The Physics Of WTC 7

[KokomoJojo]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

even after you handed clownee tard his freefall ass over 50 times he called you a coward because you didnt waste your time handing it to him yet 50 more.

apparently dork thinks copy pasting the whole wiki page will help clownee better than you, even though you already simplified it as much as possible complete with motion pictorials that clownee wasnt even able to grasp.

I am LMAO.

 

[KokomoJojo]

uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
This is the "textbook" case of the vertical motion of an object falling a small distance close to the surface of a planet. It is a good approximation in air as long as the force of gravity on the object is much greater than the force of air resistance, or equivalently the object's velocity is always much less than the terminal velocity (see below).
Free-fall
v(t)=-gt+v_{0}\,
y(t)=-\frac{1}{2}gt^2+v_{0}t+y_0
where
v_{0}\, is the initial velocity (m/s).
v(t)\, is the vertical velocity with respect to time (m/s).
y_0\, is the initial altitude (m).
y(t)\, is the altitude with respect to time (m).
t\, is time elapsed (s).
g\, is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 near the surface of the earth).
Uniform gravitational field with air resistance[edit]


Acceleration of a small meteoroid when entering the Earth's atmosphere at different initial velocities.
This case, which applies to skydivers, parachutists or any body of mass, m, and cross-sectional area, A, with Reynolds number well above the critical Reynolds number, so that the air resistance is proportional to the square of the fall velocity, v, has an equation of motion
m\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{1}{2} \rho C_{\mathrm{D}} A v^2 - mg \, ,
where \rho is the air density and C_{\mathrm{D}} is the drag coefficient, assumed to be constant although in general it will depend on the Reynolds number.
Assuming an object falling from rest and no change in air density with altitude, the solution is:
v(t) = -v_{\infty} \tanh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right),
where the terminal speed is given by
v_{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho C_D A}} \, .
The object's speed versus time can be integrated over time to find the vertical position as a function of time:
y = y_0 - \frac{v_{\infty}^2}{g} \ln \cosh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right).
Using the figure of 450 metres to reach terminal speed, this equation implies a free-fall time to terminal velocity of around 12 seconds. However, when the air density cannot be assumed to be constant, such as for objects or skydivers falling from high altitude, the equation of motion becomes much more difficult to solve analytically and a numerical simulation of the motion is usually necessary. The figure shows the forces acting on meteoroids falling through the Earth's upper atmosphere. HALO jumps, including Joe Kittinger's and Felix Baumgartner's record jumps (see below), and the planned Le Grand Saut, also belong in this category.[2]
Inverse-square law gravitational field[edit]
It can be said that two objects in space orbiting each other in the absence of other forces are in free fall around each other, e.g. that the Moon or an artificial satellite "falls around" the Earth, or a planet "falls around" the Sun. Assuming spherical objects means that the equation of motion is governed by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, with solutions to the gravitational two-body problem being elliptic orbits obeying Kepler's laws of planetary motion. This connection between falling objects close to the Earth and orbiting objects is best illustrated by the thought experiment Newton's cannonball.
The motion of two objects moving radially towards each other with no angular momentum can be considered a special case of an elliptical orbit of eccentricity e = 1 (radial elliptic trajectory). This allows one to compute the free-fall time for two point objects on a radial path. The solution of this equation of motion yields time as a function of separation:
t(y)= \sqrt{ \frac{ {y_0}^3 }{2\mu} } \left(\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}\left(1-\frac{y}{y_0}\right)} + \arccos{\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}}}
\right)
where
t is the time after the start of the fall
y is the distance between the centers of the bodies
y0 is the initial value of y
μ = G(m1 + m2) is the standard gravitational parameter.
Substituting y=0 we get the free-fall time.
The separation as a function of time is given by the inverse of the equation. The inverse is represented exactly by the analytic power series:
y( t ) = \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty }
\left[
\lim_{ r \to 0 } \left(
{\frac{ x^{ n }}{ n! }}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^{\,n-1}}{\mathrm{ d } r ^{\,n-1}} \left[
r^n \left( \frac{ 7 }{ 2 } ( \arcsin( \sqrt{ r } ) - \sqrt{ r - r^2 } )
\right)^{ - \frac{2}{3} n }
\right] \right)
\right]
Evaluating this yields:
y(t)=y_0 \left( x - \frac{1}{5} x^2 - \frac{3}{175}x^3
- \frac{23}{7875}x^4 - \frac{1894}{3931875}x^5 - \frac{3293}{21896875}x^6 - \frac{2418092}{62077640625}x^7 - \cdots \right) \
where
x = \left[\frac{3}{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2}- t \sqrt{ \frac{2\mu}{ {y_0}^3 } } \right) \right]^{2/3}
For details of these solutions see "From Moon-fall to solutions under inverse square laws" by Foong, S. K., in European Journal of Physics, v29, 987-1003 (2008) and "Radial motion of Two mutually attracting particles", by Mungan, C. E., in The Physics Teacher, v47, 502-507 (2009).

