About the "collapse" of WTC7

[wihosa]

What a whackjob. The evidence is overwhelming and truthers come on and say oh no MY IDEA ISN'T WHACKADOODLE, that is!

What is the overwhelming evidence? EVERYTHING.

What evidence do you have that your fucked up theory is anything but fucked up between your earlobes? NOTHING.

Now now airplane guy, no need to start shouting.
You are the one with the unproven theory, I'm just pointing out the obvious lies.

Every time an airliner crashes the NTSB reassembles the wreckage in a hanger and figures out what happened. Why not with the four from 911? They have retrieved planes from mountain sides, swamps and out of the ocean. Even the space shuttle was picked up, reassembled and examined and it was spread across three states!
Do you really believe an airliner can crash into a field and entirely bury itself into the ground so that no identifiable parts are visible? No wings or tail sections? No parts of the fuselage? No seats or luggage or bodies?

Why did the BBC and CNN report that Building 7 HAD collapsed twenty minutes before it did?

Where was the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre on the scene within minutes said "a plane may have crashed somewhere but there is no plane here". The initial hole in the Pentagon was only fifteen feet wide. Where was the plane? Do you think it went through a fifteen foot hole?

These are common sense questions that need to be answered
We need a real investigation!

 

[airplanemechanic]

Unproven theory? You mean YOUR theory is proven? With what? Nothing??? I've produced evidence, pics of all of the crash scenes and it's well documented that an airplane hitting the ground at 500mph literally vaporizes upon impact. So yes, the plane will hit the ground and vaporize.

News organizations reported erroneously on something? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

 

[airplanemechanic]

 

[SAYIT]

What a whackjob. The evidence is overwhelming and truthers come on and say oh no MY IDEA ISN'T WHACKADOODLE, that is!

What is the overwhelming evidence? EVERYTHING.

What evidence do you have that your fucked up theory is anything but fucked up between your earlobes? NOTHING.

Why did the BBC and CNN report that Building 7 HAD collapsed twenty minutes before it did?

Any rational adult would weigh the possibility of BBC foreknowledge and complicity against the probability of a reporting error and find on the side of error. Only a desperately flaming 9/11 CT loon would find as you do and I mean that with all due respect.

BBC - The Editors Part of the conspiracy 2

 

[Gamolon]

If the whole mass of the alleged airliner is considered in the calculation of how much KE was available to penetrate the tower wall, then the entire aircraft would have to be involved in the act of penetration, therefore any using up of KE in the act of penetrating the wall would have to slow down the entire aircraft as it penetrates the wall.

Here's another example and question for you to ponder that might help your "understanding" of physics.

If I swing an ax a wooden log using the flat side of the ax head it bounces off the log and painfully jars my arms. Yet if I swing that same ax and strike the wooden log with the sharpened edge of the same ax, it splits it.

Please explain why that happens in scientific terms. Let's see what you actually know.

I can't tell you how disappointing it is to watch Spammy - who seemingly loves to play "Pretend Physics" - tuck tail and run when someone offers to accommodate his silliness. You've been at this long enough to know most here will not play his childish games but in the end he will just wait until you leave before returning to play his silly game again. It's the nature of the "Truther" beast.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

As I have said many times, his "understanding" of physics is incorrect. That's why I asked the questions I did. I bet he's pondering them now trying to figure out how he can save face as he realizes that he was terribly wrong.

He can't even cite where he got his "the percentage of weight applied by a falling object to an object below it is the inverse percentage of the total weight of the falling object".

According to him, something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it. Using this "formula" this means that if something is falling at 70% of g, the object is expressing 30% of it's weight on whatever is under it. If something is falling at 99% of g, it's expressing 1% of it's weight on an something below it.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

it's from a debate on a twoofer site. I can't recall which

His garbage makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm trying to create a physical example, but I can't.

First, try defining what the statement "falling at 64% of g" means. An object ALWAYS has gravity trying to pull it down at 9.8 m/s2. Saying that an object is falling at a CONSISTENT rate of 64% of g means there is some type of resistance CONSTANTLY being applied to the descending object in order to impede it from reaching 100% of g. In this case, resistance is being applied from below. The only way to apply CONSISTENT resistance to a descending object that I can think of is to use a CONSISTENT medium such as a liquid or gel-like substance that the object falls through.

In the case of the multiple shelves example given previously, the object in question would initially fall at 9.8 m/s2, then slow down upon impacting the first shelf, return to falling at 9.8 m/s2 after breaking through the shelf, hit the second shelf and slow down, return to falling at 9.8 m/s2 after breaking the second shelf, etc. This in no way a consistent rate of acceleration, but an AVERAGE.

The other side of this is how can an ACCELERATING object, not apply MORE than it's weight when impacting an object. Such as a 35 pound weight dropped upon a shelf from 100. Is n0spam saying that the impact force felt by the shelf was only 35 lbs?

This is why he hasn't responded. Because he knows he's completely wrong in his thinking and is afraid to admit it.

n0spam4me, are you ever going to respond?