The Physics Of WTC 7

[legaleagle_45]

I dont waste my time explaining a color exists to a color blind fucktard.

Translation:

All I can do is cast doubt upon the conclusions of NIST but I am unable to formulate a persuasive alternatives because no one in their right mind would believe that a mass conspiracy would rely upon an explosive demolition occurring after 6 hours of continuous intense fires throughout the entire structure and 5 hours after explosions occurred in the building so, in lieu of addressing that issue I will pretend that my disparagement of NIST is equivalent of proving that a controlled explosive demolition is the only possible way WTC 7 could come down. Then, when some one brings up the fires and explosions I will pretend that a wrecking ball is equivalent to an explosive demolition, question whether fires occurred at all in WTC 7 and otherwise try desperately to hide the fact that my theory concerning how WTC 7 was brought down has been completely destroyed.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Your above animated gif does not match this graph.



It would be fine if the supposed explosives went off simultaneously at the beginning of stage two, but that's not the case is it?

you dont need explosives for a controlled demolition.

got any more red herring bullshit arguments?

 

[Gamolon]

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other. If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....

For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against David and Goliath (a little joke).

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles.

What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.

Found a thread while searching for Shyam Sunder's quotes.

"Aemilius", you seem to be getting the same explanation over at the Science Chat Forum from a member there that I have been giving you, but don't want to accept it.

Using the graph below:


Stage one indicates a buckling structure and totally goes against Chandler's explosives gibberish. Why? Because you and he both claim that simultaneous explosives created zero mass below by removing columns. Unfortunately for you you and Chandler, stage one in the graph shows LESS THAN FREE FALL ACCELERATION. At 0 (zero in the Time axis) is when the entire roof line starts to descend.

Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

So explain how you think Chandler's explanation fits what we saw that day. Explain stage one of the following graph.


The entire roofline started descending at zero (Time). This is where truthers say the supposed explosives went off simultaneously. Since you and every other truther thinks explosives going off equals zero resistance, please explain why, in stage one, freefall acceleration does not immediately begin?

This graph AGREES with the increased load, propagating to the remaining structure AND overloading it AFTER the interior of the structure failed. The first stage is when the remaining structure started to buckle. The next stage is the structure globally failing.

Your problem is that you have no clue about structures and structural engineering. Your arguing abour things you know nothing about.

but that is not the point is it.

the point is that it freefell

HENCE TRUTHERS ARE CORRECT

HENCE NIST HAD TO CORRECT THEIR FALSE DATA

THANKS!

For admitting it freefell!

For shooting your foot off.

AGAIN!

 

[KokomoJojo]

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other. If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....

For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against David and Goliath (a little joke).

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles.

What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.

Found a thread while searching for Shyam Sunder's quotes.

"Aemilius", you seem to be getting the same explanation over at the Science Chat Forum from a member there that I have been giving you, but don't want to accept it.

Using the graph below:


Stage one indicates a buckling structure and totally goes against Chandler's explosives gibberish. Why? Because you and he both claim that simultaneous explosives created zero mass below by removing columns. Unfortunately for you you and Chandler, stage one in the graph shows LESS THAN FREE FALL ACCELERATION. At 0 (zero in the Time axis) is when the entire roof line starts to descend.

Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.

What a fantasy!

No it does not.

You are engineering illiterate.

ALL demolitions cause a structure to buckle!
more dead brain matter from you!

ALL DEMOLITIONS HAVE 3 STAGES!

More of the same asstalk from you!

More square pegs in round holes.

You assume any bullshit that you think will make your argument and shoot yourself in the foot over and over again! Hilarious!

Machine gunning your foot now!

 

[KokomoJojo]

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other. If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....

For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against David and Goliath (a little joke).

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles.

What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.

yeh well NIST falsifies the data, and even though they corrected the freefall they did not correct the averaging of the event, and no more hearings were allowed on the matter.

Chandler picked up better software and the computer did the analysis and found that there is no stage one, it goes directly to stage 2.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw"]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]

NIST used an averaging scheme that cannot be demonstrated using the roof line of the real building as the source as they claimed.

