The Physics Of WTC 7

[daws101]

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

love it when you rationalize!
none of your replies answers the basic questions.

these two are classic rationalizations:damage incurred by tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms

rationalization #1: "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."-KOKO7

Says the local asshelmet-KOKO7

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."

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

love it when you rationalize!
none of your replies answers the basic questions.

providing arguments from NIST that contradict the unresearched shit mess you posted is in fact an answer despite your fantasizing it is not.

 

[daws101]

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

love it when you rationalize!
none of your replies answers the basic questions.

providing arguments from NIST that contradict the unresearched shit mess you posted is in fact an answer despite your fantasizing it is not.

funny because you provide no researched anything except for your pic and gif's.
you've provided no arguments from nist.
what you have provided is specious speculation from non credible sources...that you, in your complete fucking ignorance and in the teens IQ wish were fact..
why is it in 12 years have you tin asshats have produced nothing that was not proven to be false?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[KokomoJojo]

hows that workin out for ya?

 

[KokomoJojo]

love it when you rationalize!
none of your replies answers the basic questions.

providing arguments from NIST that contradict the unresearched shit mess you posted is in fact an answer despite your fantasizing it is not.

funny because you provide no researched anything except for your pic and gif's.
you've provided no arguments from nist.
what you have provided is specious speculation from non credible sources...that you, in your complete fucking ignorance and in the teens IQ wish were fact..
why is it in 12 years have you tin asshats have produced nothing that was not proven to be false?

that is incontrovertibly proven since no one can refute it.

 

[daws101]

providing arguments from NIST that contradict the unresearched shit mess you posted is in fact an answer despite your fantasizing it is not.

funny because you provide no researched anything except for your pic and gif's.
you've provided no arguments from nist.
what you have provided is specious speculation from non credible sources...that you, in your complete fucking ignorance and in the teens IQ wish were fact..
why is it in 12 years have you tin asshats have produced nothing that was not proven to be false?

that is incontrovertibly proven since no one can refute it.

only in your delusions! .the only things you've proven incontrovertibly are your denial of fact , your complete fucking ignorance and specious speculation from non credible sources.
everything toofers have ever claimed has been refuted...

 

[KokomoJojo]

funny because you provide no researched anything except for your pic and gif's.
you've provided no arguments from nist.
what you have provided is specious speculation from non credible sources...that you, in your complete fucking ignorance and in the teens IQ wish were fact..
why is it in 12 years have you tin asshats have produced nothing that was not proven to be false?

that is incontrovertibly proven since no one can refute it.

only in your delusions! .the only things you've proven incontrovertibly are your denial of fact , your complete fucking ignorance and specious speculation from non credible sources.
everything toofers have ever claimed has been refuted...

Bragging about yourself again. You aint even half that.
TROLL

 

[daws101]

that is incontrovertibly proven since no one can refute it.

only in your delusions! .the only things you've proven incontrovertibly are your denial of fact , your complete fucking ignorance and specious speculation from non credible sources.
everything toofers have ever claimed has been refuted...

Bragging about yourself again. You aint even half that.
TROLL

I DON'T NEED TO BRAG on the other hand you seem to have an obession with it!
did'nt you say some shit about being known for kicking ass or was that kissing ass?
either way that's braggadocio at it finest..

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[KokomoJojo]

only in your delusions! .the only things you've proven incontrovertibly are your denial of fact , your complete fucking ignorance and specious speculation from non credible sources.
everything toofers have ever claimed has been refuted...

Bragging about yourself again. You aint even half that.
TROLL

[/QUOTE I DON'T NEED TO BRAG one the other hand you seem to have an obession with it!
did'nt you say some shit about being known for kicking ass or was that kissing ass?
either way that's braggadocio at it finest..

 

[SAYIT]

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.

But fully 12 years after the attack no evidence has been found to support the explosives CT and none of the cast of thousands required to plant and cover-up a controlled demo has come forward.
The conclusion?
Clinging desperately to your CT may somehow satisfy you but illuminates just how sophomoric (or just batshit loony) you really are.

 

[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.

Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...

Still waiting...

 

[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.

Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...

Still waiting...

from what he said in one of his initial posts, frankly I'd be surprised if he will suffer the level of tardation you and your trolls have demonstrated.

He made his point and hand you your ass, cant change that now.

 

[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.

But fully 12 years after the attack no evidence has been found to support the explosives CT and none of the cast of thousands required to plant and cover-up a controlled demo has come forward.
The conclusion?
Clinging desperately to your CT may somehow satisfy you but illuminates just how sophomoric (or just batshit loony) you really are.

So you have the detailed explosive test reports, awesome! cite it.

 

[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.

Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...

Still waiting...

Makes me wonder how E.L.C. will explain the ENTIRE roofline dropping at the same time at the start of Stage 1 in the graph. What mechanism will he apply? Explosives maybe? But explosives would have created free fall at the onset of Stage 1, not at Stage 2.

Or maybe E.L.C. is insinuating that explosives on all 8 floors, on all columns, were simultaneously set off at the beginning of Stage 2 to start the free fall. But how does one explain the entire roofline/building coming down as a whole at the beginning of Stage 1?

What a conundrum for E.L.C.!

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...

Still waiting...

Makes me wonder how E.L.C. will explain the ENTIRE roofline dropping at the same time at the start of Stage 1 in the graph. What mechanism will he apply? Explosives maybe? But explosives would have created free fall at the onset of Stage 1, not at Stage 2.

Or maybe E.L.C. is insinuating that explosives on all 8 floors, on all columns, were simultaneously set off at the beginning of Stage 2 to start the free fall. But how does one explain the entire roofline/building coming down as a whole at the beginning of Stage 1?

What a conundrum for E.L.C.!

Really? I dont recall seeing the entire roofline dropping, just a kink in the middle, how much did it drop, got a clip?

 

[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.

Looks like E.L.C.'s description above matches the 3 stage graph AND visual evidence. No explosives needed!

 

[SAYIT]

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

But fully 12 years after the attack no evidence has been found to support the explosives CT and none of the cast of thousands required to plant and cover-up a controlled demo has come forward.
The conclusion?
Clinging desperately to your CT may somehow satisfy you but illuminates just how sophomoric (or just batshit loony) you really are.

So you have the detailed explosive test reports, awesome! cite it.

I'm not the one promoting your CT, Princess. NIST carefully and fully examined the remains of those buildings and found no evidence of explosives, blast damage, or controlled demo activities. What studies do you have to support your theory?

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

8. Why didn’t NIST consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
•the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
•the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

 

[SAYIT]

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...

I'm thinking he's a 15 yr old troll in desperate need of some attention. He has no answers but instead a wide array of snarky responses at his fingertips.