The Physics Of WTC 7

[Rat in the Hat]

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

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

In the Truther World of Woo, it's known as JAQing off.


And they do it way too frequently.

 

[Gamolon]

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!

Really? Then why are you not questioning what Chandler is coming up with? All your debating is about how NIST is wrong. You keep pushing Chandler's garbage that there must have been explosives in the mix when there is NO PROOF whatsoever of explosives.

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.

Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?

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.

Listen fuckstick. My explanation agrees with Stage 1 and 2 of that graph. Chandler's explanation of explosives having to have been used is proven WRONG by that graph.

I'll go along with that. That's the focus of the thread.... How could asymmetric fire damage, 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?

Because a load does not sit in one area dumbass. If you fail some internal columns, as evident of the east penthouse collapsing inward, that load is now applied to the remaining structure. The WEAKENED structure. The remaining columns and facade are straining, as a whole, to stay erect.

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?

Read my quote again. I never said you were a structural engineer. READING COMPREHENSION. I said you are arguing things you have no clue about. That much is blatantly obvious.

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.

And you're NOT an engineer per your own admission. Do you expect me to take your questions regarding things of a structural nature seriously? Especially when it's explained to you and STILL don't get it?

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.

Not advancing any particular theory?! Show me where you've advanced any OTHER theory other than Chandler's.

Chandler's explanation is proven wrong by the graph. What an asshole you are! Let's try this again. Zero on the Time axis of Stage 1 is the ROOFLINE BEGINNING TO DESCEND. That 's when the explosives went off. Freefall acceleration should have begun right then and there. Not at Stage 2.

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, explosives, or anything else you said there.... clown.[/quote]

And what does Stage 1 show moron?

I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall could occur without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce animations that describe them (probably this evening).

Can't wait to see this crap...

 

[KokomoJojo]

Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?

Listen fuckstick. My explanation agrees with Stage 1 and 2 of that graph. Chandler's explanation of explosives having to have been used is proven WRONG by that graph.

Not wrong dumbass!

here is a known demolition, went down in 3 stages




Its crystal clear WTC7 was a demolition!






keep up the good work!


your looking good!

fucking dead brain armchair demolition expert.

 

[E.L.C.]

Hey Gamoclown.... Stage 2 is the focus of the thread.

No other Stages need to be considered because nothing, and no number of "Stages" leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown. So trying to muddy the water by endlessly bringing up other "Stages" to explain how the building went into free fall as if through fucking air is ridiculous.... just like you. It wouldn't matter if free fall occurred during Stage 1, 2, 3 or 602, it would be just as challenging to account for it.... ass eyes.

This isn't some kind of "Three Card Monte" where you can just lead people around by the nose to the conclusion you like by endlessly confusing the issue with "stages" that have no impact on the rules that govern falling objects.

Take that shit to the sidewalk outside WALMART!

]

 

[Faun]

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.

What a pity you have to lie in order to maintain your charade.

There is no such video containing any explosions which took out WTC7. That you claim there is, is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.

The video you posted timed the sounds they claimed were from explosions to the second. The sounds they claimed were explosions began at almost 7 seconds prior to the building collapsing. But we know that it was at about 7 seconds prior to the entire building collapsing when catastrophic structural failure began with the east penthouse caving into the building.

It was at that point, the video claims, the sounds of a series of explosions began, lasting for 2 to 3 seconds. Meaning the sounds heard were not from explosives being intentionally detonated; but from the sound of a portion of the roof crashing through floor after floor.

The video YOU posted proves this conclusively. So for you to now post that the video captured the sounds of the explosions which took the building down is nothing short of a lie borne from desperation of a loser who has failed miserably to convince anyone he's anything other than a delusionsl psychopath.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.

What a pity you have to lie in order to maintain your charade.

There is no such video containing any explosions which took out WTC7. That you claim there is, is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.

The video you posted timed the sounds they claimed were from explosions to the second. The sounds they claimed were explosions began at almost 7 seconds prior to the building collapsing. But we know that it was at about 7 seconds prior to the entire building collapsing when catastrophic structural failure began with the east penthouse caving into the building.

