What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 26
20
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I supplied a Python program with source code that computed the collapse time under impossibly magical conditions. If the masses were equal the minimum collapse time was 12 seconds. Under bottom heavy conditions it's 14 seconds. Dr Sunder of the NIST told NPR that the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

Could I have a copy of your python program please? I'd like to see if it is inaccurate in any way.

Thanks.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I supplied a Python program with source code that computed the collapse time under impossibly magical conditions. If the masses were equal the minimum collapse time was 12 seconds. Under bottom heavy conditions it's 14 seconds. Dr Sunder of the NIST told NPR that the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

Could I have a copy of your python program please? I'd like to see if it is inaccurate in any way.

Thanks.


breakfornews.com...

The program operates on a fixed time base to make the code simple. The error should be less than 2%. Making the timebase smaller should increase accuracy. But the entire concept is magical since no supports must be destroyed during the collapse process so it is only slowed down by the Conservation of Momentum.

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
On Gregory Urich's website I told him where his data contradicts a magazine article from 1970, Engineering Record News, I think it is called. Urich took the total weight of the perimeter wall panels and did a linear interpolation from the 9th floor to the top of the building. But Urich is saying that the panels at the 9th floor were 19 tons. The article says the heaviest panels were 22 tons. But if you try to do a linear interpolation with 22 tons at the bottom the weight of the panels at the top must be less than zero which is impossible.

So you are arguing about a difference of 3 tons per panel? The floors you're talking about weigh something like 4000 tons in total, you're dismissing evidence over a potential difference of about 1%, far below the uncertainty of many other variables.

Surely you can see how that is a ridiculous accuracy goal? To have numbers accurate to within 1% for a building built in the 70s, significantly modified and then destroyed over a decade ago? It's just silly.


How did you compute that 4000 tons total?

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I'm sorry to butt in, psi, but I feel urged to say a couple of things aside from inquiry about the 4000 tons.

3 out of 22 is more than a 10% difference of error. In regards to the total weight, you're essentially saying the outer structure was 10% of the gross weight, exponent? How confident are you in that inference?

Also, when you're talking in terms of tons multiplied by potentially thousands, even a 1% difference can be pretty substantial. Which piece straw breaks the camel's back? Which pound within what eventual ton makes the difference between crushing the lower structure or not?
edit on 27-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


And most importantly, was the proverbial straw factually present in regards to the collapses? These are questions that need to be answered before arguing percentage of error in simulations.

edit on 27-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I'm not an engineer or scientist, but I will say from the video is this-

85% of the structure was solid and undamaged, the top 15% gave way at the point of the plane's impact and came down.

The time of free fall from the top of the WTC is roughly 10 seconds. The building came down in just over 11 seconds.

Your numbers aren't too bad, it's actually closer to 8.5-9.5 seconds for free fall, and about 11-13 seconds for the collapse. Obviously it's obscured by dust so it's very hard to tell.


ARE WE SURELY TO BELIEVE THAT OVER 100 FLOORS OF SOLID STEEL STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE GAVE WAY AT THIS RATE?

The point is you don't have to be an engineer to understand that over 100 floors of solid steel and concrete would offer a lot more resistance than it did. It is unnatural.

Actually you do have to be an engineer to understand the buildings. That is after all the whole point of the degree and qualification lol! If you didn't need specialist knowledge to do this, then there's been a really big scam going on for a lot of years :p

Seriously though, go through the numbers you gave me. The actual acceleration of both collapses was around 2/3rds and 3/4g respectively. That means that a huge amount of energy was absorbed in resistance. Bear in mind that 2/3g means that the lower section slowed the acceleration by 1/3g, which is a pretty substantial amount. It is also inline with the theoretical evidence produced by structural engineers.

I don't doubt that it looks strange and impossible, but once you understand how the building was constructed, and why it was so dependent upon the outer walls, it becomes obvious.

Is there any evidence that would convince you or at least interest you that you might not have the right idea on this topic? I can definitely run through the numbers with you if you'd like.


Like just saying it's a HUGE amount of energy is supposed to explain things.

Ten years of really dumb emotional physics.

The free fall time from 1360 feet 9.2 seconds. From the height where the plane hit the north tower 8.4 seconds. That is ignoring even air resistance, so all times should be higher than that.

