• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Freefall redefined

~enigma~ said:
I never saw such an idiotic freefall calculation. Read myname is from his very first post and watch how his detractors get banned. Now we know where the woowoos get it :D

http://www.proxygem.com/cgi-bin/nph...ose_Change_Forum/index.php=3fshowtopic=3d2346
Click to expand...

That is hilarious, just like the many other Twoofer free fall calculations, such as 28th Kingdumb's attempt:

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for flat steel beams would be 5.6 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 5.6 = 23.24 seconds.
Click to expand...
:D


It's sad to see that on the LC forums dummies like him roam free while skeptics get banned for nothing at all.
 
wow, talk about a dodge

mynameis said:
As I stated I'm not Galileo who originally calculated this stuff, but the weakening of the high carbon steel as a metal is wholly impossible.
Click to expand...

yeah...my calculations were way off...uhh...um....HEY LOOK OVER THERE!!!
 
That thread was noted in another thread over here somewhere. I hadn't noted this priceless bit from mynameis before though.

32 feet per second per second/ height of the centers, for Europeans it's 10m/ per second.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp No wonder you wacky Europeans use that crazy metric system. Not only does gravity have a different value :eek: over there, IT HAS DIFFERENT UNITS :eye-poppi

Bwahahahahaha ...
 
32 feet divided by 1, 362 feet = 42 seconds. Now divide by 50% for lack of inertia = about 24 seconds rounding down 20 seconds
Click to expand...
I heard of new math but new physics????????????????????
 
through out that whole thing, he's using 32 feet per second... guess that whole thing about Per second per second just went over his head.
 
Arus808 said:
through out that whole thing, he's using 32 feet per second... guess that whole thing about Per second per second just went over his head.
Click to expand...

He thought that his physics teacher had a stutter ;)
 
I think the "woowoos" are the people who claim that the molten steel that was pulled from underneath the towers was due to the tremendous amounts of fuel burning underground.

I guess they had some kind of special fuel burning down there that didn't produce any visible smoke ??

groundzero.jpg


You woowoos need some glasses.
 
um..if its underground..under 7 stories of rubble....smoke would have a hard time "getting" out, but people reported seeing smoke during days/weeks following 911.... and even by your pic, you are showing smoke

Submersible, your "woowoo"ness is showing.
 
~enigma~ said:
I heard of new math but new physics????????????????????
Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy. See, the government (or the jews, or the freemasons, or elvis, or whoever REALLY did this) felt that it was so important to cause these terrorist attacks that they altered the laws of physics. It's the government. They can do anything.
 
Cool! A molten steel myth! I've only seen that debunked 9 or 10 times so far.. this year...
 
Submersible said:
I think the "woowoos" are the people who claim that the molten steel that was pulled from underneath the towers was due to the tremendous amounts of fuel burning underground.

I guess they had some kind of special fuel burning down there that didn't produce any visible smoke ??

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/groundzero.jpg

You woowoos need some glasses.
Click to expand...

White smoke = Aluminum Oxide = THERMITE!!!! WTF!

Heh. Thank you 9/11 Mysteries for that "fact".

*Smacks self on head*
 
Anti-sophist said:
Cool! A molten steel myth! I've only seen that debunked 9 or 10 times so far.. this year...
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any evidence of molten "steel".

Molten metal, maybe - the fires were burning well in the range of the temperatures required to melt aluminum.
 
I guess they had some kind of special fuel burning down there that didn't produce any visible smoke ??
Click to expand...
so if lots of smoke means weak fires, and not much smoke means weak fires, what the heck does a strong fire do?
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
so if lots of smoke means weak fires, and not much smoke means weak fires, what the heck does a strong fire do?
Click to expand...
This new form of fire called a "strong fire" is a pure fabrication of the government in an attempt to cover up their involvement in 9/11. :boxedin:
 
God damn they're stupid.

If anyone has posting rights over there, point them to this link:
http://dileas.freehostia.com/wtc_freefall.php

I made that a while back while arguing with some twoofers about how much resistance should have been offered by the structure. Ofcourse, the calculations don't take into account terminal velocity, but I'm not sure how you'd go about calculating terminal velocity for a falling building, and I'd assume it wouldn't have made a huge difference anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom