About the "collapse" of WTC7

[SAYIT]

FLT175 did slow down abruptly INSIDE THE TOWER .

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

 

[Gamolon]

FLT175 did slow down abruptly INSIDE THE TOWER .

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.

 

[daws101]

FLT175 did slow down abruptly INSIDE THE TOWER .

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

 

[Gamolon]

FLT175 did slow down abruptly INSIDE THE TOWER .

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.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

It's just a hunch but having invested so much time in his POV he just can't face life without it. He's probably on another forum as we speak posting the same silly pseudo-science. Frankly, it makes no sense to play "Physicists" with any of these "Truthers" because 5 minutes after their silliness is exposed they are right back spewing the same old shit.

 

[SAYIT]

Your game is dead here

Thus sayith YOU, what you have NOT done is properly address the points about applied physics that totally kill the official story.

And here we are a full 25 hours after you posted that whine (and Gamolon's scientific response) and your silence speaks volumes about you and the "Truther" Movement [R.I.P].

 

[Gamolon]

Your game is dead here

Thus sayith YOU, what you have NOT done is properly address the points about applied physics that totally kill the official story.

And here we are a full 25 hours after you posted that whine (and Gamolon's scientific response) and your silence speaks volumes about you and the "Truther" Movement [R.I.P].

I suspect we'll never get a response.

Oh well. So much for his request for someone to debate his points.

 

[Rank Your Leader]

9/11 CT's are like Pennywise the Clown. There were a span of time in which they resurface the Earth.

 

[n0spam4me]

How many people are aware of the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
that is the acceleration of gravity, and for 2.25 sec. and during that time, the North & West walls of the skyscraper are observed to have kept their shape, and fell vertically. Just exactly how is that done with "fires" as was supposed to have been the cause, was WTC7 a "towering inferno"?
whats up with that?

OK, who is willing to actually have a dialog about the facts here?

 

[Gamolon]

How many people are aware of the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
that is the acceleration of gravity, and for 2.25 sec. and during that time, the North & West walls of the skyscraper are observed to have kept their shape, and fell vertically. Just exactly how is that done with "fires" as was supposed to have been the cause, was WTC7 a "towering inferno"?
whats up with that?

OK, who is willing to actually have a dialog about the facts here?

LOL!

I've been trying to have a dialog with you about your "factual" understanding of physics, but you ignored my posts.

How convenient for you.

 

[SAYIT]

How many people are aware of the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
that is the acceleration of gravity, and for 2.25 sec. and during that time, the North & West walls of the skyscraper are observed to have kept their shape, and fell vertically. Just exactly how is that done with "fires" as was supposed to have been the cause, was WTC7 a "towering inferno"?
whats up with that?

OK, who is willing to actually have a dialog about the facts here?

Whoa! The wayward "Truther" returns. Nice to see you, too, Spammy. There's been much speculation about your abrupt disappearance which quickly followed Gamo's stated willingness to play "Scientist" with you. Believe it or not, it was thought you bailed when faced with your exposure as a fraud. Anyway it looks like Gamo has been watching for your return and is seemingly still willing, despite your weeks of invisibility, to play your little game. Good luck!

 

[daws101]

How many people are aware of the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
that is the acceleration of gravity, and for 2.25 sec. and during that time, the North & West walls of the skyscraper are observed to have kept their shape, and fell vertically. Just exactly how is that done with "fires" as was supposed to have been the cause, was WTC7 a "towering inferno"?
whats up with that?

OK, who is willing to actually have a dialog about the facts here?

obviously not you ..every time the facts are presented, you blow a gasket.

 

[SAYIT]

How many people are aware of the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
that is the acceleration of gravity, and for 2.25 sec. and during that time, the North & West walls of the skyscraper are observed to have kept their shape, and fell vertically. Just exactly how is that done with "fires" as was supposed to have been the cause, was WTC7 a "towering inferno"?
whats up with that?

OK, who is willing to actually have a dialog about the facts here?

Splendid idea!

Fact #1 - When your pseudo-science was challenged by Gamolon (Oct 28) you disappeared like a fart in the wind.
Fact #2 - You remained absent while Gamolon patiently tapped his foot while imploring you to come out and play "Science."
Fact #3 - After 13 days in hiding you finally worked up the guts to peak your head out of your ass and ... Voila! ... you find Gamo silently waiting in the shadows and once again you disappear like a fart in the wind.
How do you like those facts, Princess?

 

[SAYIT]

This really distressing but completely understandable. No sooner did Gamolon challenge Spammy's pseudoscience than Spammy did his Snagglepuss imitation ("exit, stage left!"). Two weeks later (and a week after Gamo's last post) Spammy reemerges like nothing happened and was - within minutes - ambushed by Gamo who clearly was waiting in the bushes (nice work, Gamo). Spammy, once again, has gone AWOL. The whole deal smacks of the kind of cowardice and general lack of integrity of those in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement. Way to go, Spammy. You no longer have any standing here and as already proven, your "Truther" Movement is D-E-A-D.

 

[SAYIT]

This really distressing but completely understandable. No sooner did Gamolon challenge Spammy's pseudoscience than Spammy did his Snagglepuss imitation ("exit, stage left!"). Two weeks later (and a week after Gamo's last post) Spammy reemerges like nothing happened and was - within minutes - ambushed by Gamo who clearly was waiting in the bushes (nice work, Gamo). Spammy, once again, has gone AWOL. The whole deal smacks of the kind of cowardice and general lack of integrity of those in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement. Way to go, Spammy. You no longer have any standing here and as already proven, your "Truther" Movement is D-E-A-D.

Well, it's now more than a full day since Spammy dropped by to challenge one-&-all to a game of "9/11 CT Science" and just 10 minutes less since Gamolon picked up Spammy's "gauntlet." Once again that was the last anyone heard from Spammy who will now wait and watch until he thinks it's safe to come back and pretend his drivel has some value. Hey Spammy ... it's time to get a new life (as if you ever had one). Your 9/11 CT life is O-V-E-R.

 

[daws101]

This really distressing but completely understandable. No sooner did Gamolon challenge Spammy's pseudoscience than Spammy did his Snagglepuss imitation ("exit, stage left!"). Two weeks later (and a week after Gamo's last post) Spammy reemerges like nothing happened and was - within minutes - ambushed by Gamo who clearly was waiting in the bushes (nice work, Gamo). Spammy, once again, has gone AWOL. The whole deal smacks of the kind of cowardice and general lack of integrity of those in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement. Way to go, Spammy. You no longer have any standing here and as already proven, your "Truther" Movement is D-E-A-D.

Well, it's now more than a full day since Spammy dropped by to challenge one-&-all to a game of "9/11 CT Science" and just 10 minutes less since Gamolon picked up Spammy's "gauntlet." Once again that was the last anyone heard from Spammy who will now wait and watch until he thinks it's safe to come back and pretend his drivel has some value. Hey Spammy ... it's time to get a new life (as if you ever had one). Your 9/11 CT life is O-V-E-R.

spammy's not yet returned

 

[Gamolon]

Isn't it about time for n0spam4me's weekly drive by posting?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Looks like agent gams handlers sent him back here to fart after being absent for such a long time.

 

[SAYIT]

Looks like agent gams handlers sent him back here to fart after being absent for such a long time.

Looks like agent gams handlers sent him back here to fart after being absent for such a long time.

I suppose that is what passes for "intelligent thought" in the 9/11 CT Movement. No wonder it's so D-E-A-D.
Hey HandJob ... have you heard from Spammy? Every time his pseudoscience is challenged he literally runs away. What's up wit dat?

 

[Gamolon]

The silence is deafening!