Featured Member Comment
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
Irishman
Member Profile
Member Since: 2007-06-23
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
1
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by IrishmanNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (3)
- sifted videos (7)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 395
Rating:
10 star points
Votes Received: 207
Votes Cast: 706
Comments Posted: 313 • browse
Comments Applauded: 2
Sifted Videos: 7
Sift Talk Posts: 1
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 4931
Rating:
10 star pointsVotes Received: 207
Votes Cast: 706
Comments Posted: 313 • browse
Comments Applauded: 2
Sifted Videos: 7
Sift Talk Posts: 1
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 4931
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
As I said before Kommie, I'm an eschatologist, not a scientologist.
In reply to this comment by QuadraPixel:
Wow, now that's a little harsh, but not when it comes from a SCIENTOLOGIST.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Busted-for-Interbulating-a-scientology-party
http://www.videosift.com/video/Cult-of-Scientology-takes-over-Clearwater-Police-Dept
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Busted-for-Interbulating-a-scientology-party
http://www.videosift.com/video/Cult-of-Scientology-takes-over-Clearwater-Police-Dept
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.
q
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"Test audiences liked him and didn't want to see him die, so the studio added the scene of him surfacing."
There's all you need to know about the bible right there.
By the way, you do know about Steven Jones, right? He is not a credible scientific source.
Huh? Inertia is not a part of a force equation.
If we are talking about rotating objects, then there is an analog to force called moment of intertia, it's symbol is I and for three dimensional rotating objects it is a tensor. That is neither here nor there.
If you knocked out the last 8 inches of your house, in say an imprecise way. Do you think it wouldn't collapsed? I mean it would depend on how you did it, but, I think, in this case the equation is pretty clear.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.
I should remark that the estimates for the collapse are just that, and more than likely a lower bound. Realistically, the collapse probably started many seconds before the visual or seismic data could have measured.
The 11 seconds is obtained for the seismic data. If you can find me a citation which proves otherwise I'd like to see it.
I am not sure my equation needs anything. I mean if the speed was faster the acceleration of gravity then it would need something.
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance...
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.
g at sea level is 9.81m/s
t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.
416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.
That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.
In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Go to 6. There is the answer.
Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-
The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.
Or an easier way to see it,
F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse
Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.
Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.
This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.
Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.
My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.
There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.
A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.
If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.
g at sea level is 9.81m/s
t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.
416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.
That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.
In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Go to 6. There is the answer.
Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-
The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.
Or an easier way to see it,
F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse
Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.
Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.
This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.
Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.
My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.
There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.
A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.
If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Go to 6. There is the answer.
Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-
The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.
Or an easier way to see it,
F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse
Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.
Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.
This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.
Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.
My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.
There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.
A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.
If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296
This video is also for those of you still out there who think that these buildings were brought down by the aircraft impacts. As for the amount of people involved having to keep it secret, well, the JFK asassination was whitewashed and covered up for all these years. And it's common knowledge that half of Hollywood know that 9/11 was an inside job.
Good to be on board here, I'm an old TAYTV fan! Yay!