The Physics Of WTC 7

[whitehall]

Free fall from that height would take 9.22 seconds. It took the Tower about 21 seconds to hit the ground. Therefore in the strict science of physics the Tower could not have been in free fall.

I disagree.

here is a known demolition, the supports are blasted away and the building goes into freefall.

"sectionally", we know its a demolition it still officially went into freefall (sectionally) did it not?

so can we legitimately argue that the building did not go into freefall because the whole start to finish process of the building hitting the floor took 30 seconds rather than 4 or 5?

I say no

So in a strictly science sense each section would need to be analyzed separately and at best maybe one section or another did not freefall, however it appears wtc 7 freefell sectionally very similar to the building shown above that is in fact a known demolition.

The time span is conclusive evidence that the Tower did not go into a "free fall". Doesn't that indicate that outside demolition was not used? Are you going to use the faulty argument that a floor that buckled from the heat and crashed into the floor below it is evidence of a free fall?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Free fall from that height would take 9.22 seconds. It took the Tower about 21 seconds to hit the ground. Therefore in the strict science of physics the Tower could not have been in free fall.

I disagree.

here is a known demolition, the supports are blasted away and the building goes into freefall.

"sectionally", we know its a demolition it still officially went into freefall (sectionally) did it not?

so can we legitimately argue that the building did not go into freefall because the whole start to finish process of the building hitting the floor took 30 seconds rather than 4 or 5?

I say no

So in a strictly science sense each section would need to be analyzed separately and at best maybe one section or another did not freefall, however it appears wtc 7 freefell sectionally very similar to the building shown above that is in fact a known demolition.

The time span is conclusive evidence that the Tower did not go into a "free fall". Doesn't that indicate that outside demolition was not used? Are you going to use the faulty argument that a floor that buckled from the heat and crashed into the floor below it is evidence of a free fall?

tell us what the definition of freefall is, I cant believe it but it looks like you have no fucking clue.

 

[E.L.C.]

KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....

Gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....​

In order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!

 

[E.L.C.]

Derideo.... Why don't you imagine Saturn being swallowed up by Uranus?

 

[KokomoJojo]

​

KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....

Gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....​

In order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the energy would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!

Wait a second here!

You mean to tell me that NIST's chart says it went freefall for 2.25 seconds?

OMFG troughers are going to have to change their diapers now!

How fucking stoopid they look. (but then they worked so hard at it)

 

[E.L.C.]

Man.... I'm so sorry to let you down KokomoJojo! It wasn't the twoofers (did I say it right?) that worked so hard on it. That velocity plot comes from (STAGE TWO) Fig. 3-15 on p. 46 of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A), Richard Gann.

It's a simple case of....

GUERILLAS IN THE NIST !!!​

 

[KokomoJojo]

Have you met the troughers? I am sure you have! LOL





they support official story at any cost since the tax payer foots the bill for it.


It also explains why daws ran as fast as he could from the post where he posted NISTS bullshit and I rebutted every point, only to discover he doesnt even know what the wtc7 looks like and also posted some severely modified picture with a police label on it that looks fake as hell. No wonder he changed socks and got otta dodge so fast.

So the troughers gonna have full diapers when they see your posts man!

Truthers gonna be doin what we have done all along

 

[E.L.C.]

You need to think of buildings as a system of many, many components blah, blah and blah, which is to stay erect while resisting/supporting blah, blah, blah!

Do you get this so far?

Yeah man.... I feel you! That must have been a lot of work!

The only problem is some guy called Newton can't wrap his mind around it! He says that no natural failure of any loaded column will result in the load falling at gravitational acceleration. There can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs.... you clown.

Whether it's a scrap of paper supported by a column of "Aerogel" or a twenty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some difference in the fall times (below) will always be observable when an object falls through air compared to a load of equal weight falling as a result of structural failure, no matter what kind of structure it is or how it (naturally) fails. If that wasn't true Newtons physical principles wouldn't be worth shit.... Do you get that so far Gamaclown?

Stage 2 of the NIST chart.... (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) describes an impossible sequence of events....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo.... Why don't you imagine Saturn being swallowed up by Uranus?

