Physics community is a historical laughing stock

Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

On previous occasions, discussion on free falling WTC 7 was rejected
for being "speculative". Now it's merely "off topic".

6 years into this event, one _must_ come to the conclusion that these
so called physicists simple do not want to consider the empirical or
evidence, only play in their own delusional world of make-believe and
observables.

With such disregard for the empirical, it is no wonder modern
physicists can't get jobs in the work place and that enrollments are
hitting rock bottom.

Future generations will undoubtedly remember todays physicists (who
cannot understand that free falling buildings imply demolished
buildings) as a historical laughing stock.

Here is the rejection notice from SPR moderator Igor Khavkine
):
================================================== ======================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research
isinappropriate for the newsgroup because it is off topic.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an
unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
================================================== ======================

Here is the original post


================================================== ======================
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:20:30PM +0000,
wrote:
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a free fall.

PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:

Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a
constant)

Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds

We do not even need mechanical considerations to deduce that the WTC 7
collapsed in a free fall. The observed free fall implies the entire
structure met no resistance during its entire descent.

The simultaneous structure failure required reproduce this kinematical
behaviour requires controlled demolition and only controlled
demolition.

NOTE TO READER: If you figure out how fire can make a building free
fall, you may want to patent your discovery and reap the benefits of
saving the demolitions industry hundreds of millions in explosives and
safety costs.

NOTE TO MODERATOR: Science does not require the empirical to conform
to established social-political paradigms, religion does. I hope SPR is
not a religious newsgroup.

================================================== ======================

wrote:
Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

Stop crying Schoenfelch.

[...]

wrote in message oups.com...
Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

You are an idiot, of course your garbage is rejected.

wrote:
Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

On previous occasions, discussion on free falling WTC 7 was rejected
for being "speculative". Now it's merely "off topic".

6 years into this event, one _must_ come to the conclusion that these
so called physicists simple do not want to consider the empirical or
evidence, only play in their own delusional world of make-believe and
observables.

With such disregard for the empirical, it is no wonder modern
physicists can't get jobs in the work place and that enrollments are
hitting rock bottom.

Future generations will undoubtedly remember todays physicists (who
cannot understand that free falling buildings imply demolished
buildings) as a historical laughing stock.

Here is the rejection notice from SPR moderator Igor Khavkine
):
================================================== ======================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research
isinappropriate for the newsgroup because it is off topic.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an
unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
================================================== ======================

Here is the original post


================================================== ======================
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:20:30PM +0000,
wrote:
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a free fall.

PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:

Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a
constant)

Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds

We do not even need mechanical considerations to deduce that the WTC 7
collapsed in a free fall. The observed free fall implies the entire
structure met no resistance during its entire descent.

Well, ****. That's why we don't hire retard scientists
of any kinf to build skyscrapers.
Since "free-fall" in engineering means there was only STP
air resistance to the collapse. Which is obviously
not true. Since WTC 7 was the only building
with a 767 landing gear on the roof..






The simultaneous structure failure required reproduce this kinematical
behaviour requires controlled demolition and only controlled
demolition.

NOTE TO READER: If you figure out how fire can make a building free
fall, you may want to patent your discovery and reap the benefits of
saving the demolitions industry hundreds of millions in explosives and
safety costs.

NOTE TO MODERATOR: Science does not require the empirical to conform
to established social-political paradigms, religion does. I hope SPR is
not a religious newsgroup.

================================================== ======================

wrote:
Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

The CIA probably made them reject the article.
You are probably being target for some special
fillings on your next visit to the dentist.

On previous occasions, discussion on free falling WTC 7 was rejected
for being "speculative". Now it's merely "off topic".

WTF? Who would have guessed?

In article .com,
wrote:

Once again, the sci.physics.research newsgroup has rejected a post
discussing the free fall physics of World Trade center 7.

On previous occasions, discussion on free falling WTC 7 was rejected
for being "speculative". Now it's merely "off topic".