Now my Python program uses 109 masses floating in the air 12 feet apart. All masses move independently until impact. The top 14 fall and the 14th hits the 15th mass which is stationary. The conservation of momentum is used to compute the new velocity of the combined mass. If they are equal the velocity is cut in half. It then accelerates due to gravity. #13 is gaining on the combination of #14 and #15. So does it hit before they hit #16? All of these different accelerating masses and collisions need a computer to track.

But 12 seconds is the minimum collapse time with equal masses and no resistance. 14 seconds with the bottom heavy distribution. So if supports had to be broken then collapse time would have had to go up a lot. There is no way it could be below 24 seconds. But 25 seconds is the the maximum time for the real event including the collapse of the spire.

So there was no top down collapse of the north tower with the top crushing the mass below because there is no way it could happen in that time. That is a pipe dream. Some people want to insist on believeing it but then say we don't need to know the steel and concrete distributions. Accurate data on those masses would change the time of my magical collapse but we are supposed to regard that data as unimportant. So that is why the physics profession has made a fool of itself by not even asking about steel and concrete distributions. This grade school physics must be presented as a complex mystery that only PhDs can understand but those PhDs can't make a physical model of what can't possibly happen. That is why my model arrests but needs to be ridiculed for being paper and washers because the mass cannot crush its weak supports.

If engineering schools scaled up my model and used more accurate data and supports as weak as possible and it still wouldn't collapse then some people would look pretty silly. They now have nearly as much motive as the perps to see this is not resolved. Physics without data.


And then he want to talk about computers. What good are computers without accurate data. My Python program shows the time changes as the data changes.

psik



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Sorry, that last link was wrong. They have two icons at the top which look alike except for the color and I forget which one to use. This should be the program.

breakfornews.com...

OK, I tested it. That is correct.

psik
edit on 28-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I see what you've meant by "elementary physics"
OS'ers have a good bit of excuses to come up with if your explanations really came to light.

On the weight of the panels, you say the guy estimated 19 tons, while the article put it at 22, but with the interpolation, if I was reading correctly, you were basically saying that had to be mistaken as well, no?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If you didn't need specialist knowledge to do this, then there's been a really big scam going on for a lot of years :p


Yep, it's called "accreditation." You have to pay thousands upon thousands for the "education" that the government says is legit, then you could get one of their business licenses, which you again have to pay for, provided you've paid a big insurance corporation for "coverage" as required by said government, and then pay taxes with that business' income as long as it exists. One big scam, alright... and that's just the basics.

Enough of the off-topic chatter from me, though, huh?
edit on 28-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I see what you've meant by "elementary physics"
OS'ers have a good bit of excuses to come up with if your explanations really came to light.

On the weight of the panels, you say the guy estimated 19 tons, while the article put it at 22, but with the interpolation, if I was reading correctly, you were basically saying that had to be mistaken as well, no?


The documentation from the 1960s gives us the total weight of all of the panels from the 9th floor to the top of the buildings.


The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.

In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.

When the panels are delivered to the site, Koch lifts them off the trucks and raises them to their proper locations with one of eight Australian climbing cranes the company purchased especially for the job. (PNYA recently bought the cranes from Koch to simplify their use by other trades when they are not needed for steel erection.)

Succeeding panels are bolted together by means of high-strength bolts installed through handholes in the box columns, which are accessible from inside the building. Gusset plates and high-strength bolts connect adjacent spandrels, and these connections are also made from within the building.

911research.wtc7.net...

So there were about 2,900 panels on each building weighing about 27,000 tons. So that was 1/4th of the total steel in the buildings by most estimates. What the NIST should have done was told us the quantity and weights of each different gage of panel so we would know where each transition occurred all of the way up from the 9th floor. But we don't have that data and Urich admits that but he behaves as if it is OK for the NIST to not tell us.

Urich just does a linear interpolation of the weight of the panels distributed up the building. But that doesn't work if you use 22 tons at the bottom. So he reduced it to 19. Now I don't believe skyscraper designers make buildings on the basis of the distribution of weight. They design on the basis of strength and the weight just has to be what it has to be to get the strength. So by using 19 tons at the bottom Urich is saying the panels are weaker and lighter than they actually were.