Typical conspiracy nutter response. The mods were right when they moved your "scientific" thread to this forum. Obviously you weren't serious in your OP. Have a nice day!

 

[Gamolon]

You need to think of buildings as a system of many, many components blah, blah and blah, which is to stay erect while resisting/supporting blah, blah, blah!

Do you get this so far?

Yeah man.... I feel you! That must have been a lot of work!

The only problem is some guy called Newton can't wrap his mind around it! He says that no natural failure of any loaded column will result in the load falling at gravitational acceleration. There can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs.... you clown.

Whether it's a scrap of paper supported by a column of "Aerogel" or a twenty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some difference in the fall times (below) will always be observable when an object falls through air compared to a load of equal weight falling as a result of structural failure, no matter what kind of structure it is or how it (naturally) fails. If that wasn't true Newtons physical principles wouldn't be worth shit.... Do you get that so far Gamaclown?

Stage 2 of the NIST chart.... (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) describes an impossible sequence of events....

Hey moron.

Please use Newton's laws to explain or come up with how fast a load will fall in this instance:


Are you telling me that you think the support ratio of a column (or components making up a support structure) to a vertical load can never be so disproportionate that the column or support structure provides zero vertical resistance?

Tell you what genius. Use my picture above and answer a question.

How much vertical resistance is that buckled column supplying to the gravitational load represented by the filled n oval? You see, your lack of structural design knowledge is very apparent. Statements like the following make you look stupid.

Whether it's a scrap of paper supported by a column of "Aerogel" or a twenty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some difference in the fall times (below) will always be observable when an object falls through air compared to a load of equal weight falling as a result of structural failure, no matter what kind of structure it is or how it (naturally) fails.

 

[Gamolon]

Just a question on this about what you think happened in the case of WTC7. In order for the entire roofline to fall at freefall, does this mean that explosives went off simultaneously around the entire structure?

 

[Gamolon]

Maybe this will help you out E.L.C.

http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750657334/9780750657334.PDF

Excerpt from the above PDF.

1.1.1 The General Principle
For a building to be safe and useable, its structural parts such as the roof, floors
and walls must remain stationary. This requires that the forces acting on them are
equal and opposite. In structural engineering jargon this is known as equilibrium
of forces and is just a re-statement of Newton’s first law. This equilibrium must
be resistant to disturbance by small extraneous influences; the overall structure
and each of its parts must have stability (see Sec. 1.5).
The following simple examples of this general principle may help to explain
some of the concepts and terms.

Start looking up equilibrium and how it relates to Newton's laws and structural engineering. The point is that it's not as simple as you think it is. Which is why you posted your idiotic diagram of a column directly beneath a load and showing the column disintegrating.

So when you start to weaken or fail certain components in a structure that was designed to have ALL components to be "working properly", you start to affect said equilibrium.

 

[Gamolon]

My schematic animated representations of both theories.​

Correct the height of WTC7 in your animated gif above. 741 feet is the NEW WTC7 building. 610 feet was the old WTC7 height.

Dumbass.

 

[E.L.C.]

Oh I was serious Derideo....

....but SOMEONE put it here didn't they? So.... What?​

 

[KokomoJojo]

My schematic animated representations of both theories.​

Correct the height of WTC7 in your animated gif above. 741 feet is the NEW WTC7 building. 610 feet was the old WTC7 height.

Dumbass.

hey fucktard try reading for comprehension, there is no WTC7 label on his drawing. It is a fizix problem nothing more idiot.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Maybe this will help you out E.L.C.

http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750657334/9780750657334.PDF

Excerpt from the above PDF.

1.1.1 The General Principle
For a building to be safe and useable, its structural parts such as the roof, floors
and walls must remain stationary. This requires that the forces acting on them are
equal and opposite. In structural engineering jargon this is known as equilibrium
of forces and is just a re-statement of Newton’s first law. This equilibrium must
be resistant to disturbance by small extraneous influences; the overall structure
and each of its parts must have stability (see Sec. 1.5).
The following simple examples of this general principle may help to explain
some of the concepts and terms.

