The Physics Of WTC 7

[Faun]

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.

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.

That pretty damned credible, who are you?

I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.

That pretty damned credible, who are you?

I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

 

[Faun]

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.

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.

That pretty damned credible, who are you?

I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

You're such a moron. You said there were explosions. Thermite doesn't explode like TNT. Chandler claims a series of explosions were heard in the seconds before WTC7 fell. So which was it? Thermite or explosives?

And you're still stuck with the fact that Chandler's audio graph proves the sound he detected came from the partial roof collapse, not from explosives -- of which, none were seen or heard.

 

[KokomoJojo]

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.


I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

You're such a moron. You said there were explosions. Thermite doesn't explode like TNT. Chandler claims a series of explosions were heard in the seconds before WTC7 fell. So which was it? Thermite or explosives?

And you're still stuck with the fact that Chandler's audio graph proves the sound he detected came from the partial roof collapse, not from explosives -- of which, none were seen or heard.

so your whole point in this is that it does not fit neatly into a "classic" every day demolition mold is that it?

as if there is only one possible way to demolish a building.

even after people who were in the demolition biz for 30 years agree it was a demolition.

is that it?

Thermite cutters do explode but at a reduced noise level as rdx. It does not mean there was no explosions. Tards tend to have a one word fits all vocabulary.

The fact that explosions did occur despite its timing means audio proof of demolition.

7 was a classic demolition.

we do not need to hear any explosions to prove it was a classic "in the box" demolition.

seems you are trying to invent something frivolous again

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMBjxyH9eg]What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KokomoJojo]

What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube

waste

nothing like bringing yet another knife to a gun fight.

some back yard bozos trying to invent their own thermite cutter. hilarious.

the patented version takes out a column the size of the wtc columns in millisecnds.

got any more back yard bozos you want to show us?

 

[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!

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!

 

[daws101]

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?

bullshit!
there is no difference in the sound of an explosion caused by explosives or explosions caused by heat or pressure.
please provide audio clips highlighting the differences....

 

[KokomoJojo]

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....

edited removed off topic material

oops sorry folks nothing to see here.

 

[daws101]

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.

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.

That pretty damned credible, who are you?

I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

no thermite residue of any kind was found so you're talking out your ass.
that's all you've done in everything you've posted.

 

[KokomoJojo]

There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.


I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

no thermite residue of any kind was found so you're talking out your ass.
that's all you've done in everything you've posted.

none was looked for dumb ass.

 

[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....

edited removed off topic material

oops sorry folks nothing to see here.

yeah there is it's you showcasing your ignorance!

 

[daws101]

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

no thermite residue of any kind was found so you're talking out your ass.
that's all you've done in everything you've posted.

none was looked for dumb ass.

bullshit![ame=http://youtu.be/OWpC_1WP8do]9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven - YouTube[/ame]





One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.




There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...

Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.


Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

 

[KokomoJojo]

no thermite residue of any kind was found so you're talking out your ass.
that's all you've done in everything you've posted.

none was looked for dumb ass.

edited for bullshit

nothing official cited just cut and paste debunker opinions

 

[daws101]

none was looked for dumb ass.

9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven - YouTube[/url]





One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.




There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...

Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.


Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqs0ZYCHlA&feature=plcp]Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KokomoJojo]

edited spamhttp://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

nothing to see here folks sorry

 

[Faun]

yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?

You're such a moron. You said there were explosions. Thermite doesn't explode like TNT. Chandler claims a series of explosions were heard in the seconds before WTC7 fell. So which was it? Thermite or explosives?

And you're still stuck with the fact that Chandler's audio graph proves the sound he detected came from the partial roof collapse, not from explosives -- of which, none were seen or heard.

so your whole point in this is that it does not fit neatly into a "classic" every day demolition mold is that it?

as if there is only one possible way to demolish a building.

even after people who were in the demolition biz for 30 years agree it was a demolition.

is that it?

Thermite cutters do explode but at a reduced noise level as rdx. It does not mean there was no explosions. Tards tend to have a one word fits all vocabulary.

The fact that explosions did occur despite its timing means audio proof of demolition.

7 was a classic demolition.

we do not need to hear any explosions to prove it was a classic "in the box" demolition.

seems you are trying to invent something frivolous again

Your dementia is dripping like thermite ... you actually went from claiming explosions could be heard .... to claiming the incendiary used makes very little noise.

the fact of the matter is you make contradictory statements like that because even you can't find consistency in your hallucinations.

The were no explosions in the moments before wtc7 collapsed. None were seen and none were heard.

You relied on Chandler's audio graph as evidence of explosions heard (despite the fact that his graph is merely picking up the sound of the east portion of the roof caving in prior to the rest of the building) but now you stab him in the back to support your thermite explanation, which makes very little noise.

 

[SAYIT]

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....

edited removed off topic material

oops sorry folks nothing to see here.

Addressing your legion of followers here again?

 

[KokomoJojo]

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