insane_alien

obviously i can't since i'm a person. but, an electron could observe a photon hitting it causing it to jump up an energy level. seeing as observe in this context means an interaction

if you put liquid oxygen in the fuel tank then its either going to not run because the fuel has solidified or explode since the oxidiser is mixed with fuel in the tank or both. i'd think the first one but i wouldn't want the risk. i do NOT recommend doing this and advise against it. the last thing you want is to be sitting on a bomb.

well it only takes a short displacement for concrete to shatter. W=F*D the force would have to be a reasonable size and the weight of the impact of a large chunk of building would be capable of providing many thousands of times that force. but since the displacement is small then the work done will be small.

and what about the calculation i done showing the average acceleration of the collapse do you have issues with that too? the work one in fragmenting the concrete would likely by quite small compared to the potential energy of the building. its not as if it was impact resistant concrete.

http://www.math.wisc.edu/~robbin/angelic/911.pdf there, a mathematical model for the collapse of the towers taking into account the the acceleration and added mass of the floors as the top block hits the lower floors. comes out with similar times to the real world situation.uses more physics than that last guy. and it actually uses the equations. <ADDITIONAL> just out of curiosity i calculated the average acceleration of the collapse. you all know the basic formula s=0.5*a*t2 rearrange that and you get a=2*s/t2 so lets calculate using the time of 11 seconds for collapse. so t=11 s the roofs were 417 metres high so s = 417 m great we can work it out. a=2*417/(11*11) a=6.89 ms-2 now thats not exactly free fall acceleration(9.81 ms-2) is it? infact its only 7 tenths of freefall. stop saying it fell at near free fall rates

the right hand one of course. and thats what you would have seen if you done the experiment in real life. the building did no collapse at freefall acceleration. it was close yes but still slower. this can be seen by bits of debris falling over the sides faster than building is collapsing. buildings are designed to support primarily a static load with minimal variation with time. the huge dynamic forces involved with 20 stories dropping even one floor would be enough to void the structural integrity of the lower supports. they would offer nearly insignificant resistance. a practical example of this is to support a tin of soup on a tensioned sheet of paper. the paper will easily support the weight. if you lift the tin of soup up and drop it (even from a modest height) if will fall through the paper as if it wasn't there.

and the fact that the towers collapsed from the top down?

but a thermite reaction also burns quite fast. it would be gone in a few hours tops.

try replacing the CMOS battery.

yes but it will still not be gravity.

no. they wouldn't. a card just doesn't have the mass or the strength. you'll draw blood sure but there'll be no serious damage.

there was a big list of people who disagreed with galileo. does that mean we live in a geocentric universe? no.

maybe if your in space and the card comes at you at a few kilometers per second. other wise, a couple of shallow cuts is the best you can do.

that must be the real reason they want a space elevator

i'd had a drink but i wasn't drunk. to be frank i just can't stand people who blatantly ignore things. okay, if you want to look at it from that perspective, 11 seconds may seem rapid for the laymen but for demolition crews that would be slightly longer than average for a building that size. oh really? what would it describe then? napalm? thats chemically similar. maybe i'm just under the impression that incendiary means 'something that incinerates' i've not started my career yet. i also don't give a damn what he's done in his life. i care about the science he shows. hell even albert einstein was wrong about a heck of a lot.(QM for one) its an arguement from authority and a poor one at that. i can't critisize something thats correct can i? might be how you fly but not me. believe me, if there was anything substantially wrong they would have corrected it as the information became available. its not like they made any huge leaps though. planes fly into the towers, not a huge leap of faith to assume that they were hijacked nor that the hijackers were terrorists and so on... i've logged 28 hours of flying experience. not a fantastic amount but it covers taxiing, 2 take offs, a landing, some basic navigation and manouvers along with some basic aerobatics. the hardest bit was the landing. basic piloting is easy. all you have to do is move the yoke about. i could teach a five year old how to point a plane in any direction in ohh 2 minutes. funnily enough, i found it easier than driving. you still didn't adress the fact that pilots are not trained in counter terrorism operations. fine i'll chock that one up to my crappy linguistic skills. so you think the whole of science is crap then? seriously this is what happens in science, we make a guess, we observe, we change bits so its more accurate. its an iterative process. gravity at a newtonian mechanics level on this scale is very very simple to grasp. its the fracture mechanics of the building underneath that gets a little tricky. no, major structural failure occured at the bottom. i explained this. i don't like it because it has nothing to do with momentum(the title of the section) it is a useful formula when things are simple and falling from a height but not in tis case where there are other factors to be addressed. any 14 year old doing a basic science course knows that formula. streamers could be anything, dust from the shocks in the structure from the collapse probably. if you want the demolition to go tits up yeah. also, you would need a lot of time and those floors would need to be shut off from everyone while they done it. unless someone found a way to make ethernet cables act like det cord. fine it could have been any number of other substances. steel does give off sparks if it is poured when molten. have you ever seen liquid steel sparks shoot off in all directions as it oxidises with the air. exept there was not a large flurry of light and sparks. the main problem with thermite and explosives hypothesis is that they are OBVIOUS. why not, magnesium alloys are used in windowframes all the time. it was certainly present unlike allegations of thermite. it was an analogy. and jet fuel could have hung around, maybe not in as massive quantities as there were initially but certainly in some quantity. yes, because a loose pile of conctrete and steel beams with tunnels under it is perfectly air tight. if your going to do an experiment to prove something happened then you need to recreate the conditions as precisely as possible.

yes i listened. the got tothe lowest floor of a multi floor fire! meaning the floors above that could have been infernos. it made no mention of those. it partially collapsed though, and it isn't comparable to the WTC buildings, different materials, different contents, different construction different scenario. it also wasn't missing a lower corner from chunks of falling towers nor was it hit by a jet going at 400 mph. you cannot compare them or perhaps we know them better than you do. gravity can supply a lot of energy. please, go read some mechanics. the building did not collapse at a constant velocity either. just because some areas that were damaged were not unbearably hot does not mean that every other part of the building was nice and cool. so you don't know? your not an expert on the situation by any means and yet you are ready to believe some nut in his basement over the multitudes of structural engineers who have said otherwise (or are they part of the conspiracy too?) yeah i may be a student but i know a hell of a lot more than you do. if the only people who are real scientsists are those who disagree with the main stream then we would never make any progress as any idea ever thought up would have to be almost immediatley classed as wrong.

i've never seen someone get help quickly and then get mad about it and leave. seriously, chillax. your going to have a stroke if you keep going like this.

pentagon didn't burn as long or as intensely as the others. i noticed you sidestepped the reply i already gave you.

yeah, on one floor. IIRC this was a multi-floor fire.

ahh. i just looked at my search history, seems i spelt it wrong which was why it never came up

corona borealis? never hear of it? sounds like a beer. aurora borealis now that i have heard of and seen. so at you meaning its on the axis of the earth or what?

he could possibly be leaching off radio waves. although that'll still require a power source at one point.

ever notice how argueing with conspiracy nuts is like arguing with fish? extremely short memory spans they seem to forget that they posted a question and got an answer imediately after the answer got posted.

oops just noticed a mistake. i meant to say that the spent fuel is NOT radioactive.

well, the speed of gravity has been measured just not with any great accuracy because it is so weak. we got upper and lower speed limits though which would indicate that it is definitely NOT instantaneous