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See what I mean? They're not really here to discuss anything. It's really more about deception, distraction and denial.

rightwinger already covered the pertinent formula for this scenario....

F= M x a

All you need to know. Thanks Dr Newton

You see that? It's not.... F= M x a except under certain conditions when there just happen to be a few multi-ton steel columns and a bunch of other stuff in the way that magically permits eight stories of a steel frame building to suddenly behave like air....

It's just F = M x a​

Yep they try to invent something that appears plausible to anyone who does not have their physics down pat.

you can go on any debunker website and literally rip their asses to shreds not on one but every topic.

I was surprised to see you back LOL

 

[E.L.C.]

Yep they try to invent something that appears plausible to anyone who does not have their physics down pat.

Yeah, and the explanations they invent have about the same chance of success as something like this....

 

[daws101]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

another classic example of CTparanoia..
make the most improbable assumptions and accusations to dodge the gaping holes in the conspiracy theory!

 

[daws101]

uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
This is the "textbook" case of the vertical motion of an object falling a small distance close to the surface of a planet. It is a good approximation in air as long as the force of gravity on the object is much greater than the force of air resistance, or equivalently the object's velocity is always much less than the terminal velocity (see below).
Free-fall
v(t)=-gt+v_{0}\,
y(t)=-\frac{1}{2}gt^2+v_{0}t+y_0
where
v_{0}\, is the initial velocity (m/s).
v(t)\, is the vertical velocity with respect to time (m/s).
y_0\, is the initial altitude (m).
y(t)\, is the altitude with respect to time (m).
t\, is time elapsed (s).
g\, is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 near the surface of the earth).
Uniform gravitational field with air resistance[edit]


Acceleration of a small meteoroid when entering the Earth's atmosphere at different initial velocities.
This case, which applies to skydivers, parachutists or any body of mass, m, and cross-sectional area, A, with Reynolds number well above the critical Reynolds number, so that the air resistance is proportional to the square of the fall velocity, v, has an equation of motion
m\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{1}{2} \rho C_{\mathrm{D}} A v^2 - mg \, ,
where \rho is the air density and C_{\mathrm{D}} is the drag coefficient, assumed to be constant although in general it will depend on the Reynolds number.
Assuming an object falling from rest and no change in air density with altitude, the solution is:
v(t) = -v_{\infty} \tanh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right),
where the terminal speed is given by
v_{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho C_D A}} \, .
The object's speed versus time can be integrated over time to find the vertical position as a function of time:
y = y_0 - \frac{v_{\infty}^2}{g} \ln \cosh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right).
Using the figure of 450 metres to reach terminal speed, this equation implies a free-fall time to terminal velocity of around 12 seconds. However, when the air density cannot be assumed to be constant, such as for objects or skydivers falling from high altitude, the equation of motion becomes much more difficult to solve analytically and a numerical simulation of the motion is usually necessary. The figure shows the forces acting on meteoroids falling through the Earth's upper atmosphere. HALO jumps, including Joe Kittinger's and Felix Baumgartner's record jumps (see below), and the planned Le Grand Saut, also belong in this category.[2]
Inverse-square law gravitational field[edit]
It can be said that two objects in space orbiting each other in the absence of other forces are in free fall around each other, e.g. that the Moon or an artificial satellite "falls around" the Earth, or a planet "falls around" the Sun. Assuming spherical objects means that the equation of motion is governed by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, with solutions to the gravitational two-body problem being elliptic orbits obeying Kepler's laws of planetary motion. This connection between falling objects close to the Earth and orbiting objects is best illustrated by the thought experiment Newton's cannonball.
The motion of two objects moving radially towards each other with no angular momentum can be considered a special case of an elliptical orbit of eccentricity e = 1 (radial elliptic trajectory). This allows one to compute the free-fall time for two point objects on a radial path. The solution of this equation of motion yields time as a function of separation:
t(y)= \sqrt{ \frac{ {y_0}^3 }{2\mu} } \left(\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}\left(1-\frac{y}{y_0}\right)} + \arccos{\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}}}
\right)
where
t is the time after the start of the fall
y is the distance between the centers of the bodies
y0 is the initial value of y
μ = G(m1 + m2) is the standard gravitational parameter.
Substituting y=0 we get the free-fall time.
The separation as a function of time is given by the inverse of the equation. The inverse is represented exactly by the analytic power series:
y( t ) = \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty }
\left[
\lim_{ r \to 0 } \left(
{\frac{ x^{ n }}{ n! }}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^{\,n-1}}{\mathrm{ d } r ^{\,n-1}} \left[
r^n \left( \frac{ 7 }{ 2 } ( \arcsin( \sqrt{ r } ) - \sqrt{ r - r^2 } )
\right)^{ - \frac{2}{3} n }
\right] \right)
\right]
Evaluating this yields:
y(t)=y_0 \left( x - \frac{1}{5} x^2 - \frac{3}{175}x^3
- \frac{23}{7875}x^4 - \frac{1894}{3931875}x^5 - \frac{3293}{21896875}x^6 - \frac{2418092}{62077640625}x^7 - \cdots \right) \
where
x = \left[\frac{3}{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2}- t \sqrt{ \frac{2\mu}{ {y_0}^3 } } \right) \right]^{2/3}
For details of these solutions see "From Moon-fall to solutions under inverse square laws" by Foong, S. K., in European Journal of Physics, v29, 987-1003 (2008) and "Radial motion of Two mutually attracting particles", by Mungan, C. E., in The Physics Teacher, v47, 502-507 (2009).

