911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[n0spam4me]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

Check post 293 of this thread.....

And show us where in the link it says that there can be no acceleration if there is any resistance.

find the exact quote from me that alleges that ACCELERATION
requires no resistance, FREE FALL ACCELERATION requires no resistance, now do you get it?

 

[Skylar]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

Check post 293 of this thread.....

And show us where in the link it says that there can be no acceleration if there is any resistance.

find the exact quote from me that alleges that ACCELERATION
requires no resistance, FREE FALL ACCELERATION requires no resistance, now do you get it?

Odd...I don't note the word 'free fall' here anywhere in your quote:

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.

n0spam4me
Post: 290
911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition Debunkers Grab Your Ankles Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So where is the word 'free fall'? Oh, that's right.....you added it AFTER your blunder. Sorry Spam but 'NO resistance' isn't a requirement of acceleration under gravity.. And there's an obvious and rather simple reason why the debris accelerated as it fell:

The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up.

Acceleration can absolutely occur against resistance. And in fact, almost every instance of acceleration does exactly that. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Worse, the WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall at 'free fall'. By your own admission, at a fraction of that speed.

This is why you probably shouldn't try to speak for me again. You're woefully under-qualified.

 

[n0spam4me]

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means,
WTC7 spent 2.25 sec dropping at that rate and the NIST agrees on this, just to cut down the noise factor here. The fact is that 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't happen unless something is dropping totally unimpeded by any obstruction or resistance. Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.

 

[Skylar]

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means,
WTC7 spent 2.25 sec dropping at that rate and the NIST agrees on this, just to cut down the noise factor here. The fact is that 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't happen unless something is dropping totally unimpeded by any obstruction or resistance. Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.

Laughing.....let the backpedalling continue! No mention of WTC 7 in that previous post either. But instead 'the buildings'. Plural. Now you're trying to convince us you were only talking about WTC 7. And have omitted both of the WTC towers. And of course, added 'free fall' out of thin air.

You blundered. You made a starkly ignorant statement about a topic you didn't understand, and embarrassed yourself. Take your licks instead of trying to retcon a post we can all clearly see....which doesn't include any of your latest revisions. For crying out loud, I'm quoting you more accurately than you are.

Acceleration is entirely possible in the face of resistance. And in explicit contradiction of your absurd claims, the reason for the acceleration of the debris field is obvious: the acceleration of gravity pulled the debris field down with greater force than each impacted floor could push up.

Done.

Just because you have no idea how physics works doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly limited.

Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you've demonstrated over and over, your source is clueless.

Bombs have already been ruled out for the litany of reasons you've completely ignored and refuse to address. There's no such thing as 'silent bombs'. Or systems of explosives that work while on fire. Or cut girders without cutting them. Or leave no trace behind. Nor any that are invisible. Or can't be detected by bomb squads and bomb sniffing dogs.

All of which your theory requires. None of which actually happens. Eliminating bombs as a plausible explanation for the collapse.

A reality underscored by the fact that your time frame is off. The penthouse on top of the WTC 7 began falling into the building about 19 seconds before the facade collapsed. Not 'off of the WTC 7'. But INTO the WTC 7. Definitively proving undeniably that the structure of the building was already collapsing before the facade fell. Throwing your '2.25 seconds' off by about an order of magnitude.

And you already know all this. You just hope we don't.

Worse for you, the NIST found that the building's failure began on the 13th floor of a 47 story building. When that floor fully collapsed, all floors above it would have fallen. Yet you ignore this too.....pretending that if you ignore it, we won't notice this second massive hole in your narrative.

Um, Spam....we noticed. As did the FDNY. The FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours citing fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They saw fires burning uncontrolled on nearly every floor. And they pulled their people back, evacuated the area and waited for WTC 7 to fall from the fires.

And that's exactly what happened. There's a reason why your time frame is ludicrously inaccurate. Why your conception of physics is haplessly inaccurate. Why you can't back up any part of your 'bomb' narrative with any evidence.

Because your narrative is imaginary nonsense. Get used to the idea.