I say the distribution could not possibly have been linear. Just look at the shape of the CN Tower in Canada. None of these really tall structures can have linear strength/weight distributions all of the way up. But there are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. So we are kind of stuck believing there is a conspiracy of silence about skyscrapers. I have searched for steel and concrete distribution data on skyscrapers. Haven't found it. So why doesn't even Richard Gage talk about it. Does talking about controlled demolition keep this an Emotional issue rather than a Rational Physics issue?

Yeah, I talk about weight a lot but that does not mean I ever forget the strength. But these idiotic debaters focus on particular things and distort information and have turned a simple problem that should have been resolved in 2002 into an endless boring and confusing debate. And a lot of these so called Truthers just want an emotional issue about the government. Talk about grade school physics and they will ban you from their sites. Sometimes I wonder if some of them are disinfo agents who want to make any Truth Movement look silly. But accusing them of that just makes you look paranoid, but this TEN YEAR farce does not make much logical sense.

So from the physics side I think this whole thing is relatively simple. But from the political psychological side it is a Gordian Knot. But now the real Physics Profession has allowed itself to be tied up in it because they didn't solve in in 2002. Imagine what would have happened in 2002 if the 20 top engineering schools had held a conference in New York and explained why airliners could not have done that. What would the government have said or done? So what can the physicists do now after letting the Middle East Wars drag on over some bad physics?

psik
edit on 28-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: bolding



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Excuse my trying to wrap my ignorant head around the concept here, but so you're saying that the article is truer to the the weight, and while at 22 tons, linear interpolation wasn't the "key" as Urich used it to narrow the weight down more accurately?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Excuse my trying to wrap my ignorant head around the concept here, but so you're saying that the article is truer to the the weight, and while at 22 tons, linear interpolation wasn't the "key" as Urich used it to narrow the weight down more accurately?


I am not sure what you mean by narrow the weight down more accurately or what you mean by "key".

As far as I know Urich was trying to create a spreadsheet specifying the weights of the building components level by level. Frank Greening said years ago the Urich's was the best data there is. That might be true but it is still not CORRECT.

We only have three data points. The 22 tons at the bottom and the 27,000 total tons on the exterior of each building and we know that weight is spread from about 120 to 1360 feet up the building. A linear distribution was the easiest for Urich to compute and we know it would be bottom heavy. But if you try that with 22 tons at the bottom you run out of steel before you get to the top.

Urich cheated! But if we don't have accurate distribution data so what else was he supposed to do?

My objection to Urich is that he does not emphasize the admitted compromise he made and he does not complain about the NIST not providing more detailed data. So in effect he sides with the official story.

psik
edit on 28-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Well I can explain how they were taken out of the way, which ones were and roughly when and there's good evidence to show that this is the case. On the other hand you can't tell me which columns, when, where, and the only evidence is a similar look and the idea that mention of explosions = explosives. I don't really mean to be having a go at you here, so please don't take it personally. I'm just saying that from my perspective there's a lot of posting of suspicious items, but very little resolving into actual evidence, and it's hard to be convinced by it.
reply to post by scully222
 


You keep referring back to a theory and claiming it as truth and evidence. Telling me which columns when and where is 100% based on the best working theory offered by the so-called experts. They even admit that there is no way to prove the theory they just feel it is the best explanation. There is zero solid evidence to back up this theory only findings that could be seen as consistent with this theory. There is exactly as much solid evidence for controlled demolition as there is for the pancake theory, which is none. The only difference is the pancake theory is more accepted. Acceptance is not evidence. Most people thought the earth was flat long ago, but acceptance did not make it true. The only evidence we have is 3 destroyed buildings and a lot of questions. I have watched the computer generated models for the collapses of all three buildings that is claimed to be "hard evidence". None look anything like what I have seen 100's of times with my own eyes. The only truth is no one has any evidence for what really happened. You either choose to believe the theory that makes the most sense given what was seen, or you believe the theory that makes no sense with what was seen but jives with the official story. It's a choice everyone has to make for themselves.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   


It's the truth isn't it? That no matter what I could provide you, you're going to fall back on wanting something that doesn't exist and likely will never exist?
reply to post by exponent
 


Exact same could be said for the OS mind set. Every time controlled demolition is brought we hear cries of "where is the proof?". You are provided with several scientists who found nano-thermite residue in the dust of the towers. There's your proof. We here cries of "we have studies that show no residue. DEBUNKED! Where's your proof?" No matter what I can provide YOU, YOUR going to fall back to wanting something that doesn't exist, which is proof in your own hand of explosives in the buildings. You will disregard EVERYTHING that points toward that and demand proof. We both know there is no proof to be had on either side, only theories.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist


You can also see they have cut the beams almost flat, and some have a very slight angle, but no severe 45 degree angles like in the classic photo where you can see one steel column that has strange residue on it (possible some kind of incendiary).

