kblair7

I have read that book....it was entertaining

White Rabbit

I bet you do.

kblair7

LOL.. don't lecture me about objectivity... cause its the internet and most people on the internet are not objective including you EC.

I got news for you. They are all the book of the century! Those reviews are paid for. It's akin to when a film preview comes on and it says the "this is the movie of the century," and its about dancing marmadukes.
She has been highly criticized here in the US.

I never claimed her POV did not have some merit, I just think her work is a little over heavy on opinion and slim on data.

The term liquid modernity is term taken from Zygmunt Bauman's work. Many of her arguments against consumerism-lite are based off of his work. Although I don't recall her crediting him.

kblair7

well there was a fantastical element, that you have to admit

I heard his interview on NPR also...he is a fascinating guy but I take much of what he wrote about with a grain of salt...

Denie

LMAO!!

Free fall of what is 5.96 seconds? I like how you CT people throw around "free fall speed/time" as if it's one fixed quantity for everything.

If the building is 610' tall, that's approx 60 mph. for 6.5 seconds. If it was 8 seconds, that's even less mph.

So how many MPH is a building with WTC 7's mass and weight, according to you, supposed to fall?

Please include all calculations and formulas used in your answer.

Duvidoo

Plenty of calculations and formulae (n.b.) for you to peruse here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall

__________________

Denie the Delight
retarded Duvi showed up and made a fool of himself followed by you.

djack

I think the supposition is that a building with it's reinforcement would take more time to collapse than the time it takes for an object dropped off the roof to hit the ground. Fairly simple.
You don't have to be a math whiz to see the implications of a building which wasn't even hit by a plane collapsing faster than physics would allow it to naturally.

__________________

Denie

So everyone but the person making the claim is supposed to show proof. How handy that must be in the CT world. Sadly, in the real world, it's the opposite...make the claim and provide the details to back it.

I'll wait...

Denie

Care to show the calculations that support this? Also, what is this object falling that takes 5.9 seconds to "free fall"? Is this also a supposition that all objects fall at the same rate?
But you do have to be able to prove that physics would not allow the building to fall at the rate in which it did. Now please do share what the rate of collapse is for WTC 7 ,"naturally". How does a building collapse "naturally"?

This is the problem...people make these physics claims as to how it show fall, yet never do provide the actual physics to support the claim.

djack

Not a student are you?
I'm sure a physicist could write out a formula that you wouldn't be able to understand but to dumb it down for you, the lower floors of a building offer resistance to the top floors when a building collapses. The reason for controlled demolition by explosives is to bring the building down without damaging its neighbors.
Note that all the building came straight down which would make a person with a functioning brain question the so called 'pancake' theory.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...UYM1B4#PPP1,M1

__________________