 

[SAYIT]

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means...

You actually think you have an appreciative audience here? Skylar has patiently and factually ripped you a new bunghole and you have failed miserably at every turn. At some point even an idiot realizes he is in over his head. Evidently you aren't even that smart. Woo.

 

[n0spam4me]

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means...

You actually think you have an appreciative audience here? Skylar has patiently and factually ripped you a new bunghole and you have failed miserably at every turn. At some point even an idiot realizes he is in over his head. Evidently you aren't even that smart. Woo.

How many people actually read this forum?
I'd be very curious to know .....

 

[Skylar]

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means...

You actually think you have an appreciative audience here? Skylar has patiently and factually ripped you a new bunghole and you have failed miserably at every turn. At some point even an idiot realizes he is in over his head. Evidently you aren't even that smart. Woo.

How many people actually read this forum?
I'd be very curious to know .....

Given your track record, you'd probably ignore any answer or any evidence of it if it didn't match what you already believed.

 

[Gary Anderson]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?

The planes, if they existed, were likely military planes. And nothing was found at the Pennsylvania site and as Rumsfeld said, the Pentagon was hit by a missile. No wings, nothing were found.

Wow. That's layers of hogwash. Lets start with the 'if they existed' claim. First, why would you deny the existence of the planes? There were literally thousands of eye witnesses, video for a dozen angles and overwhelming physical evidence.

Second, 'military planes'? The debris found matches passenger jets, down to the type of engines, the types of wheel wells and the Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage. Additionally, lots and lots of passenger bodies were found. For flight 77 for example, all the bodies were identified and all were found inside the Pentagon at the site of the crash. The black boxes of commercial flights were found for flight 93 and flight 77.

All contradicting the 'military plane' narrative rather starkly.

As for a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, that's simply not what the evidence shows. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon in the dead of night or in the middle of the wilderness. It flew low over I-395 in broad daylight in the middle of a traffic jam. And the eye witness accounts of a plane are overwhelming.

And finally, your claim that nothing was ever found of flight 93 is utter nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the plane was recovered, along with the black boxes and bodies of passengers.

Where are you getting your information?

Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.

 

[Skylar]

Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.

The PNAC doc didn't 'call for a new Pearl Harbor. '

Read the actual doc rather than the conspiracy talking point. You'll find that they simply don't match.

 

[daws101]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.

sure they were dear!

 

[daws101]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?

The planes, if they existed, were likely military planes. And nothing was found at the Pennsylvania site and as Rumsfeld said, the Pentagon was hit by a missile. No wings, nothing were found.

Wow. That's layers of hogwash. Lets start with the 'if they existed' claim. First, why would you deny the existence of the planes? There were literally thousands of eye witnesses, video for a dozen angles and overwhelming physical evidence.

Second, 'military planes'? The debris found matches passenger jets, down to the type of engines, the types of wheel wells and the Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage. Additionally, lots and lots of passenger bodies were found. For flight 77 for example, all the bodies were identified and all were found inside the Pentagon at the site of the crash. The black boxes of commercial flights were found for flight 93 and flight 77.

All contradicting the 'military plane' narrative rather starkly.

As for a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, that's simply not what the evidence shows. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon in the dead of night or in the middle of the wilderness. It flew low over I-395 in broad daylight in the middle of a traffic jam. And the eye witness accounts of a plane are overwhelming.

And finally, your claim that nothing was ever found of flight 93 is utter nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the plane was recovered, along with the black boxes and bodies of passengers.

Where are you getting your information?

Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.

Project for the New American Century

Formation	1997
Extinction	2006
Type	Public policy think tank
Location	Washington, D.C.
Website	newamericancentury.org

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[SAYIT]

Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.

sure they were dear!

And here we are fully 3 days after promising to prove his silly claims and as of this post, still no proof. Mr. Anderson, it seems, is all talk and no substance.

 

[daws101]

Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.

sure they were dear!

