|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 13:20:50 GMT -4
Very well. I will prove that at least one was faked, and if one was all are suspect. So . . . if you find one counterfeit bill, all are suspect? What a difficult life you must lead. You are being disingenuous and you know it. A Mod should pull you up for that.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 13:15:49 GMT -4
Very well. I will prove that at least one was faked, and if one was all are suspect. Using the OP you tube link I calibrated the rise and fall both of the astronaut and control. here is an analysis of the time taken to jump to max height i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/ApolloJump.png?t=1281359603The you tube author - who is attempting to defend NASA - says the jumps start at 72 time clicks and peak at 90 time clicks. I would allow a 2 click cumulative error but I basically agree with him. The red arrows show max elevation of feet from ground. (arrows are identical per set) Do we agree with this analysis? Take your time... edit I tried to upload the image @ that link but no show. I guess you have a size limit?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 12:30:28 GMT -4
Another thing - if it were ever proven forensically beyond a shadow of doubt that official 'Live' Apollo footage was actually faked, would the establishment have to concede the entire mission was faked or could they just say 'oh well we faked some films to make a better show but we really went there honest' and get away with it? Can I have an answer to this question please? Then I will continue
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 12:07:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 12:04:43 GMT -4
Title says "- proves hoax by rodin" If your analysis (sic) can't prove a hoax perpetrated by yourself, what chance do you have of proving anything else? lol I walked into that didn't I
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 11:46:04 GMT -4
Another thing - if it were ever proven forensically beyond a shadow of doubt that official 'Live' Apollo footage was actually faked, would the establishment have to concede the entire mission was faked or could they just say 'oh well we faked some films to make a better show but we really went there honest' and get away with it?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 11:40:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 11:14:20 GMT -4
OK peeps. I have a couple posters on another forum who also post here and they are making claims that are simply wrong just to explain away some awkward evidence. I have been 'dared' to come here with my analyses. As you can see I have accepted the dare.
First a little test of the laws of physics.
1) In free flight in the Moon's gravity field what form would a plot of height against time take?
2) If I jump up on the Moon and reach maximum height after 5 seconds how much longer before I land?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 20, 2009 13:51:09 GMT -4
This unit then failed from the bottom up as it hit the lower stub of the building. There would not be any reason for the upper part of the walls to show signs of buckling in the videos. OK I get the story - all stories above 7 fell into gap then impacted the ground level where, as each successive floor hit, the support columns at that level gave way, is this correct. Because if support columns gave way at higher floors than stub impact level we would have seen this as a disintegration of the wall, which obviously fell intact until impact?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 20, 2009 8:42:53 GMT -4
The outer columns would provide little resistance to the collapse, The 40 odd feet would be free fall since the two stories there would have collapsed quickly with no resistance, after that the only resistance in the south wall is from the columns separating at the joints. With the north wall, the wall we see, it actually fell southwards, not straight down, it ended up folded over the top of the pile. In fact we know that the building didn't fall into its own footprint because it hit several surrounding buildings when it collapsed. On top of this we really can't say how close to free fall the collapse was (note that free fall is an acceleration, not a speed or a velocity) because we don't have any film that records the end of the collapse. We can guess, and our guess is that it was close to what an object in free fall would have taken, but not exactly, and when you have any delay, no matter how small, then you have resistance. The question you need to find the answer to is how much resistance woulkd the columns have created before the joints failed. While I am sure we have a few people here that could tell you exactly how to do that, I'd suggest that the answer is going to be in the ms, and over 40 stories that only adds up to a fraction of a second, something almost impossible to measure from the videos. You know I am beginning to think you are spinning a line not seeking truth. The observed wall in the video I used showed no appreciable sideways movement in the plane of observation (along the edge of the building). Furthermore I was able to observe substantially more than 330 feet falling down at freefall speed with no buckling. Of course I know g is an acceleration of 32 feet sec-2. It is not necessary to see the final part of the collapse to determine if free-fall was a measurable element of the collapse. I think you know this, and therefore your comment... we really can't say how close to free fall the collapse was (note that free fall is an acceleration, not a speed or a velocity) because we don't have any film that records the end of the collapse. ...is made either from a lack of quality analytical thinking, or you are promoting a lie.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 20, 2009 8:35:20 GMT -4
May I ask the connection of this forum to BAUT, since I was invited here from there? You're a true conspiracy theorist... always looking for "connections". Other than the fact that some members of this forum are also members of BAUT there are no connections between the two websites. Just out of curiousity, what kind of connection were you expecting? That we get our funding from the same evil government agency? Looking for connections is legitimate enquiry, no? No, I wondered if this forum was a spin-off of BAUT allowing a wider constituency of topics
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 19, 2009 17:51:59 GMT -4
There is no mechanism where a buckling of anything could lead to a free-fall. And as to the inside or some of the inside of the building being pulled down first and then dragging the rest after it, either by physical connection or some sort of air pressure effect, the wall showed no sign of inward pull. It fell straight down, through its own footprint, with no sign of buckling or lateral force of any kind.
May I ask the connection of this forum to BAUT, since I was invited here from there?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 19, 2009 14:12:31 GMT -4
Do you understand the failure mechanism for a thin column? It will fail by buckling, in other words a bulge will develop and rapidly expand sideways while the parts above the bulge move downwards. Because there is nothing in a direct line to stop the part above the bulge from falling, it will do so at near free-fall speed. I would expect at least one of your 723 engineers and architects to have known that. I learnt that at college and I'm not even a specialist structural engineer. It will buckle at 'near free-fall speed'. You're kidding me, right? All of every vertical steel column buckled at free-fall speed (observed, not 'near free-fall speed') - this you actually claim as physically possible?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 19, 2009 11:47:23 GMT -4
What was the structure of the outside wall that collapsed. Did it contain steel columns? If so how could we see a steel lattice structure fall at such a speed? It was similar in construction to that of WTC 1 & 2. The reason it collasped is that when the centre core of the building collapsed due to the failure of colum 87, it took out the transfer trusses on the 5th-7th floors. With them gone there was nothing holding up the outer "tube" of the building so the remaining outer parts of the building above floor 8 started falling, the southern face first, followed by the north which ended up collapsing ontop of the pile. Once the centre core was gone, the outer core was a house of cards. I don't care if there was nothing at all connected to the wall in question. It fell pretty much straight down, at free fall speed. Even if the only thing left standing was that wall, it could not have done this unless all resistance was simultaneously removed at every level. I am not the first to note this, my point is I have provided an easy proof of free-fall anyone can follow and replicate [quote/] 723 architectural and engineering professionals and 3976 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Jul 18, 2009 15:31:19 GMT -4
The collapse started before the Mechanical Penthouses fell since the core collapse was responsible for their collapse. At the time of the roofline collapsing, almost the entire interior had collapsed and so what fell then had little to no structural integrity to slow the fall. What was the structure of the outside wall that collapsed. Did it contain steel columns? If so how could we see a steel lattice structure fall at such a speed?
|
|