It was at that point, the video claims, the sounds of a series of explosions began, lasting for 2 to 3 seconds. Meaning the sounds heard were not from explosives being intentionally detonated; but from the sound of a portion of the roof crashing through floor after floor.

The video YOU posted proves this conclusively. So for you to now post that the video captured the sounds of the explosions which took the building down is nothing short of a lie borne from desperation of a loser who has failed miserably to convince anyone he's anything other than a delusionsl psychopath.

​

 

[Gamolon]

Hey Gamoclown.... Stage 2 is the focus of the thread.

I'll make this real easy for you moron.

At what point did the supposed simultaneous explosives go off in that graph to start the descent of the entire roofline? Your boy Chandler says it was explosives right?

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....

Why yes he did!

 

[Faun]

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.

What a pity you have to lie in order to maintain your charade.

There is no such video containing any explosions which took out WTC7. That you claim there is, is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.

The video you posted timed the sounds they claimed were from explosions to the second. The sounds they claimed were explosions began at almost 7 seconds prior to the building collapsing. But we know that it was at about 7 seconds prior to the entire building collapsing when catastrophic structural failure began with the east penthouse caving into the building.

It was at that point, the video claims, the sounds of a series of explosions began, lasting for 2 to 3 seconds. Meaning the sounds heard were not from explosives being intentionally detonated; but from the sound of a portion of the roof crashing through floor after floor.

The video YOU posted proves this conclusively. So for you to now post that the video captured the sounds of the explosions which took the building down is nothing short of a lie borne from desperation of a loser who has failed miserably to convince anyone he's anything other than a delusionsl psychopath.

​

You know that does nothing to redeem you as the liar you have proven yourself to be, don't you? All it does is expose your lack of a defense to the complete and utter bullshit you're trying so hard to sell.

 

[Gamolon]

explain how the building went into free fall as if through fucking air is ridiculous

Explain this then asshole.

I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.

How? How could you see the building going into free fall for a few feet without explosives. There's mass below right?

Do you even remember what you post?

 

[Gamolon]

No other Stages need to be considered because nothing, and no number of "Stages" leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.

Sure it does you oaf.

The increased load on the remaining (remember the east penthouse with the columns and floors below it), weakened structure started the lower remaining, weakened structure to buckle. Hence stage one of the graph and the less than free fall acceleration descent of the ENTIRE ROOFLINE

At the beginning of stage 2, the load became too much for the lower, weakened, buckling structure to keep upright and failed completely resulting in free fall.

The fact that you don't get anything regarding structural engineering or loads is making you look stupid.

Now, as far as your assertion that Chandler is correct and explosives were used to create free fall, the graph proves him wrong. At the start of stage 1 is where the ENTIRE ROOFLINE begins do descend as a whole. That's where the supposed explosives went off.

Or are you suggesting the the ENTIRE BUILDING started to descend as a whole and after 1.75 seconds they then set of the simultaneous explosives? If that's the case, explain how the entire building started to descend as a whole.

I'll wait here while you run around in circles.

 

[Gamolon]

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).

Again, I can't WAIT for this!!!!

Over 12 years and NONE of the truthers (including engineers and architects) have dare come up with something to explain how explosives could have been used to match the physical properties of the WTC7 collapse.

 

[Gamolon]

No other Stages need to be considered because nothing, and no number of "Stages" leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.

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

]Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling, and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall. It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building. Though a faster fall time may result from this form of structural failure, the rest of the intervening mass should not allow for free fall.... I think most would agree that if free fall occurred in the scenario (below) it wouldn't be consistent with physical principles.

Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH

Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling,

STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH

and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall.

STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building.

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.

 

[SAYIT]

No other Stages need to be considered because nothing, and no number of "Stages" leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.

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

]Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling, and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall. It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building. Though a faster fall time may result from this form of structural failure, the rest of the intervening mass should not allow for free fall.... I think most would agree that if free fall occurred in the scenario (below) it wouldn't be consistent with physical principles.

Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH

and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall.

STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building.

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.

Either that or his lack of integrity.

 

[KokomoJojo]

No other Stages need to be considered because nothing, and no number of "Stages" leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.

