The Physics Of WTC 7

[daws101]

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]

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.

a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.

 

[daws101]

Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube

hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition

no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted

looks just like

you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk]Richard Gage 9/11 - Explosive Contradictions! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

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.

a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.

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

 

[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

you area top shelf idiot



Government Killing of Civilians by Gas

By Mike Holmes
August 31, 2013

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

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.

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

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

 

[Faun]

a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.

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

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

If you want proof, just look at a video of the building as that portion of the roof is collapsing ... windows in the floors beneath it can be seen popping out.



Now is that the thoom, thoom sound described? Who knows? Could be. Or that sound could be the sound of the roof crashing through the floors below it. Either way, it wasn't from explosions intentionally detonated as none could be seen or heard before that part of the roof gave in. And Chandler's audio graph proved that with impeccable timing, starting after the east portion of the roof is seen collapsing and lasting a couple of seconds.

 

[Faun]

Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube

hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition

no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted

looks just like

you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox

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

Are you always this deceptive?

 

[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

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

Are you always this deceptive?

nope you can find all this shit readily avail on the net. gifs dont have sound.


once again thermite cutters can slice through in milliseconds. No need for prep work then.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

"If you like your idiotic conspiracy theory, you can keep your idiotic conspiracy theory. Period."

~ Richie "Little Dickie" Gage - Assholes & Excrement for Nine Eleventy Troof(.org) - 2006

 

[Faun]

hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition

no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted

looks just like

you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox

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

Are you always this deceptive?

nope you can find all this shit readily avail on the net. gifs dont have sound.


once again thermite cutters can slice through in milliseconds. No need for prep work then.

You're funny. It's not really my job to unt your videos down. It's enough for me to point out that you're showing videos edited from the start of a building collapse and without sound -- and then claiming to have videos that don't exhibit explosions; which would normally occur before the starting point of the videos you posted and would produce sound.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

Are you always this deceptive?

nope you can find all this shit readily avail on the net. gifs dont have sound.


once again thermite cutters can slice through in milliseconds. No need for prep work then.

You're funny. It's not really my job to unt your videos down. It's enough for me to point out that you're showing videos edited from the start of a building collapse and without sound -- and then claiming to have videos that don't exhibit explosions; which would normally occur before the starting point of the videos you posted and would produce sound.

thats because you need go no further than the visuals to understand my point. there is no reason for the sound what so ever.

No sound is required to prove that 7 was a demo nist already proved that.

I have no idea what you are so diligently spinning your wheels on trying to accomplish.

 

[Faun]

nope you can find all this shit readily avail on the net. gifs dont have sound.


once again thermite cutters can slice through in milliseconds. No need for prep work then.

You're funny. It's not really my job to unt your videos down. It's enough for me to point out that you're showing videos edited from the start of a building collapse and without sound -- and then claiming to have videos that don't exhibit explosions; which would normally occur before the starting point of the videos you posted and would produce sound.

thats because you need go no further than the visuals to understand my point. there is no reason for the sound what so ever.

No sound is required to prove that 7 was a demo nist already proved that.

I have no idea what you are so diligently spinning your wheels on trying to accomplish.

You're the one who was claiming there was the sound of explosions. You even posted a video from someone who claimed to detect the sounds of explosions.

It's funny how quickly you abandoned those noisy explosions once it was pointed out to you that those sounds were actually the roof caving in.

 

[E.L.C.]

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!

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gamolon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying that it was 100% impossible for the remaining, damaged, weakened structure of the lower floors to become overloaded and fail?

All you need to do is answer a couple of questions.

According to the graphs (both NIST's and Chandler's) there is a time of no freefall at the beginning when the roofline begins to descend. How was that accomplished? What started the entire roofline to descend at LESS then freefall acceleration?

 

[Gamolon]

It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!

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

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

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

Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH

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

STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH

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

STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

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

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

 

[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.

thermite does not have a residue shit fer brains

 

[KokomoJojo]

It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!

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.



Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

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

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

yah yah grunhilda but this is reality

there is no less than freefall

 

[Gamolon]

It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!

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



Let's break that down shall we?

STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH



STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH

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

yah yah grunhilda but this is reality

there is no less than freefall

Are you saying that NIST's and Chandler's graphs are lying?