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See what I mean? They're not really here to discuss anything. It's really more about....

Deception Distraction and Denial​

rightwinger already covered the pertinent formula for this scenario....

F= M x a

All you need to know. Thanks Dr Newton

You see that? It's not.... F = M x a, except under certain rare unknown conditions which can sometimes result in a bunch of multi-ton steel columns and other stuff temporarily behaving like air....

It's just F = M x a​

so the mathematical formula for freefall is a deception?
It couldn't be that you don't understand it,or could it! ?

 

[daws101]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

false patriots questions 911, now that what I call non bias and objective.

 

[KokomoJojo]

uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
This is the "textbook" case of the vertical motion of an object falling a small distance close to the surface of a planet. It is a good approximation in air as long as the force of gravity on the object is much greater than the force of air resistance, or equivalently the object's velocity is always much less than the terminal velocity (see below).
Free-fall
v(t)=-gt+v_{0}\,
y(t)=-\frac{1}{2}gt^2+v_{0}t+y_0
where
v_{0}\, is the initial velocity (m/s).
v(t)\, is the vertical velocity with respect to time (m/s).
y_0\, is the initial altitude (m).
y(t)\, is the altitude with respect to time (m).
t\, is time elapsed (s).
g\, is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 near the surface of the earth).
Uniform gravitational field with air resistance[edit]