6 years into this event, one _must_ come to the conclusion that these
so called physicists simple do not want to consider the empirical or
evidence, only play in their own delusional world of make-believe and
observables.

With such disregard for the empirical, it is no wonder modern
physicists can't get jobs in the work place and that enrollments are
hitting rock bottom.

Future generations will undoubtedly remember todays physicists (who
cannot understand that free falling buildings imply demolished
buildings) as a historical laughing stock.

Here is the rejection notice from SPR moderator Igor Khavkine
):
================================================== ======================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research
isinappropriate for the newsgroup because it is off topic.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an
unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
================================================== ======================

Here is the original post


================================================== ======================
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:20:30PM +0000,
wrote:
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, it is true by the transitive property of
logical reasoning that WTC 7 underwent a free fall.

PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds

PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This proposition derives trivially through (Galilean)
kinematical considerations alone:

Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a
constant)

Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds

We do not even need mechanical considerations to deduce that the WTC 7
collapsed in a free fall. The observed free fall implies the entire
structure met no resistance during its entire descent.

The simultaneous structure failure required reproduce this kinematical
behaviour requires controlled demolition and only controlled
demolition.

NOTE TO READER: If you figure out how fire can make a building free
fall, you may want to patent your discovery and reap the benefits of
saving the demolitions industry hundreds of millions in explosives and
safety costs.

NOTE TO MODERATOR: Science does not require the empirical to conform
to established social-political paradigms, religion does. I hope SPR is
not a religious newsgroup.

================================================== ======================

***{All of the arguments that you stated, above, are answered in the
sci.physics thread entitled " The amazing denial of what "conspiracy
kooks" really means...." Check it out. --MJ}***

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

***{All of the arguments that you stated, above, are answered in the
sci.physics thread entitled " The amazing denial of what "conspiracy
kooks" really means...." Check it out. --MJ}***

There is no account for the free fall collapse of WTC 7 other than
controlled demolition. If you could account for it with physics and
math (as I've done) you would, but you can't, so rather than accept the
empirical, you merely resort to child-like insults and
self-brainwashing.

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

of course, there is an alternative;
it all hinges upon what you mean by "controlled" demolition. now,
as a recent, contracted demolition in Los Angeles,
reported in the LAtribcoTimes, showed,
it takes a very small amount of explosive
"to do it from the inside," much, much smaller than the quantities
taht were needed to fly those planes from coast to caost.

plus, there are "synergies," or what ever is opposite of that, but
I have to note that most ot the WTC7 hapgooders tend
top show only the one side of it, that was barely burning.

There is no account for the free fall collapse of WTC 7 other than
controlled demolition. If you could account for it with physics and
math (as I've done) you would, but you can't, so rather than accept the
empirical, you merely resort to child-like insults and
self-brainwashing.

thus:
I recall reading that, at 500 miles,
the atmosphere is half H2. I wonder,
what the geeforce is at that level, and
for geosynchornous & lunar orbits.

thus quoth:
at an altitude of 250 miles (roughly the height that the space shuttle
flies) gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the earth's surface,
and weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in
free-fall....
If the earth was of perfectly uniform composition then, during a
descent to the centre of the earth, gravity would decrease linearly
with distance, reaching zero at the centre. In reality, the
gravitational field peaks within the Earth at the core-mantle boundary
where it has a value of 10.7 m/s².

thus:
of "to be," or not. at least, Bill Clinton knew,
without schlepping the OED for the etymology
of inhalation. nudge,wink--sayNOmore,kindSIR

to belabor the obvious: a)
Borat's British; b)
he was a student of the Clash of Civs guy,
that is to say retailing the Gibbons or Encycl.Brit. version
of world and USA history; c)
Khazakstan is largely ... y'know ... about that segment
of the market?

*primarily* for the foreign market. so,

thus:
Hollinger began as an arms manufacturer,
sort-of like EMI. so, look forward to the day when
Obnoxico Music Corp. gets into laser pistols.

this just in:
yesterday's (Tues,. Nov.15) *UCLA Daily Bruin* finally noted that
darfur is entirely Muslim, though downplaying it AMAP.

