to even calculate the wind resistance but it can be done. What we know is 9.2s is the time it would take for an object to fall to the surface of the earth from 415m with out air underneath.
Again, lets put something in the way such as air. The time would increase, how much it increases you can work the math out yourself but it would add around 2seconds due to the shape of the cross sectional area of the floors. Put some more material such as I-beams, Trusses, which you can google how strong they are (try the crane booms), concrete, office supplies and all that you can think of. Based on that im sure and i know that if it was to fall naturally due to the heat or whatever the time is going to increase and it would surpass your 14-15 second window by a lot.

and please if your going to present something as fact OR argue with my numbers, go do some math your-self and then compare your results with mine. and if anyone has a problem with the simple equations i used please let me know

 

[mindphuk]

my original freefall calculation (9.2 s) did not even deal with wind resistance, its hard to even calculate the wind resistance but it can be done. What we know is 9.2s is the time it would take for an object to fall to the surface of the earth from 415m with out air underneath.

Air resistance is negligible until you begin to approach terminal velocity.

Again, lets put something in the way such as air. The time would increase, how much it increases you can work the math out yourself but it would add around 2seconds due to the shape of the cross sectional area of the floors. Put some more material such as I-beams, Trusses, which you can google how strong they are (try the crane booms), concrete, office supplies and all that you can think of. Based on that im sure and i know that if it was to fall naturally due to the heat or whatever the time is going to increase and it would surpass your 14-15 second window by a lot.

Prove it.

and please if your going to present something as fact OR argue with my numbers, go do some math your-self and then compare your results with mine. and if anyone has a problem with the simple equations i used please let me know

I had no issue with your calculations, just your timing. You are typical of conspiracy theorists. You begin with a claim that the towers fell at free-fall speed, now after you have been proven wrong, you modify your claim to say the air resistance and lower structures should make the collapse take longer than the 50% longer than your original calculation. Admit it, no amount of evidence will make you reconsider your claim because you are wed to the idea. That is the defining characteristic of a conspiracy theorist. Don't come here to tell me to do math to refute your claim when you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

 

[marcopolo123]

yes they fell closer to freefall speed than crushing 70 floors speed...that is a lot of math to do for myself and i dont need to do it cuz others have done so...again your attacking with out sufficient proof of your claims...yes terminal velocity is where wind resistance is greatest. but on the other hand a falling feather is falling at terminal velocity even though it is slow, which means that its no longer acceletating because the downward force equals the upward force caused by drag. For, example a parachute creates enough drag to stop humans from acelerating during a fall, and that can be said that the human and the parachute are falling at terminal velocity.

Drag is a function of shape! and they have drag coefficients for diffeent shapes.

So, im pulling numbers out of my ass and you the smart ass couldnt figure out that a flatt objects such as building floors have a high coef. of drag..

come on man if your going to talk about scientific things pleaese study it at first and then come out and call us names and shit.

sit back and roll your self a phat one and enjoy this "evidence" that i lack of

[video=youtube;i3MN9382eGY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3MN9382eGY[/video]

 

[ginjawarrior]

yes they fell closer to freefall speed than crushing 70 floors speed...that is a lot of math to do for myself and i dont need to do it cuz others have done so...again your attacking with out sufficient proof of your claims...yes terminal velocity is where wind resistance is greatest. but on the other hand a falling feather is falling at terminal velocity even though it is slow, which means that its no longer acceletating because the downward force equals the upward force caused by drag. For, example a parachute creates enough drag to stop humans from acelerating during a fall, and that can be said that the human and the parachute are falling at terminal velocity.

Drag is a function of shape! and they have drag coefficients for diffeent shapes.

So, im pulling numbers out of my ass and you the smart ass couldnt figure out that a flatt objects such as building floors have a high coef. of drag..

come on man if your going to talk about scientific things pleaese study it at first and then come out and call us names and shit.

sit back and roll your self a phat one and enjoy this "evidence" that i lack of

[video=youtube;i3MN9382eGY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3MN9382eGY[/video]

what exactly is crushing 70stories speed?

20stories of falling scyscraper has much much more weight to surface area in comparison to a feather
loose change is bunk try this version

[youtube]GodGViR7T4I[/youtube]

 

[Blaze Master]

how did a space thread turn into a 9/11 conspiracy thread. damnit stoners lets get back on track and discuss space

 

[bluejunta]

I'm with NEWT!!! Moon Colony by end of his second term!! I wonder how MJ grows in space....

 

[cannabineer]

cn

=

 

[cannabineer]

Random note:
Last night I was reading about the New madrid earthquake in Missouri/Kentucky. I noticed that the date of the third main shock (magnitude approx. 8.0) was February 7th, 1812. I was reading about the event on its bicentennial. cn

 

[deprave]

Random note:
Last night I was reading about the New madrid earthquake in Missouri/Kentucky. I noticed that the date of the third main shock (magnitude approx. 8.0) was February 7th, 1812. I was reading about the event on its bicentennial. cn

why do you always write 'cn'..what is that?

 

[cannabineer]

It's a vestigial signature. I formerly ended my posts by writing "cheers 'neer". I'm enough a product of the old school that I treat posts on a forum like this as the written word ... letters, essays, tiny treatises. Such require a bit more formality than the fragments of bird-chatter that typically pass for posts. I stand firm and nearly alone against the grim tide of the text-message apocalypse. Sancho! My armor - !!
cn

 

[ginjawarrior]

It's a vestigial signature. I formerly ended my posts by writing "cheers 'neer". I'm enough a product of the old school that I treat posts on a forum like this as the written word ... letters, essays, tiny treatises. Such require a bit more formality than the fragments of bird-chatter that typically pass for posts. I stand firm and nearly alone against the grim tide of the text-message apocalypse. Sancho! My armor - !!
cn

although i haven't spent the time following this doctrine, i whole heartedly approve of it, there is a silent attack on our language and grammar.

just in case anyone finds fault with what i've said i'll point you towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

 

[ismokealotofpot]

I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image. and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .

 

[ginjawarrior]

I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image.

and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .

http://www.debunking911.com/
grow up

 

[mindphuk]

These aren't even the highest resolution the LROC can take. The footprints are still there after all of these years.

 

[ginjawarrior]

These aren't even the highest resolution the LROC can take. The footprints are still there after all of these years.

i'd imagine in the future the person who brings back the lunar rover will earn much more than all earths arts combined from auction

on a side note the Chinese must also be in on the ploy

now even forgetting the fact that theres a man made mirror on the moon why on earth would china keep up the lie?

 

[ismokealotofpot]

think about this why would we fly to the moon put a mirror up there and fly back to shoot a laser at it to find out how far away it is thats the stupidest waste of time and money. and your images are crystal clear btw good job you cleared everything up for us. what about prop c? ever hear of it? its a rock that the astronauts took a picture of. it had a perfect c on the top i can see why they would take a picture but 30 years later they changed the picture. why?