Revolution Please!
What about him?
He heard explosions, like we’ve already said before that doesn’t mean there were bombs. A person saying he heard explosions is not proof of anything.
well, theres this guy i know, and he says that explosions dont necesarily mean explosions. Just sayin you know?
what about that equation you promised us?
Dead bodies before either tower collapsed? Scandalous! Unless you forgot about all those poor souls who jumped out the windows from the burning floors around and above the fires.
So duh, there were plenty of bodies somewhere, though I’m not sure if any could have landed or (eww) bounced into WTC 7.
But more likely I am assuming that this is another case of a combination of quotes taken out of context, information provided out of context (like not referenced to the actual time it happened) and just plain lies because people generally don’t do any of their own research about such things.
Will it help any if I watch the clip all the way through?
Beware Shaun, you might burn your wings if you come too close to the sun:p
WHAT?! Seriously? Um… Remember he was talking about wakling OUT of WTC 7. How did they bounce off the ground and into WTC 7.
Dead bodies in WTC 7! Why? I’m sorry your theory that they are from WTC 1 and 2. Is impossible. Keep in mind WTC 7 is about 300 feet away from 1 and 2. They don’t bounce that far John.
Kington you want the equation. It’s a serious of mgh= 1/2 mv^2, m1V1=m2v2. It’s annoyingly long. But shows the plates falling quiet a bit slower than this free fall speed. (Measured with varable t). Anyone with physics can do this. Fall plates equation. Not tough. Just lengthy.
More insults? Is this not something you should sway away from in an agruement. Lame of you.
Surely so. I bet we call all feel an exposion when it happens. What about when they talk about being blown upward in the basement (different vid) of WTC 1 and 2. Come on guys. I’ll keep debating cause I have better evidence backing my story than you guys.
Come on, boy… Where’s your sense of humor?
No insult here 
you can call it a cheap shot, though.
Plus I certainly won’t engage in an argument with you: first because we would both spend our time, second because it’s much more fun to stay beside and enjoy the show.
Lame of me, indeed, but I sometimes need cheap entertainment in my everyday life.
Well… I’ll remain a spectator from now on, please excuse me (all) for this:o
I know for a fact that your physics equation is not accurate because no trained physicist would use the term “free fall speed” since there is no such thing in physics since an object in free fall does move at a constant velocity. It accelerates due to free fall acceleration. There is terminal velocity which is the maximum speed that an object in free fall reaches due to air resistance etc. A trained physicist would refer to terminal velocity, but not to “free fall speed”.
I’d like the equation, too, please. If you want us to take you seriously, you’ll cough it up and explain how it proves your point.
There is no “falling plates equation” and there never will be a definitive equation that models such behavior. Have you ever watched a leaf drop from a tree? Noticed how it flips and rolls randomly on its way down? This isn’t a motion that’s simply explained by gravity and drag forces.
If you can’t produce the equation nor an explanation that puts it in context, then all you’re doing is “waving the wand of science” over your theory, hoping that we’ll be fooled into believing there is some science therein.
Physicists aren’t trained. They’re not even housebroken. They’re just people with a strange attraction to mathematical models.
How about I saw “someone who has studied physics”?
Speed isn’t velocity.
velocity (delta d/ delta t) - not using acceleration.
Speed (no delta anything) - This deals with rate an object covers distance. Not going against the fact of increasing V (acceleration).
When a car is speeding past you, you don’t say look at that car’s acceleration. More just look at that car’s speed.
Now also at any given time that falling building had a velocity. Just need the derivative of the falling curve. So really, velocity could also work. Just maybe the should make it plural and say velocities. However if Larry S (owner of the buildings) can get away with saying pull “it” (talking abotu the firefighters, should be pull them) then i’m sure you can allow them not to use plural here. (Don’t cross stories again).
You must have no physics experience. That’s fine i’ll break this down nicely.
Leaf dropping from a tree is a horrible example. One of which you really should have thought about before posting. When steel falls, air resistance plays a small role in slowing it down. When a leaf falls, (seriously, i can’t beleive you used that) it has tendency to bend catching the air, unbend, cuting it through some air, bend again, rotate, catch a different area of air and continue. let alone if it’s windy. My gosh dont’ get me started if it’s windy. It might not even touch the ground. Wow… Seriously? Leaf and Steel??? We’re not on the moon here.
I promise i’ll get to teh equation. I takes some time and some paper room. Most likely it’ll be done at my school on a whiteboard. In this equation all simplefactions I do are in your favor. the official pancake thoery favor. Not mine. And I can still clear a disproval. From only a physics stand point though. Some one could ahve been using their mind to make it fall faster, which I don’t account for.