Start looking up equilibrium and how it relates to Newton's laws and structural engineering. The point is that it's not as simple as you think it is. Which is why you posted your idiotic diagram of a column directly beneath a load and showing the column disintegrating.

So when you start to weaken or fail certain components in a structure that was designed to have ALL components to be "working properly", you start to affect said equilibrium.

buildings are designed so the load transfers you fucking tard, equilibrium is the core element of newtonian physics, tard o matic has struck again. Everytime I think I heard it all these guys get more fucking absurd.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Just a question on this about what you think happened in the case of WTC7. In order for the entire roofline to fall at freefall, does this mean that explosives went off simultaneously around the entire structure?

no, what a dumb assed question. One that shows you know shit about explosive demolition.

 

[E.L.C.]

Well, Gamaclown.... I could spend the next twenty years researching all that along with, for example.... Self-buckling, Creep, Columns Buckling under tensile dead loading, Curvature and multiple buckling.

Then there's.... Flutter instability, Various forms of buckling, Corrosion, Corrosion fatigue, Surface materials, Flexural-torsional buckling, Lateral-torsional buckling and maybe even throw in the modification factor.

But wait.... There's more! Others like.... Fatigue, Plastic buckling, Dynamic buckling, Buckling of thin cylindrical shells subject to axial loads, Buckling of pipes and pressure vessels subject to external overpressure.

In the interest of thoroughness though, we better include.... Fouling, Fracture, Hydrogen embrittlement, Impact, Mechanical overload, Stress corrosion cracking, Thermal shock, Wear and.... Oh yeah! Yielding!

Instead of doing all that, I'll just make a prediction.... No failure mode will be found that constitutes an exception to Newtonian physical principles.

The NIST says WTC 7 verifiably fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....

Newton says the only way that can happen is if there's nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the energy would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs.

So, Newtons description of the conditions that must exist for the upper portion of the building to fall at gravitational acceleration looks like this....

Now, I know there was considerable mass there at the time because the building stood for a number of years before it collapsed (or obviously it wouldn't have been much good as a building).

The NIST is presenting a scenario wherein the upper portion of the building fell at gravitaional acceleration for 2.25 seconds despite the existence below of considerable mass that would have tended to impede its progress or offer resistance.

So Newton and the NIST are at odds. It's none of my business, I'm just pointing it out.... you clown.

 

[Gamolon]

Well, Gamaclown.... I could spend the next twenty years researching all that along with, for example.... Self-buckling, Creep, Columns Buckling under tensile dead loading, Curvature and multiple buckling.

Then there's.... Flutter instability, Various forms of buckling, Corrosion, Corrosion fatigue,. Surface materials, Flexural-torsional buckling, Lateral-torsional buckling and maybe even throw in The modification factor.

But wait.... There's more! Others like.... Fatigue, Plastic buckling, Dynamic buckling, Buckling of thin cylindrical shells subject to axial loads, Buckling of pipes and pressure vessels subject to external overpressure.

In the interest of thoroughness though, we better include.... Fouling, Fracture, Hydrogen embrittlement, Impact, Mechanical overload, Stress corrosion cracking, Thermal shock, Wear and.... Oh yeah! Yielding!

So you just went to Wikipedia and copied some terms? In almost the same order they appear in your quote above? What about this page:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...ttlement, Impact, Mechanical overload&f=false

Did you copy the last part of your "Fouling, Fracture..." line from there?!

Pathetic!



You're a joke!

Instead of doing all that, I'll just make a prediction.... No failure mode will be found that constitutes an exception to Newtonian physical principles.

The NIST says WTC 7 verifiably fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....

How did the entire roofline manage to come down at the same time? Did explosives go off all the way around the building like Chandler suggests?

Newton says that can only happen whenIn order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance.

So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!

 

[KokomoJojo]

So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!

if that represents a column it has not failed

what mass? just a bunch of squiggly doodling on my computer screen.

are you suggesting people invent a problem so you can dodge the one ELC put to you!

Yes you are!

OWNED