And here we are fully 3 days after promising to prove his silly claims and as of this post, still no proof. Mr. Anderson, it seems, is all talk and no substance.

mr anderson ? keanu reeves character in the matrix trilogy !

 

[n0spam4me]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

 

[Penelope]

Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.

The PNAC doc didn't 'call for a new Pearl Harbor. '

Read the actual doc rather than the conspiracy talking point. You'll find that they simply don't match.

We will need something like Peal harbor to get the people behind us. You read it , your a lot of hot air.

 

[daws101]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

in reality it's not .
al it means is that portion of wtc7's north face struck no obstacles for that short span of time.

 

[n0spam4me]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

in reality it's not .
al it means is that portion of wtc7's north face struck no obstacles for that short span of time.

Lets be very clear on this shall we, the visible bit includes the west wall of WTC7 and so the North & West walls would have to become totally disconnected from anything that could provide resistance to the fall, and then the North & West walls dropped for 2.25 sec, and this is alleged to have been the product of chaotic fires.
right....................

 

[Skylar]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

We've been through this. And I'll be happy to disabuse your of your misconceptions yet again.

First, your blunder encompassed 'the WTC buildings'';

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.

n0spam4me
Post: 290

Only now that you've been proven ludicrously, stupidly wrong about basic physics do you start desperately backpedalling with 'the WTC buildings' magically morphing into only the WTC 7. Yes, Spammy.....acceleration can occur in the face of resistance. And in fact virtually all acceleration does.

Second, your time line is off. 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC 7 collapsed, the Penthouse on the top of the building began collapsing. 6 seconds before the collapse, the penthouse fell into the middle of the WTC 7. Not 'off of'. But INTO. Demonstrating undeniably and undebatably that the WTC 7's internal structure was already collapsing long before the facade fell. Putting your time line off by nearly an order of magnitude.

Third, the collapse initiated on the 13th floor. 33 floors beneath the penthouse. And 15 floors beneath the 18 or so stories that we saw collapsing. When the 13th floor collapsed, all floors above it would fall. You insist this is impossible. Play a game of jenga one day and knock out all piece from the middle of the stack. If the pieces in the upper half don't continue to float in the air, your theory is disproven.

Fourth, bombs were virtually impossible. The building was on fire on virtually every floor. And any system of explosives would have been on fire as well. Melting or detonating them haphazardly before they could have brought down the WTC. The collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in near perfect silence where actual controlled demolition is ludicriously loud. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza. The WTC plaza had been swept for bombs only a week before the collapse by the Port Authority bomb squad.

And no girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

Fifth, the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC due to fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They were witness to the massive structural damage the building had sustained when chucks of the collapsing WTC 1 had torn massive holes in WTC 7. They listened to the building groan as the fires grew out of control until nearly every floor was on fire.

The FDNY abandoned their fire fighting effort, pulled their people back and waited for the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage. And they nailed it, with the building coming down within about an hour of their prediction.

And you already know all of this. You just really hope we don't. And how do you deal with this obvious and conspiracy killing contradiction of your little theory? You ignore it entirely, pretending it never happened.

So, um...how's that working out for you?

 

[Skylar]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

in reality it's not .
al it means is that portion of wtc7's north face struck no obstacles for that short span of time.

Lets be very clear on this shall we, the visible bit includes the west wall of WTC7 and so the North & West walls would have to become totally disconnected from anything that could provide resistance to the fall, and then the North & West walls dropped for 2.25 sec, and this is alleged to have been the product of chaotic fires.
right....................

Lets be clear: your time line is off and you have no idea what you're talking about. See above.

 

[daws101]

"The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "

To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

in reality it's not .
al it means is that portion of wtc7's north face struck no obstacles for that short span of time.

Lets be very clear on this shall we, the visible bit includes the west wall of WTC7 and so the North & West walls would have to become totally disconnected from anything that could provide resistance to the fall, and then the North & West walls dropped for 2.25 sec, and this is alleged to have been the product of chaotic fires.
right....................

even clearer: uncontrolled fires + no evidence of accelerants of any kind = the collapse of wtc7