They falsified data by using the time from their model and claiming that had to be the correct time, rather than the raw data as chandler did showing no first stage could be seen on the roof line.

NIST wants it both ways at the same time.

 

[daws101]

not my problem you dont understand the versatile nature of demolition.



whatever that psychotic shit mess was supposed to be.

two nebulous dodges in one post!

your issues were addressed long time ago, sorry you do not like the answer.

NIST AGREED TO FREEFALL

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

 

[daws101]

not my problem you dont understand the versatile nature of demolition.

So you can identify a controlled demolition wherein the initial explosions began 5 hours prior to the building collapsing?

Link please

no mainstream demolition company [gets its revenue from government demolitions] is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time, so if you want to supply, the building, pull the permits, I will give you a discount, for 1000 bucks per hour labor you can have a live demonstration, min charge 1 day labor, 8 hours per day, 2x overtime plus materials plus airfare hotel and meals.


You can bring your recording equipment and have full rights to the event.


So if you want proof for tards I will be happy to oblige you.

How long would you like this demolition to take? Hours? Day? 2 days? week?

if you want to add fire make sure the building is rural and you get all appropriate permits.

for an extra 5000 you can see a detcordless demo.

if you are on a budget you may wish to choose a small building.

its your money!

here is one that lasted a week

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c]Demolition Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

another steaming pile of bullshit ....
the prep for the demo might have lasted a week but the actual CD only lasts a few seconds.

so as always you're making shit up
please post a link

 

[daws101]

no demolition company is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time,

So, to make a long story short, you have no other examples in the history of the universe wherein a controlled demolition took in excess of 5 hours to accomplish from the beginning of the initial explosions. Nor do you have any videos of a controlled demolition being preceded by 6 hours of intense fires and structural damage.

It seems your claim relies upon the explanation of the explosions and the fires and the structural damage being part of the criminal conspiracy to cover up the latter controlled demolition?

Have you ever considered that the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition? That no criminal conspiracy of this magnitude would risk such circumstance which might prevent the demolition from succeeding because then there would be clear and unequivocal evidence of the scheme?

bump!

 

[KokomoJojo]

two nebulous dodges in one post!

your issues were addressed long time ago, sorry you do not like the answer.

NIST AGREED TO FREEFALL

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

Unless you can dream up some natural way that the supporting mass can be completely removed to cause a freefall, its proof. The NIST model did not freefall. The data they used in the model is a secret! Cannot be had by foia.

NIST said they could find no explosives which may be true because you do not need materials defined as high explosives to demolish a building.

However they are guilty of academic fraud and fraud and willful intent to deceive the people in doing so.

Its already been proven they reported false data and have not changed the record which is outside this discussion.

 

[daws101]

Who knows how you think you've owned anyone but yourself given your total lack of proof of any of your claims?

only people with a qualified physics background so sorry that it rules pretty much everyone on this board out, especially you, except ELC and he has the patience of a saint trying to teach dishonest tards how to tie their shoes. something I do not do since I like tards that operate on full stoopid.

carry on.

you are claiming to have a physics background!?
now that is funny...

 

[daws101]

meaingless supposition.

Incorrect. My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe. If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.



Please post it again, as I have not seen it.




100% proof positive. All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.



Now you are lying. What you posted was a failed demolition which only brought down part of the building, requiring a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball. They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt. Far from supporting your position, it proves mine. Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.) that you are a liar.

Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event?



Now you have the opportunity to make and see history. By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition. if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.

Incorrect. My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe. If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur.

Those egglmacated in physics do not need a tard level demonstration to prove the grade school level fizix your tard question demands because for those educated in physics the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

Educating tards costs money. Educating willfully negligent tards costs even more money.

You claim is parallel and paramount to "it is not possible for a nuclear explosion" ever to occur because it has never happened before in history.

What excitingly comedic twisted fairytale tard logic!

Its good to see tards are operating on full tard now days.

I accept your concession and note your willful negligence to educate yourself and perpetuate tardation.




