The Physics Of WTC 7

[E.L.C.]

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

Oops!

 

[Gamolon]

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


So what you're telling me is that never, EVER, in the diagram above, can a load increase to a point that creates zero resistance from the buckled column?

Just a yes or no will do.

 

[daws101]

Now that I've clearly described my theory of the collapse of WTC 7

I'd like some kind of real feedback on the whole thing that really conforms to physical principles! Is that too much to ask ?!?!?!

The gifs are because the greater majority of official tail spinners have little to no clue or personal experience with any of this, so they need things put in a crystal clear format, you know have to draw them a picture before they stand a chance to "get it".

That and for others just farting around and surfing who have no formal physics background at all and they can see that [read my footer] in reality truthers are not dealing with academia on the official side but fucktards who are incapable of getting beyond their own ride up da nile.

That little physics problem I posted that none of them are capable of figgering out is a good example of how tarded they are. One gave the wrong answer so far and 2 fell into the first tard trap and I am having the time of my life with that.

Once ya understand these people or its whatever they are, are as dysfunctional as a screen door in a submarine it casts a whole new light on the debate. you will have many good laughs

that's "tales"...

 

[daws101]

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.

free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic. The present article concerns itself with free fall in the Newtonian domain.
An object in the technical sense of free fall may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards would not normally be considered to be falling but if it is subject to the force of gravity only, it is said to be in free fall. The moon thus is in free fall.
In a uniform gravitational field, in the absence of any other forces, gravitation acts on each part of the body equally and this is akin to weightlessness, a condition which also obtains when the gravitational field is zero such as when far away from any gravitating body. A body in free fall experiences "0-g".
The term "free fall" is often used more loosely than in the strict sense defined above. Thus, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The aerodynamic drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.

 

[daws101]

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 duaration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!

wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye. the face of wtc 7 encountered no obstacles..that is all.it was not the cause of the collaspe, it's was anomalous random event. collateral to the cause ,which btw you have no evidence for..
also can you pinpoint the exact seconds wtc7 was in freefall?

 

[E.L.C.]

Height correction for Gamaclown....

 

[daws101]

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

you mean this one
ahh.... that an actual nyc police photo

ok shit head which pic is not wtc7...



btw you didn't rebutt shit!

http://www.elmsfordpd.com/images/wtc/pages/wtc-7.html
more "fake" police dept photos.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/photos-nypd-world-trade-center-911-aerials-9763032

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic. The present article concerns itself with free fall in the Newtonian domain.
An object in the technical sense of free fall may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards would not normally be considered to be falling but if it is subject to the force of gravity only, it is said to be in free fall. The moon thus is in free fall.
In a uniform gravitational field, in the absence of any other forces, gravitation acts on each part of the body equally and this is akin to weightlessness, a condition which also obtains when the gravitational field is zero such as when far away from any gravitating body. A body in free fall experiences "0-g".
The term "free fall" is often used more loosely than in the strict sense defined above. Thus, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The aerodynamic drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.

the problem with your cut and paste losers are you that you are incapable of properly applying even the most simple grade school methods.

you didnt even fucking read that much less do you understand it.

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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

you mean this one
ahh.... that an actual nyc police photo

ok shit head which pic is not wtc7...



btw you didn't rebutt shit!

wtc-7
more "fake" police dept photos.

PHOTOS: NYPD World Trade Center 9/11 Aerials | Photos - ABC News

hey asshelmet thats the bank not wtc7

no building with a ventilator exists that looks like that near wtc on 911

give it up you are a tard simple as that.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Height correction for Gamaclown....

waste of time man! LOL

 

[daws101]

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

free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic. The present article concerns itself with free fall in the Newtonian domain.
An object in the technical sense of free fall may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards would not normally be considered to be falling but if it is subject to the force of gravity only, it is said to be in free fall. The moon thus is in free fall.
In a uniform gravitational field, in the absence of any other forces, gravitation acts on each part of the body equally and this is akin to weightlessness, a condition which also obtains when the gravitational field is zero such as when far away from any gravitating body. A body in free fall experiences "0-g".
The term "free fall" is often used more loosely than in the strict sense defined above. Thus, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The aerodynamic drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.

the problem with your cut and paste losers are you that you are incapable of properly applying even the most simple grade school methods.

you didnt even fucking read that much less do you understand it.

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice dodge but tottal bullshit..
then you make false accusations to cover your fucking ignorance..
that is the correct definition..
you did this same dance when I schooled on probate too..
just for laughs, wow us with your freefall acumen..

 

[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 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 duaration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!

wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye. the face of wtc 7 encountered no obstacles..that is all.it was not the cause of the collaspe, it's was anomalous random event. collateral to the cause ,which btw you have no evidence for..
also can you pinpoint the exact seconds wtc7 was in freefall?

here I will correct you

all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to a TARDS eye.

NIST did it you raving fucking imbecile.

 

[E.L.C.]

Oh man.... daws101 says all that means is that the difference in fall times over the course of 2.5 seconds would be imperceptible to the human eye.

Hah! Well, that may be true using dawsian physics. The NIST measurements were made using pixels as reference points you dope....

daws101 "Newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day"

What a moron!

 

[daws101]

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

you mean this one
ahh.... that an actual nyc police photo

ok shit head which pic is not wtc7...



btw you didn't rebutt shit!

wtc-7
more "fake" police dept photos.

PHOTOS: NYPD World Trade Center 9/11 Aerials | Photos - ABC News

hey asshelmet thats the bank not wtc7

no building with a ventilator exists that looks like that near wtc on 911

give it up you are a tard simple as that.

what ventilator?
if you mean the buildings on the left of the photo then it's you who hasn't got a clue what wtc7 looked like.

wtc7 with ventilators very much the same as the other building ventilation system..

give what up? I'm not competing with you, just pointing up the monstrous flaws in your fantasy..

 

[daws101]

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 duaration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!

wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye. the face of wtc 7 encountered no obstacles..that is all.it was not the cause of the collaspe, it's was anomalous random event. collateral to the cause ,which btw you have no evidence for..
also can you pinpoint the exact seconds wtc7 was in freefall?

here I will correct you

all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to a TARDS eye.

NIST did it you raving fucking imbecile.

so this is a dodge to not have to admit you have no fucking clue to when the freefall took place!
still waiting on your definition of free fall

 

[KokomoJojo]

wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye. the face of wtc 7 encountered no obstacles..that is all.it was not the cause of the collaspe, it's was anomalous random event. collateral to the cause ,which btw you have no evidence for..
also can you pinpoint the exact seconds wtc7 was in freefall?

here I will correct you

all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to a TARDS eye.

NIST did it you raving fucking imbecile.

so this is a dodge to not have to admit you have no fucking clue to when the freefall took place!
still waiting on your definition of free fall

yep your dodge is exposed you are exposed and you are too fucking dumb to get it. fucktard idiot.

 

[daws101]

wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye.

Hah! Wel that may be true using dawsian physics. The NIST measurements were made using pixels as reference points you dope....

daws101 "Newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day"

What a moron!

I already knew that...but that not the same as as detecting it with out manipulation. to see that nist had to do a frame by frame analysis..
so my statement is correct..

LiveLeak.com - Rare Raw 9/11 Footage Released Via "Freedom of Information Act" (High Quality)


ok tin asshats please point out the start and finish of the freefall ...you can you the clock on the tape...

 

[daws101]

here I will correct you

all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to a TARDS eye.

NIST did it you raving fucking imbecile.

so this is a dodge to not have to admit you have no fucking clue to when the freefall took place!
still waiting on your definition of free fall

yep your dodge is exposed you are exposed and you are too fucking dumb to get it. fucktard idiot.

still waiting on your definition of free fall,
love the name calling it's smoking gun evidence of your wilful ignorance,

 

[daws101]

LSDYNA Physics-based model of the collapse initiation of WTC 7

 

[daws101]

Why Did WTC 7 Collapse?

Good question. The investigators were baffled. But the conspiracy theory doesn't explain anything. Why bring down an empty building hours after the main attack?

Photos published to support the claim of a controlled demolition show puffs emerging from the top of the building. These could be explosives. Or they could be concrete suddenly failing, or windows shattering. But again we have the irritating question, why start a collapse from the top, completely at odds with the way all controlled demolitions are done, especially if you want the building to fall onto its own footprint?

If it was actually a controlled demolition by the Fire Department or the building owner, or both, as some people allege, so what? The remains of the World Trade Center itself were brought down in controlled demolitions after 9-11. What does that have to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers? It seems unlikely that a demolition crew would enter a burning building and install charges to bring down something 15 stories taller than any other recorded controlled demolition, all in the space of a few hours, but if the building was brought down by the owners or the Fire Department, what's the connection to the Twin Towers? How does a planned demolition of one building prove the Twin Towers were deliberately brought down?

I've gotten a fair amount of flak over this issue but I've yet to see anyone present a coherent explanation of what, exactly, the collapse of WTC-7 proves.

Nutty 9-11 Physics