In that same classic photo, the columns arent lined up like they are in the video, it's isoloated on it's own and hasn't been touched yet. The guys doing the cutting were as you say using acetylene torches, and you can see in the video using those torches leaves no residue.


Are you seriously suggesting that we can tell the differece between acetalene torch cuts vs sinister secret demolitions by the angle of the cut? A 30 degree cut has to be cut by a steel worker, btu a 45 degree cut, NOPE, ot was sabotage by government ninjas. Is this really what you're proposing? I think you can imagine what my reposne is going to be, without my coming out and saying it.

The fact is, you have concrete evidence that there were in fact wokers dismantling the steel with acetylene torch. This "you can tell it's sabotage by the angle" excue is just grasping at straws in desperation from your not wanting to admit you're wrong.


Seems strange people had to get a lawsuit out on NIST to get most of the videos, pictures & data (because they did not respond to a FOIA request initially) , and even then they were reluctant & took a long time releasing everything. Even when they did release the evidence they based their reports on, they only released bits at a time, and a lot was edited. Seems like they were buying time for some reason, and it's strange they did not comply easily?


By the way you've worded this you already have your answer. The "people" you're referring to are almost certainly the conspiracy mongors like Alex Jones and Judy Wood, and they weren't being blown off because of any sinister secret conspiracy. They were blown off becuase they weren't being talken seriously.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Here's one. Maybe I should have used “debunkers” instead of “buddies”



I can't comment on what other people believe. All I can comment on is what I believe. Remember, it's only your own paranoia that makes you think we're all some secretly organized cabal sent to spread disinformation here. I've never met any of the other people here. Of course you're going to think that's disinformation and you're not going to believe me, but as Dilbert once said, "watch me not care".


And we are finding out details of a cover up all the time you just ignore them. There is enough information to suspect foul play by the government, we need to investigate It. How do you know what else they are covering up?


Oh, baloney. The only "evidence " of a coverup is the crap Alex Jones and the other con artists are making up to feed you truthers. "Does the order still stand" doesn't even remotely mean the same thing as "stand down order" regardless of how many times you repeat it.

..and who are you to be criticising others of "ignoring the evidence"? It's been pointed out to you that firefighters saw the fires were causing damage to WTC 7 and it was going to collapse, AND that Renee May called out from flight 77 and said the same thing Barbara Olson said, and you've consistantly run away from all this because you know it shows your conspiracy stories have more holes than Bin Laden's head..


No. this is an example of a President lying to the Congress. The bottom line is that they lie about almost everything they do. Why should anybody believe them about 9/11 if they got caught lying about prior knowledge, and they got caught destroying classified documents ?


...and why would such a monstrously complex and sinister plot like faking a terrorist attack be kept a secret when even a president having an affair with an intern finds its way to the newspapers?

I'm not contesting that our leaders lie. I'm contesting the specific lie you're claiming they're making.



My point was that you dismissed the FBI report based on another victims family members testimony.


I have been careful to point out that I didn't dismiss the FBI report. I tried to make it clear I was dismissing YOUR INTERPRETATION of the FBI report, as my last post showed that both the FBI report showing zero connection time and Ted Olson genuinely talking to his wife were both correct, as whoever originally put this "sinister secret plot" in your head conveniently neglected to mention she could have used a different phone.

This is what gets me about the truther crowd. They ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS leave out some small detail that, if it were included, would actually disprove what they're trying to claim. Claims like "they withdrew all the bomb dogs from the towers" sounds sinister enough, until we find out these were only the NYPD bomb dogs- the NYPA bomb dogs were still there and one of them was even killed in the collapse. We're told "pull it" means demoliitons, but when we look into it we find out it refers to pullign a building down with cables. Now, you're omitting Olson used a differnt phone becuase she couldn't reach anyone on her own phone, all so you can claim "All of Oson't calls were

It's gotten to the point where it's become blatant that it's being done intentionally.
edit on 28-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
breakfornews.com...

