Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2006, 08:34 AM   #16
Rasheed1
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Rasheed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 10,496
Rasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation here
Default

I see we have the same group of knuckleheads in here namecalling instead saying something worthy of responding to.....

It figures tho...
Rasheed1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 08:42 AM   #17
Rasheed1
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Rasheed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 10,496
Rasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation hereRasheed1 has an incredible reputation here
Default

Quote:
Are you going to bring out your math equation again? Oh wait you can't because it got punk'd.

you mean the math equation that forced you to admit that the time given by the 911 commission was straight BS?

you mean the math equation from the physics professor at BYU?

Quote:
Oh wait you can't because it got punk'd

punk'd?

The only thing that got punkd in that thread was you tontoz.....

people only need to read it to see who got 'punk'd'.. (Bush knocked down the towers)
Rasheed1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:00 AM   #18
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

Quote:
you mean the math equation that forced you to admit that the time given by the 911 commission was straight BS?

you mean the math equation from the physics professor at BYU?

No it was your interpretation that was BS. The 10 second time WASN'T the time for the total collapse. The 10 second time was how long it took for the debri free falling from the collapse area to hit the ground.

I never did see you post where you got the 10 second time from but I did see pgm post where it came from and it makes perfect sense.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:02 AM   #19
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

Quote:
You beat me to it. This guy(tontoz )is learning knowledge as we continue this dialog.

Let me take him to school.

You must have taken the short bus to school.

If the building was wired top to bottom with explosives then all the floors would have collapsed at the same time. However the video clearly shows that the bottom floors weren't collapsing at all while the top floors were coming down.

YOU CONSPIRACY CLOWNS HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:13 AM   #20
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

Quote:
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers

Obviously the 10 second number isn't the time for the total collapse.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:47 AM   #21
bringthetruth
Banned
 
bringthetruth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In My House
Posts: 492
bringthetruth has no real reputation yet.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
You must have taken the short bus to school.

If the building was wired top to bottom with explosives then all the floors would have collapsed at the same time. However the video clearly shows that the bottom floors weren't collapsing at all while the top floors were coming down.

YOU CONSPIRACY CLOWNS HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS.

WHAT???

Why when you are detonating a building trying to make it look like a plane and heat made it fall would you detonate them at the same time.

You would pull it from top to bottom on different floors to make it look like it collapsed.

And to loosen the structure you would blow up some of the foundations as witnessed reported hearing bombs going off in the elevator shafts.
bringthetruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:50 AM   #22
bringthetruth
Banned
 
bringthetruth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In My House
Posts: 492
bringthetruth has no real reputation yet.
Default

James Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI's New York office, confirmed that agents were looking into several reports of warnings that preceded the attack against the World Trade Center.

"Among the e-mails and tips we received are a number of reports of people overhearing people boasting about or warning about coming attacks," he said
He declined to discuss specifics and would not say whether any of the 600-plus people detained in the terror probe were questioned about pre-attack warnings.

But officials and sources familiar with the investigation said the incidents include the following:

Jersey City school administrators confirmed that several days before the attack, a student of Middle Eastern descent issued a vague warning not to travel into lower Manhattan the morning of Sept. 11.

Joanne Kenny, associate superintendent of the Jersey City public schools, said, "Crisis staff determined that comments made or notes written were serious enough so we called the juvenile bureau of the Jersey City police and they followed up."

Sources Not Found

Jersey City police did not return calls seeking comment, but a source said the matter wound up being investigated by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force.

Kenny wouldn't discuss the nature of the warning or reveal the name of the student who made the comment. But a source said federal authorities investigated the matter and could not determine the source of the warning.

"They ran into a dead end, and whoever may have given the warning denied it," the source said.

In the Bronx, federal investigators received reports about a similar warning at a mosque, sources said. The sources would not reveal the name of the mosque.

Sources with the Joint Terrorist Task Force questioned dozens of members of the mosque, many of whom told agents they had been given a vague warning to stay out of lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, sources said.

One source said investigators again hit a dead end when the mosque's hierarchy denied having prior knowledge of the attack.

The source pointed out that in years past, law enforcement had received tips about warnings to stay away from specific locales and of planned attacks that never materialized.

"There's a cry-wolf aspect to this that you need to put this in context," the source said.

At Brooklyn's New Utrecht High School, the FBI was notified that a Pakistani student in a bilingual class "made a comment to a teacher the week prior about the twin towers," said Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Board of Education.

Finney would not reveal the nature of the comment, but the Journal-News of Westchester reported yesterday that the student pointed at the tower during a heated political argument and declared, "Look at those two buildings. They won't be here next week."

School officials would not release the name of the student, but said he was still attending classes at New Utrecht. They said they notified New York police and that the matter was turned over to the FBI.