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld, Osama bin Latin and HARRY POTTER
-- which is a real, fictional character? -- form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?
why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists ... nah !-)

In article . com,
wrote:

***{All of the arguments that you stated, above, are answered in the
sci.physics thread entitled " The amazing denial of what "conspiracy
kooks" really means...." Check it out. --MJ}***

There is no account for the free fall collapse of WTC 7 other than
controlled demolition.

***{I read awhile back (a) that there were fuel storage tanks in
building 7, which were ruptured by debris that fell from the Towers as
they collapsed, and (b) that the spilled fuel subsequently caught fire.
I discussed the implications in one of the posts in the thread to which
you were referred earlier. If you have criticisms of that reasoning,
feel free to insert comments at that location. --MJ}***

If you could account for it with physics and
math (as I've done) you would, but you can't

***{My analysis, including physics and math, is given in detail in the
referenced thread. If you think it is deficient at some point, feel free
to insert comments. --MJ}***

, so rather than accept the
empirical, you merely resort to child-like insults

***{I said nothing that was ad hominem--which means: nothing
specifically directed at the personal characteristics of my opponent. I
did describe attempts to ban asbestos as "idiotic," and I elaborated on
that in response to a specific question, but the person to whom I was
responding had not advocated banning asbestos, and so it was clear that
my remarks were not directed at him personally.

Frankly, I believe that any topic of discussion is legitimate so long as
one does not speculate about the personal characteristics of other
participants in the discussion. We can, for example, discuss the
personal characteristics of Hitler, but only because Hitler is not a
participant in the discussion. If he were to be resurrected and were to
begin to post, then in order to encourage discussion we would be limited
to disputing his premises, or the logic by which he reasoned based on
those premises.

Suppose, for example, that the other party to the discussion, after I
had labeled an asbestos ban as "idiotic," had said: "I think asbestos
ought to be banned." If he had done so, I would at that point have asked
him for his reasons, and would have disputed those reasons when they
were supplied, while deliberately avoiding any further comments about
the personal characteristics that I believe underlie such views. Why?
Because once it has been established that the other party holds a view,
any remarks about the personal characteristics, as opposed to the
reasons, which might motivate that view would be ad hominem, and would
discourage reasoned discussion.

Bottom line: you should dispute your opponent's views by disputing the
reasons he gives in support of those views; but it is perfectly all
right to discuss non-rational motivations in the abstract--which means:
when it is clear that your comments are not directed at the other
parties to the discussion.

--Mitchell Jones}***

and
self-brainwashing.

***{Evidently you think my intensely negative view of the Bush
administration ought to cause me to believe every wild charge that is
hurled at the man. Well, I'm not going to do that. I'll examine the
evidence and the reasoning underlying each accusation, and believe only
those allegations that make sense to me. In the case of the "controlled
demolition" claims, they simply don't make sense. We have causes, the
crashes of jetliners full of fuel, that can account for each tower's
collapse; and we have a cause, debris falling from the collapsing
towers, that can account for the subsequent collapse of building 7. No
demolition charges are required in any of those three cases, to explain
what happened. I have given detailed reasoning to support that position
in the thread which I cited to you earlier. If you disagree with that
reasoning, wouldn't it be more sensible to insert your arguments at the
appropriate points in that presentation, rather than to accuse me of
"self-brainwashing"? --MJ}***

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

Mitchell Jones wrote:

[...]

If you can account for the free fall collapse of WTC 7, provide your
physical analysis and mathematics here, in plain view.

Controlled demolition predicts

[1] One free fall spanning the height of the entire building

A pancake collapse for a N-story building predicts

[2] N free falls each spanning the height of a single floor

Observational data clearly shows [1]. Controlled demolition is most
probably the causative agent for [1].

Notice how we do not need to consider the geometric or material
composition of the building to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, we
do not even need to consider mechanics at all.