The program operates on a fixed time base to make the code simple. The error should be less than 2%. Making the timebase smaller should increase accuracy. But the entire concept is magical since no supports must be destroyed during the collapse process so it is only slowed down by the Conservation of Momentum.

psik


This is awful code psik, and it's entirely incomplete. The version you have posted there is not runnable, and now I look at some other code you've written, it isn't even finished.

Why are you even using timesteps? It's a key indicator that you don't have any clue what you are doing.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
3 out of 22 is more than a 10% difference of error. In regards to the total weight, you're essentially saying the outer structure was 10% of the gross weight, exponent? How confident are you in that inference?

That wasn't the inference. Lets pick Level 10 for an example. I used Gregory Urich's work as it is by far the most cross checked and consistent. At level 10, the external steel weighed 351,560kg or 351 tons. The total mass of this floor however, is 2,306,990 kg, or 2307 tons.

Therefore at level 10, the exterior structure occupied approximately 15% of the mass of that floor.


Also, when you're talking in terms of tons multiplied by potentially thousands, even a 1% difference can be pretty substantial. Which piece straw breaks the camel's back? Which pound within what eventual ton makes the difference between crushing the lower structure or not?

None of the force boundaries were that tight. At all points the overloads were excessive, and even a 10% difference was unlikely to result in survival after collapse initiated.


And most importantly, was the proverbial straw factually present in regards to the collapses? These are questions that need to be answered before arguing percentage of error in simulations.

There was no proverbial straw, the collapses were substantial and global. They did not 'only just' collapse. Once the initial failure at height occurs, then the building is most assuredly doomed.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912

Originally posted by exponent
If you didn't need specialist knowledge to do this, then there's been a really big scam going on for a lot of years :p


Yep, it's called "accreditation."
...
One big scam, alright... and that's just the basics.

Don't be so arrogant. These are the words of someone who dropped our or failed and blames everyone but themselves for their failure.

This is not the case, structural engineering is a worldwide course. The requirements are not accredited by the government. You are talking total nonsense in an attempt to devalue the education and certifications which are legal requirements for building structures to protect people.

Please stop it.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by scully222
You keep referring back to a theory and claiming it as truth and evidence. Telling me which columns when and where is 100% based on the best working theory offered by the so-called experts.

No they're not 'so-called' experts. They are world renowned experts. Stop trying to diminish your opponents qualifications. It shows your position to be weak.


There is zero solid evidence to back up this theory only findings that could be seen as consistent with this theory. There is exactly as much solid evidence for controlled demolition as there is for the pancake theory, which is none.

Nonsense, just because you can write it on the internet does not make it remotely true. For example, if explosives were set off to remove each level, why is it that the truss floor seats are noticably absent? Why is it that the whole building was bowing inwards before collapse? Why is it that the Penthouse failed and windows at a low level smashed many seconds before collapse?

The 'official story' provides parsimonious explanations for these events. Your theory is 'well they might be evidence but i dont know'. That is not a superior theory.


The only difference is the pancake theory is more accepted. Acceptance is not evidence. Most people thought the earth was flat long ago, but acceptance did not make it true. The only evidence we have is 3 destroyed buildings and a lot of questions.

And years of reporting and understanding by the foremost minds in Structural Engineering. Reports accepted by the whole community of Structural Engineers, but dismissed entirely by you, because you don't want to believe it.

It's just absolute nonsense, you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and then act as if you have a strong case because you've already ignored the actual answers. It's completely childish and ineffective. Explain one of those things I listed above in a way that is not matched by the 'official story' and I might be interested. If you cannot, you're admitting your theory explains less. Of course, you can't even tell me what type of explosive was used, so I don't hold out much hope.
edit on 28/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
breakfornews.com...

The program operates on a fixed time base to make the code simple. The error should be less than 2%. Making the timebase smaller should increase accuracy. But the entire concept is magical since no supports must be destroyed during the collapse process so it is only slowed down by the Conservation of Momentum.

psik


This is awful code psik, and it's entirely incomplete. The version you have posted there is not runnable, and now I look at some other code you've written, it isn't even finished.