Please post it again, as I have not seen it.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago.

100% proof positive. All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.

Lets not forget you are the tard who needs proof for the ridiculous that people with even a basic understanding of physics would not give a second thought, and if you want me to provide them to further your tard education just grab your wallet.

Now you are lying. What you posted was a failed demolition

Lying? Now now now, at least pull your head out of your ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed demolition causes a very long delay, but in the end the building is demolished nonetheless.

In fact what I said was "precisely" true and its not my fault that you dont like the facts and its not my fault that the facts mess up your little masterbation fantasy. again

which only brought down part of the building, requiring a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball. They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt. Far from supporting your position, it proves mine. Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.) that you are a liar.

Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the building was demolished by a wrecking ball.

Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event?

and the rest is irellevant grandstanding the demolition of the building was simply delayed as I said.

Only a die hard tard would demand a demonstration to show it can just as easily be planned, then set off the remaining charges a week later to finish the job.

show me in history where [/B]"the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition"

Now you have the opportunity to make and see history. By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition. if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.

but thats not true so I guess you have to go hungry again.

"your little masterbation fantasy." now you're plagiarizing

 

[Gamolon]

your above animated gif does not match this graph.



it would be fine if the supposed explosives went off simultaneously at the beginning of stage two, but that's not the case is it?

e.l.c.?

 

[daws101]

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other. If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....

For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against David and Goliath (a little joke).

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles.

What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.

"I'm just pointing things out and asking questions."-E.L.C.

the above is the oldest ploy in the twoofer universe...

 

[daws101]

Your above animated gif does not match this graph.



It would be fine if the supposed explosives went off simultaneously at the beginning of stage two, but that's not the case is it?

you dont need explosives for a controlled demolition.

got any more red herring bullshit arguments?

really? you're whole fucking fairy tale is based on the use of explosives ...
what now? the judy wood dustification ray?!

 

[daws101]

your issues were addressed long time ago, sorry you do not like the answer.

NIST AGREED TO FREEFALL

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

Unless you can dream up some natural way that the supporting mass can be completely removed to cause a freefall, its proof. The NIST model did not freefall. The data they used in the model is a secret! Cannot be had by foia.

NIST said they could find no explosives which may be true because you do not need materials defined as high explosives to demolish a building.

However they are guilty of academic fraud and fraud and willful intent to deceive the people in doing so.

Its already been proven they reported false data and have not changed the record which is outside this discussion.

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

 

[KokomoJojo]

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

Unless you can dream up some natural way that the supporting mass can be completely removed to cause a freefall, its proof. The NIST model did not freefall. The data they used in the model is a secret! Cannot be had by foia.

NIST said they could find no explosives which may be true because you do not need materials defined as high explosives to demolish a building.

However they are guilty of academic fraud and fraud and willful intent to deceive the people in doing so.

Its already been proven they reported false data and have not changed the record which is outside this discussion.

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

there is no NATURAL mechanism that can cause the roofline to remain predominantly flat during its descent.

NIST tried for 7 years, could not duplicate and even after all that had to tamper with the data and as a result refuse to release it to the public for public scrutiny.




Its proven you need to seek medical help.

 

[daws101]

Unless you can dream up some natural way that the supporting mass can be completely removed to cause a freefall, its proof. The NIST model did not freefall. The data they used in the model is a secret! Cannot be had by foia.

NIST said they could find no explosives which may be true because you do not need materials defined as high explosives to demolish a building.

However they are guilty of academic fraud and fraud and willful intent to deceive the people in doing so.

Its already been proven they reported false data and have not changed the record which is outside this discussion.

yes and ?
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?

there is no NATURAL mechanism that can cause the roofline to remain predominantly flat during its descent.

NIST tried for 7 years, could not duplicate and even after all that had to tamper with the data and as a result refuse to release it to the public for public scrutiny.




Its proven you need to seek medical help.

damage incurred by tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms encountered by office buildings, so again you're talking out your ass.
as to you totally false assumption of tampering there is no actual evidence proving the erroneous speculation by troofers and no legal action has been taken..