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

]Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling, and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall. It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building. Though a faster fall time may result from this form of structural failure, the rest of the intervening mass should not allow for free fall.... I think most would agree that if free fall occurred in the scenario (below) it wouldn't be consistent with physical principles.

Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH

and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall.

STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building.

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.

hey clownee first the purpose of explosives is to bifurcate columns and a bifurcated column (past tense) (which is what explosives [and other methods] just happen to do aka *a mechanism* being necessary to cause a stage 2 event as seen) which causes no support capability what so ever you tard.

natural structural buckling cannot occur at freefall speeds [AS NIST HAS PROVEN IN THEIR MODEL] except in clownian dawsian faunian and insaynian TROLL physics.

you are going around in your usual circles chasing your tail and have shown nothing that contradicts what ELC has stated.

Since there is no legitimate point to be had from your argument I am ready to call TROLL

 

[KokomoJojo]

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).

Again, I can't WAIT for this!!!!

Over 12 years and NONE of the truthers (including engineers and architects) have dare come up with something to explain how explosives could have been used to match the physical properties of the WTC7 collapse.

not to you of course, or your troll sacks, its pretty obvious it was not conventional explosives and I suppose you fucking technology neanderthals plan on pounding a square peg in a round hole by interpreting the word explosives to your narrow neanderthal meaning to create a fictitious argument with no merit.

How and what type of mechanism used is completely irrelevant, the FACT remains that a mechanism had to be used to obtain the recorded results.












You are looking more like a fucking troll every post.

Face it pal you had yo ass handed to you in the freefall argument,
ELC (and newton) chewed you up and spit you out the exhaust long ago!

I bet you are praying that you can move on to the mechanism that caused the stage 2 event so you dont have listen to how fucked up your fizix is.

 

[Gamolon]

Either that or his lack of integrity.

It's looking like both. If he can admit that bifurcation can possibly occur after buckling and produce a period of free fall, but not apply this thinking to a structure, he looks like a fool.

He claims he doesn't push one theory more than another, but he's going to explain his "pet theory using explosives". Yeah, he's NOT a truther...

 

[KokomoJojo]

Either that or his lack of integrity.

It's looking like both. If he can admit that bifurcation can possibly occur after buckling and produce a period of free fall, but not apply this thinking to a structure, he looks like a fool.

He claims he doesn't push one theory more than another, but he's going to explain his "pet theory using explosives". Yeah, he's NOT a truther...

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.

Hey ricky retardo, last time I checked buildings have more than one column dumb ass!

You are the one who is not applying anything to the "structure" one column ass twit not him!

yeh tell us how it applies to the whole building! NEVER FUCKING GONNA HAPPEN!





reality is a bitch

 

[KokomoJojo]

How could you see the building going into free fall for a few feet without explosives. There's mass below right?

So you agree then that it can only happen with some sort of mechanism like explosives for instance.

 

[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.?

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.

damage incurred by tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms

fire occurs in nature without the help of man hence it is a NATURAL mechanism retard

encountered by office buildings, so again you're talking out your ass.

Says the local asshelmet

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.

Legal action is not the next step.

Chandler actually proves to my satisfaction that for about 2.5 ~(2.25) seconds, the top northwest corner accelerated at the same rate as gravity would accelerate it.


The problem is how Chandler then interprets this.

The same way NIST did

He believes this can only be due to controlled demolition. He thinks that NIST covered up this period of freefall with deceptive language.

NIST didnt cover it up, they presented it in a manner to create a false impression that only people who have extensive exposure to physics would see the deceit and that is fraud and yes it is a cause of action.

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.

AND NIST IN THEIR CORRECTED VERSION AGREE WITH 2.25

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.

They are referring to the lab model time not the real building.
DRY LAB FRAUD

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.

so you think the whole roof of the real building was not in freefall despite the fact NIST said it was?



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.

So you think that a steel frame building can crush up do ya? Cite it!

At least, that's how this layman understands it

very lay

 

[daws101]

Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?

Listen fuckstick. My explanation agrees with Stage 1 and 2 of that graph. Chandler's explanation of explosives having to have been used is proven WRONG by that graph.

Not wrong dumbass!

here is a known demolition, went down in 3 stages




Its crystal clear WTC7 was a demolition!




keep up the good work!


your looking good!

[I.