Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Rosie: Giuliani Part of 9/11 Conspiracy; Why Do Things Freely Fallling Fall At Free-Fall Speed?
This "free fall of WTC7" is a new one on me. I just heard of it from that Orleans-style lite FM conspiracy-rock song I linked over the weekend.
Look, it doesn't make sense. Let me state the obvious: The building fell at the rate it fell. Truthers seem to be suggesting it's physically impossible for the building to fall that fast, and yet, you know, it did. They want an "explanation."
Here's the explanation: When things fall, they accelerate at the constant g. (Constant for earth, I mean, at sea level.)
Like so many of their absurd charges, what they're saying just doesn't make sense. A building does not fall at or near g, they charge. And yet this one, um, did.
So, then comes the next step: Buildings do not fall at or near g, except in a (wait for it) Controlled Demolition.
What magical properties does a "controlled demolition" have that allow buildings to fall at speeds suspiciously close to g that unconrolled demolitions might lack?
It's like them claiming that the fact the buildings fell straight down is evidence of a "controlled demolition." After all, absent a controlled demolition, massively large buildings don't fall straight down, but rather topple over on their sides like cartoon buildings or three-foot-tall towers made of Legos. We all know that, right?
Apparently, it's only a controlled demolition that causes buildings to fall in peculiar ways, presumably changing the force and direction of gravity itself.
Without a controlled demolition, gravity apparently largely pulls buildings to their sides rather than straight down to the earth's core and its point-mass center of gravity.
With a controlled demolition, gravity loses its "normal" large sideways-pull property and buildings collapse straight down.
Without a controlled demolition, a building will defy basic physics and fall at some other rate of acceleration besides the earth-standard g.
Only with a controlled demolition, apparently, does the constant g apply to falling things.
A bit more fun from Rosie -- after informing us all, again, that "fire can't melt steel," she actually goes on to claim "pools of molten steel" were found at the bottoms of each of the collapsed WTC buildings (the two towers plus WTC 7).
So again, a controlled demolition has a curious property, this one affecting not gravity but the chemical properties of metals:
Fire can't melt steel, unless that fire is due to a controlled demolition, in which case not only can fire melt steel, but in fact can melt it so throroughly that "pools of molten steel" will be found at the bottom of buildings so destroyed.
Baffling.
Oh, and, by the way, Giuliani located NY's terrorism command center in WTC 7 because he knew 9/11 was coming and, ummmm... I guess he wanted to make sure that emergency command-and-control was degraded to increase civilian deaths. Or something.
They never quite say. They're just "raising questions," you know, not providing answers.
I don't know, not sure I can argue with Rosie's expertise here. When a person of her size says she knows how buildings collapse I can only assume she's speaking from lots of personal experience.
Touche. Admittedly, my personal experience is only limited to gravity's effects on a normal human mass, unlike Rosie, who is intimately familiar in a very tangible way with the effects of gravity on masses nearing the USS Missouri.
Because, as famed structural engineer/"Father of the Modern Cable-Span Bridge" Donald Trump has noted, Rosie is a "fat slob, she really is very fat, very fat and ugly, and gets no ratings because she's a self-desctructive loser who is also very fat. With no ratings."*
* Quoted from Donald Trump's monograph written for Modern Enginnering, titled Shearing Forces and Torque In Massive Structures: Rosie O'Donell Is Really Fat and Disgusting, Seriously, She's Such a Loser, Can You Imagine Her Poor Wife Having To Look At That Disgusting Pig Naked Every Night?