Acceleration of a small meteoroid when entering the Earth's atmosphere at different initial velocities.
This case, which applies to skydivers, parachutists or any body of mass, m, and cross-sectional area, A, with Reynolds number well above the critical Reynolds number, so that the air resistance is proportional to the square of the fall velocity, v, has an equation of motion
m\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{1}{2} \rho C_{\mathrm{D}} A v^2 - mg \, ,
where \rho is the air density and C_{\mathrm{D}} is the drag coefficient, assumed to be constant although in general it will depend on the Reynolds number.
Assuming an object falling from rest and no change in air density with altitude, the solution is:
v(t) = -v_{\infty} \tanh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right),
where the terminal speed is given by
v_{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho C_D A}} \, .
The object's speed versus time can be integrated over time to find the vertical position as a function of time:
y = y_0 - \frac{v_{\infty}^2}{g} \ln \cosh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right).
Using the figure of 450 metres to reach terminal speed, this equation implies a free-fall time to terminal velocity of around 12 seconds. However, when the air density cannot be assumed to be constant, such as for objects or skydivers falling from high altitude, the equation of motion becomes much more difficult to solve analytically and a numerical simulation of the motion is usually necessary. The figure shows the forces acting on meteoroids falling through the Earth's upper atmosphere. HALO jumps, including Joe Kittinger's and Felix Baumgartner's record jumps (see below), and the planned Le Grand Saut, also belong in this category.[2]
Inverse-square law gravitational field[edit]
It can be said that two objects in space orbiting each other in the absence of other forces are in free fall around each other, e.g. that the Moon or an artificial satellite "falls around" the Earth, or a planet "falls around" the Sun. Assuming spherical objects means that the equation of motion is governed by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, with solutions to the gravitational two-body problem being elliptic orbits obeying Kepler's laws of planetary motion. This connection between falling objects close to the Earth and orbiting objects is best illustrated by the thought experiment Newton's cannonball.
The motion of two objects moving radially towards each other with no angular momentum can be considered a special case of an elliptical orbit of eccentricity e = 1 (radial elliptic trajectory). This allows one to compute the free-fall time for two point objects on a radial path. The solution of this equation of motion yields time as a function of separation:
t(y)= \sqrt{ \frac{ {y_0}^3 }{2\mu} } \left(\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}\left(1-\frac{y}{y_0}\right)} + \arccos{\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}}}
\right)
where
t is the time after the start of the fall
y is the distance between the centers of the bodies
y0 is the initial value of y
μ = G(m1 + m2) is the standard gravitational parameter.
Substituting y=0 we get the free-fall time.
The separation as a function of time is given by the inverse of the equation. The inverse is represented exactly by the analytic power series:
y( t ) = \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty }
\left[
\lim_{ r \to 0 } \left(
{\frac{ x^{ n }}{ n! }}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^{\,n-1}}{\mathrm{ d } r ^{\,n-1}} \left[
r^n \left( \frac{ 7 }{ 2 } ( \arcsin( \sqrt{ r } ) - \sqrt{ r - r^2 } )
\right)^{ - \frac{2}{3} n }
\right] \right)
\right]
Evaluating this yields:
y(t)=y_0 \left( x - \frac{1}{5} x^2 - \frac{3}{175}x^3
- \frac{23}{7875}x^4 - \frac{1894}{3931875}x^5 - \frac{3293}{21896875}x^6 - \frac{2418092}{62077640625}x^7 - \cdots \right) \
where
x = \left[\frac{3}{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2}- t \sqrt{ \frac{2\mu}{ {y_0}^3 } } \right) \right]^{2/3}
For details of these solutions see "From Moon-fall to solutions under inverse square laws" by Foong, S. K., in European Journal of Physics, v29, 987-1003 (2008) and "Radial motion of Two mutually attracting particles", by Mungan, C. E., in The Physics Teacher, v47, 502-507 (2009).

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See what I mean? They're not really here to discuss anything. It's really more about....

Deception Distraction and Denial​

rightwinger already covered the pertinent formula for this scenario....

F= M x a

All you need to know. Thanks Dr Newton

You see that? It's not.... F = M x a, except under certain rare unknown conditions which can sometimes result in a bunch of multi-ton steel columns and other stuff temporarily behaving like air....

It's just F = M x a​

so the mathematical formula for freefall is a deception?
It couldn't be that you don't understand it,or could it! ?

now you did it you woke up the unrepentant lying troll






who promptly posts MORE of its regurgitated shit to derail the knock out punches you delivered to gamaclownee. I thought candy cornho and clan would have banned from every board on the planet by now.

 

[daws101]

See what I mean? They're not really here to discuss anything. It's really more about....

Deception Distraction and Denial​

rightwinger already covered the pertinent formula for this scenario....



You see that? It's not.... F = M x a, except under certain rare unknown conditions which can sometimes result in a bunch of multi-ton steel columns and other stuff temporarily behaving like air....

It's just F = M x a​

so the mathematical formula for freefall is a deception?
It couldn't be that you don't understand it,or could it! ?

edited for false accusation.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

​

-edited for false accusations-

so if you do not know what you are dealing with you may want to take a look. totally unrepentant liar

 

[Faun]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

​

-edited for false accusations-

so if you do not know what you are dealing with you may want to take a look. totally unrepentant liar

Too bad you're suck a kook. Still, there were no explosions in the moments prior to the collapse. None were seen and none were heard.

Here's what actual controlled demolitions look and sound like...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Whether you comprehend it or not, doesn't matter ... but unlike WTC7, the explosions occur before the buildings fall.

 

[KokomoJojo]

-edited for false accusations-[/COLOR][/I]

so if you do not know what you are dealing with you may want to take a look. totally unrepentant liar

Too bad you're suck a kook. Still, there were no explosions in the moments prior to the collapse. None were seen and none were heard.

Here's what actual controlled demolitions look and sound like...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno"]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Whether you comprehend it or not, doesn't matter ... but unlike WTC7, the explosions occur before the buildings fall.

too bad you are such an ill informed uneducated loser,

here is a controlled demolition with NO EXPLOSIVES

dont you look smart now!


aside from the fact that several people said there were explosions,

and the US Iron curtain censors missed one clip but chandler found it where explosives could be heard, so you are once again either ill informed or simply trolling.

 

[E.L.C.]

I wonder what's keeping E.L.C.? Must be having a hard time coming up with a viable "explosives" explanation that matches all the evidence INCLUDING the grapph.