Chandler actually proves to my satisfaction that for about 2.5 seconds, the top northwest corner accelerated at the same rate as gravity would accelerate it.

The problem is how Chandler then interprets this. He believes this can only be due to controlled demolition. He thinks that NIST covered up this period of freefall with deceptive language.

Nothing of the sort. NIST measured from the very beginning of the descent of the top northwest corner to where they both stop, at the height of the 29th floor. The time it took the building to fall is 40% slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of gravity for the entire time. There's no deception here. Math is math.

The building encountered significant resistance during this time, so much so that it could offset a period of 2.5 seconds where the corner was essentially in freefall.

And NIST's explanation does allow for this period of freefall. The western core (remaining after the eastern interior has collapsed) is yanking the perimeter down behind it, and since it begins to pull apart at the seventh floor, the core has to fall about that far before it encounters significant resistance from below. As soon as it does, the building slows again and begins to crush up.

At least, that's how this layman understands it.

 

[E.L.C.]

The entire roofline started descending at zero (Time). This is where truthers say the supposed explosives went off simultaneously. Since you and every other truther thinks explosives going off equals zero resistance, please explain why, in stage one, freefall acceleration does not immediately begin?

I just got done telling you I'm not a conspiracy guy, and that I don't believe anything one way or the other. I'm only pointing things out and asking questions. So here you go calling me a truther that believes this way or that way must be how it happened and then demanding explanations. You must have the attention span of a fucking cricket!

This graph AGREES with the increased load, propagating to the remaining structure AND overloading it AFTER the interior of the structure failed. The first stage is when the remaining structure started to buckle.

Well, look who's making assertions now about what must have happened and why. Looking at the video, I would only say with (limited) confidence that Stage 1 appears to correspond to the failure of the 24 interior columns, that's it. The rest of what you said there about the graph agreeing with increased load, propagation of forces throughout the structure and intiation of buckling is pure speculation. Pretending to know all about what must have happened doesn't make it true.... clown.

The next stage is the structure globally failing.

I'll go along with that. That's the focus of the thread.... How could asymmetric fire damage (the NIST has already excluded structural damage as a contributing factor), leading to an asymmetric cascading internal structural failure, result in symmetrical free fall in Stage two for over a 100 feet as if through air?

Your problem is that you have no clue about structures and structural engineering. Your arguing abour things you know nothing about.

Hello? Earth to Gamoclown.... I never said I was a structural engineer and I'm not arguing any particular theory. I said I'm just a pointing things out and asking questions.... What the fuck is it with you man?

Found a thread while searching for Shyam Sunder's quotes.

"Aemilius", you seem to be getting the same explanation over at the Science Chat Forum from a member there that I have been giving you, but don't want to accept it.

I haven't said anything different there than I have here. The member you're referring to tried to smack me around like you, claiming to be an engineer. I called him on it when he said he didn't understand what asymmetric damage/structural failure meant and he admitted he wasn't really an engineer. So.... What? You actually expected me to take him seriously? Anyone reading his posts would have trouble with his "version" of events.... except a clown maybe.

Using the graph below:


Stage one indicates a buckling structure and totally goes against Chandler's explosives gibberish. Why? Because you and he both claim that simultaneous explosives created zero mass below by removing columns. Unfortunately for you you and Chandler, stage one in the graph shows LESS THAN FREE FALL ACCELERATION. At 0 (zero in the Time axis) is when the entire roof line starts to descend.

Here we go again with the claims bullshit and trying to lump me in with some group on one side or the other. I'm not advancing any particular theory, and I haven't made any claims. I'm just looking for a complete theory that best fits the observations and is consistent with physical principles.... clown.

Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.

Stage 2 shows a rate of descent consistent with gravitational acceleration for 8 stories, or over 100 feet.... and that's all it shows. It doesn't show buckling or anything else you said there.... clown.

So explain how you think Chandler's explanation fits what we saw that day. Explain stage one of the following graph.

I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).

 

[daws101]

Acceleration Equations Formulas Calculator Displacement Give Average Velocity Time