Why are you even using timesteps? It's a key indicator that you don't have any clue what you are doing.


Well this is the second time I have posted it on this site and you can see from the date that it has been there for some time and you are the first person who has ever said it is not runnable. It is discussed on Gregory Urich's site and they never said any such thing.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

I have copied down and tried both programs. I did get an error with the one at BreakFor News. The one on Urich's site worked fine with the data on BreakFor News. The Collapse time took 12.9 seconds.

I will have to see why one doesn't work. I haven't tried it in some time.

The code is different but copying off BreakForNews seems to take out the backslashes. I didn't know that.

The collapse time takes 12 seconds with equal masses and up to 14 seconds if bottom heavy. But that is with no supports needing to be crushed or broken. So how could a real building that had to hold itself up come down in less than 25 seconds due to the top 15% falling on the rest? All of the people supporting the Official Story need to come up with excuses and maintain confusion and the Physics Profession needs to keep quiet.


Here is some of the output data from the code off Urich's site running the data from BreakFor News. I will see if I can replace the code at BreakForNews. But that may not fix the disappearing backslashes.


At the tone the Time will be: 0.85

At the tone the Time will be: 0.86

At the tone the Time will be: 0.87

Collision at 1139.9448 feet!!!
Mass @: 1140.1664 ft. hit Mass @: 1140.0 ft. at: 0.87 sec.
1130.0 tons traveling: 27.52 ft/sec hit 1140.0 tons moving at: 0.0 ft/sec

New mass is: 2270.0 tons moving: 13.6993832599 ft/sec

At the tone the Time will be: 0.88

At the tone the Time will be: 0.89

At the tone the Time will be: 1.4

At the tone the Time will be: 1.41

Collision at 1127.94076652 feet!!!
Mass @: 1128.18972687 ft. hit Mass @: 1128.0 ft. at: 1.41 sec.
2270.0 tons traveling: 30.6593832599 ft/sec hit 1150.0 tons moving at: 0.0 ft/sec


New mass is: 3420.0 tons moving: 20.3499415205 ft/sec


At the tone the Time will be: 1.42

At the tone the Time will be: 1.43

At the tone the Time will be: 1.58

At the tone the Time will be: 1.59

Collision at 1123.65488852 feet!!!
Mass @: 1124.0576 ft. hit Mass @: 1123.75937705 ft. at: 1.59 sec.
1120.0 tons traveling: 50.56 ft/sec hit 3420.0 tons moving at: 26.1099415205 ft/sec

New mass is: 4540.0 tons moving: 32.1416740088 ft/sec

At the tone the Time will be: 1.6

At the tone the Time will be: 1.61

At the tone the Time will be: 1.62

=============================================

At the tone the Time will be: 12.63

At the tone the Time will be: 12.64

Collision at 35.4236623499 feet!!!
Mass @: 36.30826723 ft. hit Mass @: 36.0 ft. at: 12.64 sec.
161650.0 tons traveling: 145.934253016 ft/sec hit 2060.0 tons moving at: 0.0 ft/sec

New mass is: 163710.0 tons moving: 144.097929265 ft/sec

At the tone the Time will be: 12.65

At the tone the Time will be: 12.71

At the tone the Time will be: 12.72

Collision at 23.8967140043 feet!!!
Mass @: 25.2584073013 ft. hit Mass @: 24.0 ft. at: 12.72 sec.
163710.0 tons traveling: 146.337929265 ft/sec hit 2070.0 tons moving at: 0.0 ft/sec

New mass is: 165780.0 tons moving: 144.510691278 ft/sec

At the tone the Time will be: 12.73

At the tone the Time will be: 12.74

At the tone the Time will be: 12.8

At the tone the Time will be: 12.81

Collision at 11.3805758947 feet!!!
Mass @: 12.2334587021 ft. hit Mass @: 12.0 ft. at: 12.81 sec.
165780.0 tons traveling: 147.070691278 ft/sec hit 2080.0 tons moving at: 0.0 ft/sec

New mass is: 167860.0 tons moving: 145.248297391 ft/sec

At the tone the Time will be: 12.82

At the tone the Time will be: 12.88

At the tone the Time will be: 12.89

Mass: # 108 hit the ground. 167860.0 tons at: 147.488297391 ft/sec
At the tone the Time will be: 12.9


psik



new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join