No, I'm not having any trouble, no trouble at all. In fact, I'm really quite comfortable. I'm just an anonymous guy on the internet. I don't need to come up with any explanation and it probably wouldn't make any difference even if I did. 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. So, I'm just going to stick to that.... the science. We can talk about all my theories, faults, cowardice, misconceptions, bad hygiene, etc. later (I'll PM my ex-wifes phone number to you if you want, she knows all about it).

You see, Gamoclown, your 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 gravitaional potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate. It must all 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. I told you before, take that "Three Card Monte" shit out to the sidewalk in front of WALMART.... ass eyes.

So, it is you Gamoclown, as a brain damaged supporter of the "Official Account", along with your cohorts, that must do the explaining. It's easy.... to succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies (damn it, it's that Newton guy again!) 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 stories of a steel frame skyscraper.

Please, if you think it will help, feel free to sprinkle your explanation with as many expletives and personal insults as you like.... Good luck!

Free fall.... So simple a caveman can understand it.

 

[Faun]

so if you do not know what you are dealing with you may want to take a look. totally unrepentant liar

Too bad you're suck a kook. Still, there were no explosions in the moments prior to the collapse. None were seen and none were heard.

Here's what actual controlled demolitions look and sound like...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno"]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Whether you comprehend it or not, doesn't matter ... but unlike WTC7, the explosions occur before the buildings fall.

too bad you are such an ill informed uneducated loser,

here is a controlled demolition with NO EXPLOSIVES

dont you look smart now!


aside from the fact that several people said there were explosions,

and the US Iron curtain censors missed one clip but chandler found it where explosives could be heard, so you are once again either ill informed or simply trolling.

We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began after the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.

 

[E.L.C.]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

another classic example of CTparanoia..
make the most improbable assumptions and accusations to dodge the gaping holes in the conspiracy theory!

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....

 

[E.L.C.]

Le Bump.... oui?

 

[KokomoJojo]

We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began after the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.

yes and I told you that you are incorrect and gave you the clip where chandler walks you through it to help you understand what is going on and when its going on and why once again you are talking shit.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about these guys. I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys....

How's the Air Force treating you?

another classic example of CTparanoia..
make the most improbable assumptions and accusations to dodge the gaping holes in the conspiracy theory!

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....

I still get a kick out of them demanding you continue handing them their asses. I bet they negged you for putting up properly framed physics examples too. Can we get abortion to extend to Tards?

They are busy bodies trying to figure out a way to misrepresent or come up with some plausible derail of what you said.

 

[Faun]

We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began after the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.

yes and I told you that you are incorrect and gave you the clip where chandler walks you through it to help you understand what is going on and when its going on and why once again you are talking shit.

The audio graph from the link YOU posted proved it. You can deny it all you want because you are so committed to your dementia, but you cannot refute reality.

Their audio graph picked up sounds they called, "explosions," which began precisely when the east end of the roof began its descent into the building and lasted between 2 to 3 seconds.

Chandler associated the sound with explosions because; while he correctly noted the sounds began in the seconds before the entire building collapsed, he failed to note the sounds did not begin before the east side of the roof gave way. It's timed perfectly. The roof begins to fall and their audio graph picked up the sound it made is it fell into the floors beneath it.

Chandler's own evidence proves it. The best part is -- your acceptance of reality is not required.

 

[KokomoJojo]

We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began after the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.

yes and I told you that you are incorrect and gave you the clip where chandler walks you through it to help you understand what is going on and when its going on and why once again you are talking shit.

The audio graph from the link YOU posted proved it. You can deny it all you want because you are so committed to your dementia, but you cannot refute reality.

Their audio graph picked up sounds they called, "explosions," which began precisely when the east end of the roof began its descent into the building and lasted between 2 to 3 seconds.

Chandler associated the sound with explosions because; while he correctly noted the sounds began in the seconds before the entire building collapsed, he failed to note the sounds did not begin before the east side of the roof gave way. It's timed perfectly. The roof begins to fall and their audio graph picked up the sound it made is it fell into the floors beneath it.

Chandler's own evidence proves it. The best part is -- your acceptance of reality is not required.

explosions are usually called explosions despite when they go off.

floors crashing down does not sound like explosions, they sound like a freight train coming down the track, there are plenty of clips out there to prove it so knock yourself out.

chandler is the high school physics teacher that FORCED NIST's army of Phd's to change it to freefall.

That pretty damned credible, who are you?

 

[E.L.C.]

chandler is the high school physics teacher that FORCED NIST's army of Phd's to change it to freefall.

It must have been a wild scene man! Talk about your real life....

David and Goliath