Physics community is a historical laughing stock

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".

Any speculation about the WTC collapse is both speculative and off
topic to sci.physics.research and this NG. Try sci.physics.

I recently had the opportunity to re-watch video of the Twin Towers
collapse to judge for myself how fast the towers fell. It was
immediately obvious that the debris from the top of the towers fell
much faster than the floors collapsed. I don't know about WTC 7.

interesting observation!

I predict that the 110901[*] Squad will henceforth dysappear
from this topic ... til they've looked at that video, again.

* the 4M Bug; who, me, worry?... I mean, if
JC is resurrected/again before that,
he may want to switch to the Mayan calendar;
you going to agree to *that*, or
will you coyly proffer your still-beating heart?

I recently had the opportunity to re-watch video of the Twin Towers
collapse to judge for myself how fast the towers fell. It was
immediately obvious that the debris from the top of the towers fell
much faster than the floors collapsed. I don't know about WTC 7.

thus:
sounds like an isoperimetric problem, although
without specifying the need for convexity ...
if it has to be convex, I'd think that
the answer was kind of obvious, given that
the "n" component rectangles are 'varied,' but
it could be different.

good question, ill-pozed;
he'll have to specify some stuff,
to get any answers out of it;
different stuff, different answers!

now, ASCII mud is definitely the clearest.

container area doesn't matter. The rectangles shall not overlap, the
container should consume as little room as possible (minimal
width/height).

Is there a name/mathematical term for this problem?
My impression upon first reading your post was that it was a "packing

----- --------
| |-------| |
| | | |
| | | |
|___|_______|______|

If the container is just the entire region inside the boundary, then there
is absolutely no wasted space in the container...

thus:
those are very interesting, anomalous effects of the catastrophe,
that could still be explained. maybe the perps have live-actionm video
of some of it....
stretching it is "why is the rubber gasket
hanging outside the window?" e.g., instead of inside?...
beam weapons makes for an interesting hypothesis, if only
because you can extrapolate to the "official scenario,"
without unneccesarily involving Trickier Dick Cheeny
from the Nixon Admin. (quiz: what was he doing, there,
with Don Rumsfled, besdies dicking the goment?) --
we already have too-many impeachable offenses
from 6 years of co-presidency!
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

thus:
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

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 !-)

now that is a certain hypothesis of yours,
perhaps your latest, but you throw it
into the ashcan of forensics,
with your silly proviso about the building & mechanics;
quelle absurd!

firstly, why would you require some sort
of complete compressional integrity,
failing at first for only the top floor
et sequentia?

A pancake collapse for a N-story building predicts

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

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.

thus:
interesting observation!

I predict that the 110901[*] Squad will henceforth dysappear
from this topic ... til they've looked at that video, again.

* the 4M Bug; who, me, worry?... I mean, if
JC is resurrected/again before that,
he may want to switch to the Mayan calendar;
you going to agree to *that*, or
will you coyly proffer your still-beating heart?

I recently had the opportunity to re-watch video of the Twin Towers
collapse to judge for myself how fast the towers fell. It was
immediately obvious that the debris from the top of the towers fell
much faster than the floors collapsed. I don't know about WTC 7.

thus:
sounds like an isoperimetric problem, although
without specifying the need for convexity ...
if it has to be convex, I'd think that
the answer was kind of obvious, given that
the "n" component rectangles are 'varied,' but
it could be different....
good question, ill-pozed;
he'll have to specify some stuff,
to get any answers out of it;
different stuff, different answers!...
now, ASCII mud is definitely the clearest.

container area doesn't matter. The rectangles shall not overlap, the
container should consume as little room as possible (minimal
width/height).

Is there a name/mathematical term for this problem?
My impression upon first reading your post was that it was a "packing

----- --------
| |-------| |
| | | |
| | | |
|___|_______|______|

If the container is just the entire region inside the boundary, then there
is absolutely no wasted space in the container...

thus:
those are very interesting, anomalous effects of the catastrophe,
that could still be explained. maybe the perps have live-actionm video
of some of it....
stretching it is "why is the rubber gasket
hanging outside the window?" e.g., instead of inside?...
beam weapons makes for an interesting hypothesis, if only
because you can extrapolate to the "official scenario,"
without unneccesarily involving Trickier Dick Cheeny
from the Nixon Admin. (quiz: what was he doing, there,
with Don Rumsfled, besdies dicking the goment?) --
we already have too-many impeachable offenses
from 6 years of co-presidency!
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

thus:
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

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:

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.

***{I've already posted that material. It's in sci.physics, in the
thread entitled "The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really
means...." (Note: I didn't choose the title of that thread. I merely
responded to a post that was already there.) --MJ}***

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.

***{That's pretty vague. The only way I could argue with it would be to
guess at what you mean, and then criticize the guesses. However, I don't
like to put words in other people's mouths, so I'm going to let it pass.
I've given you a target to shoot at in the thread referenced above. As
I've already said, you are welcome to fire away if you wish. --MJ}***

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

wrote:
[...]
It was
immediately obvious that the debris from the top of the towers fell
much faster than the floors collapsed.

NOTE: My post refers to WTC 7 not the twin towers.

You need to improve the accuracy of your observational techniques. That
debris did not fall "much faster". That debris hit the ground about 1/2
- 1 second before the top floor of the towers. Quite clearly, the
building experienced significant drag due to air resistance.

In fact, when you calculate the free fall of the WTC towers (including
air resistance) you get a figure significantly higher than what is
observed. That is, the towers fell _faster_ than free fall.

Another mystery in the towers is that if you look at some of the
observational data you can literally see concrete and steel being
_turned into dust_.

The towers seem to have been "dustified" as it was descending.

I don't know about WTC 7.

It was a 47 story building that came free falling down in the afternoon
of 9/11.