"I don't know what the status of the FBI's investigation is," Finney said.

Wake up man !!!!
bringthetruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:08 AM   #23
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

Quote:
WHAT???

Why when you are detonating a building trying to make it look like a plane and heat made it fall would you detonate them at the same time.

You would pull it from top to bottom on different floors to make it look like it collapsed.

LOL and they put all those explosives in there and nobody noticed them at all.

If you had a brain that work you would realize that the above scenario isnt possible. As the building collapses do you really think all the electrical systems will work so well that all of the bombs can go off at the precise times?

They have to detonate the bombs at the same time.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:14 AM   #24
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

Quote:
School officials would not release the name of the student, but said he was still attending classes at New Utrecht. They said they notified New York police and that the matter was turned over to the FBI.


The sad part is that you don't even realize you are contradicting yourself.

You are trying to argue that Bush pulled all this off and was able to keep everyone quiet yet you post a link to someone who supposedly knew the towers were coming down beforehand.

And if they are willing to kill thousands then why haven't they killed this kid who is running his mouth?

Do you not see the contradiction?

Last edited by tontoz : 09-26-2006 at 10:17 AM.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 12:39 PM   #25
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
pgm has an OK reputation so far
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
I have a hard time accepting this whole "pancake theory". If the building collapsed from the top as we're told, how did they fall so quickly? They fell at near free-fall speed. And not only that, they went straight DOWN where there was THE MOST RESISTANCE.

Seriously, how does that happen?

Actually, it didn't Pancake--at least according to the NIST explanation (which seems the most thorough report of how the buildings collapsed.

Quote:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 04:29 PM   #26
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default

Quote:
Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Okay so all I'm asking then is how did the building collapse? There had to be a progressive collapse/failure of some sort. The collapsing section (top) received no resistance. Did it?
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 05:28 PM   #27
JSub
Decent college freshman
 
JSub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,372
JSub has decent reputationJSub has decent reputation
Default

tontoz,

just SHUDDUP man. You sound like a blabbering idiot. You're presented with the laws of physics that indicate the physical impossibility of the WTCs to come crashing down with ZERO resistence without detonation, yet all you do is response with your " " emoticon.

Last edited by JSub : 09-26-2006 at 05:32 PM.
JSub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 05:32 PM   #28
JSub
Decent college freshman
 
JSub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,372
JSub has decent reputationJSub has decent reputation
Default

Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie


Collapse Theory Fails Reality*Check

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) stated (cached), "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. So, right off the top, Gates' premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived. So let's just examine his other premise: whether or not it is true that people know what they saw.

(The following must be said before we can get to the physics.)

The government and the media told us what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government's, and PBS's, and Popular Mechanics', and Scientific American's theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated steel to the point where it was weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. According to their "pancake theory", this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the floors falling from above.

There are at least 2 problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for either the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity collapse times. This article focuses on the latter of these two mentioned discrepancies.

The scientists who've concocted this "pancake theory" made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists -- that incredible pancake theory of theirs -- using simple, high-school physics!

And that's what we're about to do here. We're going to check the work -- something every grade-schooler is taught to do -- of those "scientists".

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.


How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty -- gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn't figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity's pull (ie, it's heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed (ie, when it's falling). Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.


The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.


Checking Our Work

OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! Now let's check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass*x*Gravity*x*Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2*x*Mass*x*Velocity(squared)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1*x*32*x*144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2*x*1*x*96(squared) = 1/2*x*9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.


One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.


A Quick Recap

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.


The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity



Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7



Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.
JSub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 05:32 PM   #29
JSub
Decent college freshman
 
JSub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,372
JSub has decent reputationJSub has decent reputation
Default

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.


Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long the collapse should have taken. Would it have taken minutes? Hours? Days? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized" -- actually "dissociated" is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.


Conclusions

In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved



However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported "gravitational" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.
JSub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 05:44 PM   #30
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,885
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default

The 911 commision report is over 500 pages and they devoted less than 1 sentence on the actual collapse.

Why is that? Because they were more concerned with the events that led up to it and the implications of it. They didn't study the actual collapse in depth.

Your copy and paste job was already debunked in the other thread about this.

First of all the 10 second number is how long it took for the first large debri FROM THE COLLAPSE SITE, to hit the ground. obviously the debri was free falling.

Your link measured the time it would take for something to fall from the top of the tower IN A VACUUM. With air resistance they even admit it would take longer than 10 seconds.

Quote:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity



Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7



Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.


The collapse started well below the top floor so the 10 seconds it took for the first debri to hit the ground actually makes perfect sense.

Last edited by tontoz : 09-26-2006 at 05:47 PM.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy