The Physics Of WTC 7

[daws101]

hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition

no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted

looks just like

you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox

you area top shelf idiot



Government Killing of Civilians by Gas

By Mike Holmes
August 31, 2013

One point that needs to be made, but rarely if ever mentioned, is that in the supposed rationale for US attack on Syria to avenge/prevent claimed civilian deaths by government gas attacks, the US government itself has used similar weapons openly as recently as the FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the spring of 1993.
76 men, women and children died in this senseless military style assault which used highly lethal military CS gas as a primary weapon. CS is not a nerve agent and it doesn’t in normal concentrations cause immediate death. But it is highly flammable, persistent and designed to incapacitate targets by causing massive biological reactions including inability to breathe, massive tearing in the eyes, nose bleeds, etc.
The Davidians were totally surrounded, posed no threat to others, and responded with weapons fire only after the ATF/FBI attacked with military style firearms. After the initial government assault was repelled, and after a long standoff, an impatient President Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an all-out military assault on the compound, despite the fact that the only legal justification was a single warrant for David Koresh on unproven charges. The presence of innocent group members was ignored, nor was there any planning for medical aid or fire suppression.
The rest is history. Special military tanks were used to puncture compound walls and insert large quantities of CS gas. CS gas grenades were used from military stores along with 2 metal CS pyrotechnic M651E1 shells. Other pyrotechnic devices and flammable rounds were also fired into the buildings despite known dangers of CS gas ignition and chemical changes to the CS in fires making it even more deadly.
Wikipedia has more details. The video “Rules of Engagement” makes it clear that this was a deliberate effort to kill those inside.

another classic twoofer dodge....Waco has fuck all to do with 9/11 even thought you wish it did!

 

[daws101]

a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.

yes it does. as the parts of a roof are under pressure from holding up the roof, when for what ever reason that pressure released it explodes, a collapse makes of 100's of different sounds and untrained ear like yours has a hard time telling the difference a tire blowing out and and a pistol shot (both explosions.)

just stfu and proof it never seen so much pure bullshit as you post

thanks for again showcasing you lack of education and in the teens IQ.

 

[daws101]

Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube

hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition

no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted

looks just like

you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox

How would we know there were no explosives used in the images you posted? You posted gif's with no sound and which begin at the moment the building begin collapsing and not the seconds leading up to the building collapse where explosives could be evident.

Are you always this deceptive?

He's not smart enough to be deceptive.
notice he never posts links to his shit!

 

[daws101]

Yeah, sure pal.... I suppose now you're going to claim "The Guardian" is just making all that up about you guys, is that it? Now who's acting like a paranoid conspiracy nut!

Anyway, like I said.... your problem isn't me or anyone else dodging anything. I'm just an anonymous internet guy, like you. Your real problem is that a falling body only has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy. For a falling body to go into free fall, none of that gravitational potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate. That's the way it is.... anytime it happens, anywhere it happens, and for as long as it's happens, there can be nothing below it, all the energy must be converted to kinetic energy, or the energy of motion.

You can't get around the law of falling bodies, as Shyam Sunder attempted, by sandwiching one period of free fall between two other periods of non-free fall to get an extended fall time that corresponds to a foregone conclusion.... ass breath.

So, as an outspoken supporter of the "Official Account", along with your cohorts, it's you that must do the explaining. It's should be easy.... Right? To succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies, all you have to do is explain how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process.

In this case, that means eight fucking stories of a steel frame skyscraper you shit. I wonder why everyone continues to dance around that, that controlled demolition is the only scenario that matches observations, the evidence, and is consistent with physical principles....

disregarding all the other nonsense in the post ...
as always you twoofers got it backwards you are the complaintants aka the plaintiffs it's on you to prove your accusations..you have not in 12 years done so.
instead you post a steaming pile of paranoid bullshit like the on above!

So, what....Now you're Perry Mason? The plaintiff is Isaac Newton.... nipple nuts. You're saying the official explanation is the way it happened. I'm just an anonymous internet guy, I'm not making any accusations. It's not me saying your wrong, it's just me agreeing with that Newton guy. Now, you can think whatever you like of me (and you'll probably be right) and keep up all the name calling, distraction and denial, but it doesn't show any exception to the free fall rule. If you can't do that, well.... you're screwed.

All you have to do is answer one question and I'll be on your side (as revolting a prospect as that is).... The real problem for the story you support is that a falling body only has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy. For a falling body to go into free fall, none of that gravitational potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate.

It's you that must do the explaining. It's only one question. To succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies, all you have to do is explain how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process.

Can't you answer even one question about one fact?

So, I ask you again Mr. Nipplenuts, and I strongly advise you to think carefully
before you answer and remember you're still under oath....
Can you or can you not prove that Mr. Newton is wrong?​

matter of fact he is...or to be more accurate his theory is incomplete..
that in it'self make your(chandlers) conclusions invalid..

 

[daws101]

Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

You will always have resistance from the floors, and other structure left inside.

It's not true when "truthers" say the only explanation of free fall is CD, it's the reverse, and the NIST report explains this with progressive collapse.

 

[E.L.C.]

Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

You will always have resistance from the floors, and other structure left inside.

It's not true when "truthers" say the only explanation of free fall is CD, it's the reverse, and the NIST report explains this with progressive collapse.

Oh great, here we go with more "dawsian physics 101"....

 

[KokomoJojo]

chandler picked up some new software that was far more accurate, the very beginning and ending of charts are often not reliable.

 

[E.L.C.]

Let's look at YOUR quote from another thread over at the Science Chat Forum.

You're actually trying to use my theories to show an exception to Newtons laws? What a nut! You can look at my quotes and animations all you want, but like I said, I'm just an anonymous internet guy like you. Tearing down my theories won't get you the exception to Newtons laws you're looking for (and very badly need in order for your story to work). Why not just admit you can't find one?

Let's break that down shall we?

More "Three Card Monte"? No thanks!

So you admit that a buckling column could indeed contain a period of free fall after bifurcation, but fail to apply this to a structure?! What the fuck man! This PROVES that your lack of knowledge regarding structures is in play here.

I'm not admitting anything, there's nothing for me to admit.... clown. I said it seemed "likely" and that it "may" shorten the fall time. Even if that happened, it wouldn't reach the ground at the same time as the control on the right. Anyway, you keep trying to focus on me as if maybe one of my ideas will prove Newton wrong.... Focussing on me won't help you. It doesn't matter what either of us say. It's about what Newton said. Answer the question....

How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?

So which will it be.... Newtonian physics on the left, or dawsian physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys suck!

 

[Gamolon]

How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?

And this is where you're wrong dumbass.

What was providing the resistance below? Show me YOUR calculations and drawings that prove that the eight floors worth of REMAINING/DAMAGED structure could provide enough resistance to slow the load of the remaining upper structure.

Can you? Is this why, after 12 years not one single architect or engineer has been able to provide this proof?

The problem is your lack of structural knowledge. You are trying to debate something regarding a subject that you have know working knowledge of.

Do you understand that a structure is comprised of many components to function as a WHOLE, as one unit? Do you understand that when you weaken/damage/fail certain parts of said structure, the structure as a WHOLE (as it was designed) is now comprised and cannot FUNCTION as it was designed?

If you start removing components, the the load on the remaining components increases. There then becomes a point in time were the REMAINING structure will reach a point of ZERO RESISTANCE. You're too stupid to figure that out though.

Explain something to me.

What caused the ENTIRE roofline to start it's descent as shown in both NIST's and Chandler's graph? There is a point BEFORE the freefall that the entire roofline is moving downward at less than freefall. What caused that?

Are you afraid to answer that for some reason?

 

[Gamolon]

How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?

So which will it be.... Newtonian physics on the left, or dawsian physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys suck!

Tell you what E.L.C. Let's see if you're smart enough to answer this question.

Which part of your animated gif does Chandler's graph match better? Show me which "block" representation shows the very first part of his graph which shows LESS THAN FREEFALL.


You do realize that the "Vy" points in his graph represent the corner of the roof right?

 

[daws101]

Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

You will always have resistance from the floors, and other structure left inside.

It's not true when "truthers" say the only explanation of free fall is CD, it's the reverse, and the NIST report explains this with progressive collapse.

Oh great, here we go with more "dawsian physics 101"....

golly that was underwhelming

 

[KokomoJojo]

How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?

So which will it be.... Newtonian physics on the left, or dawsian physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys suck!

Tell you what E.L.C. Let's see if you're smart enough to answer this question.

Which part of your animated gif does Chandler's graph match better? Show me which "block" representation shows the very first part of his graph which shows LESS THAN FREEFALL.


You do realize that the "Vy" points in his graph represent the corner of the roof right?

well if that is such a stumbling block for your simple mind why dont you use his new version?

it shows there is no stage one which matches what we see above, no stage one, nist fudged the data.

ELC still has you by the short hairs

 

[E.L.C.]

How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?

And this is where you're wrong dumbass.

Well, the answer to a question would be right or wrong, not the question itself.... dumbass. Since there was no answer to the question, it simply remains an unanswered question.

What was providing the resistance below? Show me YOUR calculations and drawings that prove that the eight floors worth of REMAINING/DAMAGED structure could provide enough resistance to slow the load of the remaining upper structure.

See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... F (force) = M (mass) x a (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process, and you, using your single brain cell, respond by demanding I provide calculatons verifying Newton's conclusions! The only way free fall can occur is if there's no mass in the way offering resistance, and there can be no mass in the way for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs or the fall time will not be the same as a free fall time where there is no mass in the way. That's what Isaac Newton said.... not me. You're insisting that despite there being mass in the way (eight stories of a steel frame building), that some peculiar never before seen process of progressive structural failure briefly created conditions that somehow allowed the visible upper portion of the building to fall as if through air for over a hundred feet. You are in disagreement with Isaac Newton on that, and it is therefore up to you to prove an exception.... not me.

Can you? Is this why, after 12 years not one single architect or engineer has been able to provide this proof?

It's not rocket science (well, maybe to you it is). The building collapsed. There was mass in the way. It went into free fall. Hence.... The mass in the way must have been removed by some external force because there's no other way free fall can occur. Google "Isaac Newton" if you don't believe it or can't understand it. Any equation I or any one else does, or has done, or can do to "prove" it would only be a restatement of Newtons well known observation.... F = M x a.

The problem is your lack of structural knowledge. You are trying to debate something regarding a subject that you have know working knowledge of.

I know, I understand nothing and you understand everything. I'm an asshole and a liar, I'm a coward and a thief, I'm a (now confirmed) twoofer, I don't brush my teeth often enough, I sniffed my finger once after scatching my ass, I peeked through the bathroom door keyhole when I was a kid and saw my (really hot) Aunt Hazel naked, etc., etc. Whatever man. I've already heard all that. Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.... clown.

Do you understand that a structure is comprised of many components to function as a WHOLE, as one unit?

No, I thought it was all made of styrofoam.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.

Do you understand that when you weaken/damage/fail certain parts of said structure, the structure as a WHOLE (as it was designed) is now comprised and cannot FUNCTION as it was designed?

No, I thought weakening structures became stonger as they got weaker, and weaker as they got stronger.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.

If you start removing components, the the load on the remaining components increases. There then becomes a point in time were the REMAINING structure will reach a point of ZERO RESISTANCE. You're too stupid to figure that out though.

On the way to any point of zero resistance in any progressive structural failure, the failing component will still be resisting the load as it fails, it doesn't just go from 100 percent to 0 percent (unless one uses dawsian physics). As the severity of the failure continues to increase over time, the component will resist the load less and less, but no progressive structural failure can have the same fall time as an object falling through air.... clown.

What caused the ENTIRE roofline to start it's descent as shown in both NIST's and Chandler's graph?

I don't know.... What do you think? Maybe Roy Rogers used his lasso on it, maybe Superman was banging Lois Lane in the basement and got a little excited.... Or maybe it took a moment for timed explosives going off in rapid succesion to completely remove the supporting structure. I kind of like the Superman scenario.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.

There is a point BEFORE the freefall that the entire roofline is moving downward at less than freefall. What caused that?

Maybe Superman wasn't quite finished yet and just kind of held up the building until he was, then he grabbed Lois and flew away so fast nobody saw them. Yeah, I think that's how it went down man.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.

Are you afraid to answer that for some reason?

Well, at the very top of your last post you quoted the question I've been asking right from the start before launching into a bunch of horse shit and focussing on me instead of the topic again.... Looks like you're afraid to answer that for some reason.... clown.

 

[E.L.C.]

....it shows there is no stage one which matches what we see above, no stage one, nist fudged the data.

Yeah, they call it "dry labbing".... it's when you take a foregone conclusion and construct a theory to fit. It's the kind of thing perpetual motion inventors do (with about the same chance of success, zero). In this case you sandwich the unacceptable free fall time of the building between two other non-free fall times to get an average/total time that corresponds to what you already had in mind. "Three Card Monte" Gamolonian physics.

 

[E.L.C.]

 

[Gamolon]

See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... F (force) = M (mass) x a (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process,

There was no resistance idiot! That's what I'm trying to explain to you! Your lack of structural design knowledge is what's fucking up your comprehension of what happened.

The "structural resistance" you keep blathering about that needed to be "overcome" in order for the upper remaining structure to go into freefall acceleration was not there. It was overcome in the FIRST PART OF THE GRAPH from both NIST and Chandler you moron! It's been explained to you countless times, but you're too stupid to understand.

The beginning of each graph shows the roofline staring to descend at LESS THAN FREEFALL which indicated the DAMAGED/WEAKENED structure below is FAILING. Then there comes the point in the graph where the load becomes too much for the FAILING structure below to hold up at all and enters freefall acceleration.

JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!



Now I'm going to ask you, yet again.

What started the LESS THAN FREEFALL descent shown at the very beginning of NIST's and Chandler's graph? See how that works? The ENTIRE roofline was in a downward motion PRIOR to the freefall period you keep squawking about.

BTW, what happened to this:

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).

Oh yeah, you "pussied" out:

I don't need to come up with any explanation and it probably wouldn't make any difference even if I did.

Typical truther bullshit.

I know you and your cohorts would all rather focus on me, it makes it much, much easier to avoid the astoundingly simple science involved.

You're the one claiming you have a "pet theory" asshole, not me. I love how you said you'd provide an explanation on how you think it happened then turn around and run with your tail between your legs. THEN you claim we're focusing on you and shouldn't be. What a fucking headcase! We focus on you because you're the one with the damn comprehension problem. You keep spouting off about Newton/freefall, but ignore the explanation.

Your (and Koko's) problem is that you are afraid to explain how the initial, less than freefall descent of the roofline began BEFORE the freefall period. This simple event throws a LOAD of problems into your idiotic claims. Koko just runs around in circles and posts gifs instead of debating. You make claims and then run.

 

[Gamolon]

the very beginning and ending of charts are often not reliable.

Only because it ruins your beliefs moron!

Between your completely fucked up "fizix" problem showing you don't understand units of measurement, your claim that movies and live TV are both pre-recorded, your claim that the plane wing went BEHIND a building in the video when you had the WRONG location of the building, and countless other fuckups, it's no wonder everyone thinks your an idiot.

 

[Gamolon]

You're insisting that despite there being mass in the way (eight stories of a steel frame building),

WRRRRONNNGGGGG!!!!!

The eight stories already started to fail PRIOR to the freefall period. The REAMING structure's integrity was ALREADY comprimes when the the penthouse and internal structure collapsed earlier.

Think about this asshole. What was left of the structure AFTER the east penthouse collapsed? How did it damage the reaming structure? What loads were present on the remaining structure? What was the perimeter facade designed to support?

Once again, just for you.

Both graphs (NIST and Chandler) show that what remained of the structure AFTER the east penthouse collapsed, started to descend DOWNWARD at lees than freefall. I'll post both graphs again if you need me to. That shows the ENTIRE lower structure beginning to fail and why the ENTIRE roofline started to move downward.

It couldn't have been explosives because the truther mantra states the simultaneous explosives would cause freefall. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN did it. This is why Koko tries so hard to now show that "the beginning of a graph" is unreliable. Because it nlows hia claims out of the water.

 

[SAYIT]

See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... F (force) = M (mass) x a (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process,

There was no resistance idiot! That's what I'm trying to explain to you! Your lack of structural design knowledge is what's fucking up your comprehension of what happened.

The "structural resistance" you keep blathering about that needed to be "overcome" in order for the upper remaining structure to go into freefall acceleration was not there. It was overcome in the FIRST PART OF THE GRAPH from both NIST and Chandler you moron! It's been explained to you countless times, but you're too stupid to understand.

The beginning of each graph shows the roofline staring to descend at LESS THAN FREEFALL which indicated the DAMAGED/WEAKENED structure below is FAILING. Then there comes the point in the graph where the load becomes too much for the FAILING structure below to hold up at all and enters freefall acceleration.

JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!



Now I'm going to ask you, yet again.

What started the LESS THAN FREEFALL descent shown at the very beginning of NIST's and Chandler's graph? See how that works? The ENTIRE roofline was in a downward motion PRIOR to the freefall period you keep squawking about.

BTW, what happened to this:

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).

Oh yeah, you "pussied" out:

I don't need to come up with any explanation and it probably wouldn't make any difference even if I did.

Typical truther bullshit.

I know you and your cohorts would all rather focus on me, it makes it much, much easier to avoid the astoundingly simple science involved.

You're the one claiming you have a "pet theory" asshole, not me. I love how you said you'd provide an explanation on how you think it happened then turn around and run with your tail between your legs. THEN you claim we're focusing on you and shouldn't be. What a fucking headcase! We focus on you because you're the one with the damn comprehension problem. You keep spouting off about Newton/freefall, but ignore the explanation.

Your (and Koko's) problem is that you are afraid to explain how the initial, less than freefall descent of the roofline began BEFORE the freefall period. This simple event throws a LOAD of problems into your idiotic claims. Koko just runs around in circles and posts gifs instead of debating. You make claims and then run.

By now it should be clear that KooKoo is just a curmudgeon lookin' for a fight and getting bitch-slapped just turns him on. ELC has been to the med cabinet once too often and can no longer be trusted to operate heavy equipment or empty his own diaper.

 

[Rockland]

"I don't need to explain jack shit" is the standard twoofer reply when they're backed into a corner. Of course, they demand explanations over and over again from us, so they can reject them.