Uh, while I agree that speed and velocity cannot always be interchanged, that’s not the reason. Velocity is typically a vector quantity (so direction is concerned), while speed is a scalar quantity. I’m not sure what you were trying to explain right there…
That’s like the time the (steel sheeting) roof of our horse shed got ripped off in a huge dust devil and flew a hundred and fifty feet in the air. When the dust devil spit it out way up in the air, it fell more like a leaf than a rock. Saying that air resistance doesn’t have an affect on a falling object simply because it is made of steel is ludicrous.
Some people just shouldn’t be able to watch youtube.
They want you to believe there’s a conspiracy.
I’m not talking about the difference between velocity and speed.
You say a car is speeding past you because a car does move at a more or less constant velocity, a falling body does not.
You still don’t understand my point. The point is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “FREE FALL SPEED” You wouldn’t say Free Fall Velocity either
The fact that you would use a term like “free fall speed” shows that you do not understand the physics you are trying to tote here.
You are correct. I dug up a diagram of the layout of the buildings. Not only is it too far for a nutty victim to “aim” their freefall to get over there (from my understanding of how skydiving works), WTC 6 was also in the way from the nearest of the tall towers and the jumpers would have had to clear that (much shorter) building as well. But Mr. Jennings’ walk over the supposed bodies is after the towers collapsed. He was brought out of the building by a firefighter but was trapped during the tower collapses. His description of the lobby’s condition, and his timeline, makes it clear this was after the world had just ended on the next block. Then there would have been plenty of “something” to step over, and could have included bodies.
I assume Mr. Jennings’ description of the explosion that trapped them in the stairwell happened as one of the towers collapsed. This seems obvious, but has been edited to make it unclear in the video. All that’s there is a noticeable edit, followed by him saying “Both buildings are still standing”. I assume this statement was not related to his description of the explosion in the stairwell as he offers no possible other explanation of a big explosion, and instead talks about it as something not surprising to have happened when it did.
They who, and in what video? But if you’re talking about towers 1 and 2, they had just been attacked by fully-fueled airliners. Air shafts, elevator shafts, access shafts, gravity. All kinds of nasty stuff was probably happening at the bottoms of those towers. I have no doubt that explosions or “explosive events” were happening.
You have better evidence? Then stop hoarding it to yourself! would be great to see some. That clip offers zero. There’s a guy’s testimony that he was evacuating a building in a disaster, with the odd stuff that happened to him. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence.
BTW, what did he die from? Your guy has no idea. His words: “I have no doubt they killed him, it’s a 95% chance. …Especially when they won’t say what caused it {his death}. …No one has any details, no one knows anything and his family won’t tell. …We have a right to know.”
Uh, why do you have a right to know the cause of death of someone who wasn’t murdered? You have zero evidence of a murder. Though it would be convenient to say he was killed because it fits the conspiracy theory, it still would have made more sense to do it 7 years ago and not this year. He wasn’t going to testify about explosions in WTC 7 that happened before the towers’ collapse because he wasn’t saying there were any. The poor guy died at age 53, could have been cancer, a heart attack (or murder), but your video has no idea why.
Meanwhile, the radio guy in the video goes on to say “The owners said they blew it up” which I suppose goes back to that one recorded quote by Larry Silverstein saying “Pull it.” So he didn’t say anything about blowing anything up. Who “pulls” a building?
Unless you meant firefighting effort, firefighting team, attempt to save the building, a group of guys, etc. Could be either. And nobody owns the WTC, it’s owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Silverstein was (is?) the leaseholder.
Drop a plate from a high place. A dinner plate. You can drop it however you want, but you’re not allowed to spin it. You’re saying it will stay flat because it’s rigid? Really?
You, my friend, are a crackpot. That’s kind of an odd label for someone of such a young age, but this conspiracy stuff is being specially cooked for you, and you’re eating it up like candy. Got to apply a little more sense of skepticism and reason to this crap, because crap is what it is. If you have some evidence, stop holding out. If you can write a formula on a whiteboard, you can write it on some paper and scan it.
This is fun.
Speed is distance per time. There is instantaneous speed, average speed, maximum speed, minimum speed, ect. The term free fall speed used by itself, could combine all of these into one statement. There is no free fall speed that can be said in one number, but if something is said to fall at free fall speed, it simply means that each of these speeds could be calculated from the distance and time data (in addition to the gravitational force at that location). So why can’t this phrase be used in physics. We could use the term free fall time, free fall acceleration, free fall velocity, and they would all be understood where the “free fall” part of the term is simply labeling the data or results.
I don’t often do this, but I’m going to make an exception here.
+1.