The Physics Of WTC 7

[SAYIT]

agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.

I just can't believe this is the world I've grown up into, pal. 9/11 was the burning of the Reichstag all over again. Probably millions have died now because of this one piece of false flag terrorism, and still the perpetrators walk about as free men. I know just from my own research that there's enough circumstantial evidence against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bernard Kerik and L. Paul Bremer to warrant an arrest pending a full investigation. Yet still the official channels refuse to deviate from their fairy story, or from the argument that any any evidence which disputes it is to be ignored on the grounds it's a "conspiracy theory".

I swear to God, half of these people know they're lying. And the ones that don't are just plain idiots.

Conspiracy theory is a pejorative the cia cooked up. All the latest psychology techniques are always used against the people by those who govern as well as those from long ago that never fail. People never wise up.

Its the old power they have an iron grip and know how to use it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw]George Carlin on "the American Dream" - YouTube[/ame]
​

Soooo you believe there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory?

 

[Gamolon]

Interesting video...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RQXTuGPk00]Steel beam-column assembly test 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Notice how loud the failure of the bolts is at about 2:06.

 

[Rockland]

How many suck puppets does 7-watt bulb need, anyway? We've got:

KooKooDooDoo
T.N.U.C.
Quaaludehead

 

[daws101]

did you make that in your moms basement

try this

you people are so incredibly fucked in the head

you tell me. you claim to have the uncanny ability to spot cgi and other fakery with no knowledge or technology..
btw the clips you post are some of the worst shit I've ever seen.

 

[PredFan]

Here is the only physics you need to know to understand WTC 7:

The earth's gravity pulled the damaged building down.

 

[daws101]

How many suck puppets does 7-watt bulb need, anyway? We've got:

KooKooDooDoo
T.N.U.C.
Quaaludehead

I wouldn't say they're socks..more like a brotherhood of a shared delusion..or guys with no life?


The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][77][page needed]

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[78] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[79]

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[80] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[81]

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[82] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[83] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[84]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. “I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[90]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

What are the laws of physics

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row for you dawgshit.

 

[daws101]

two farts in a row for you dawgshit.

it must be handjobs play date on the computer at the special peoples home..

 

[E.L.C.]

Right on Quantumhead.... I'm digging your vibe!

It doesn't look good for the NIST man!

David Chandlers informal initial calculations loosely indicated a free fall time of 2.5 seconds for WTC 7. Ultimately, the NIST not only confirmed that analysis, but actually enhanced it. By using a more precise formal method of measurement (using individual pixels from the video evidence as reference points), the now officially refined documented free fall time of 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet was arrived at.

In the case of WTC 7, both the so called "Conspiracy Theorist" (high school physics teacher David Chandler), and the "Official Authority" of record (the NIST, a federal agency of the United States) involved in this "discussion", if one can call it that, actually do remain in agreement to date....

Gravitational acceleration during the destruction of WTC 7 did occur for 8 stories, or 105 feet (a considerable distance). ​

David Chandler has essentially said that in order to be consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational acceleration there can be nothing (mass) below it that would tend to offer any resistance or impede its progress for the entirety of the duration of the time it is in free fall. He says an external force would have to be introduced to remove all material resistance (mass) from below it at/very soon after collapse initiation. David Chandlers analysis (illustration below) and line of reasoning is entirely consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... Something must uniformly remove, in a relatively short period of time at/just after collapse initiation, all material resistence (mass) that would tend to impede the progress of a falling building for it to collapse at gravitational acceleration.

The NIST also has essentially said that in order to be consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational accelleration there can be nothing (mass) below it that would tend to offer any resistance or impede its progress for the entirety of the duration of the time it is in free fall. The NIST, however, says an extraordinary failure mode (yet to be explained or described) exists that permits a building to fall at gravitational acceleration even if all material resistance (mass) has not been removed at/very soon after collapse initiation. The NIST analysis (illustrated below) and line of reasoning is wholly inconsistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational acceleration for any length of time without all material resistance (mass) being removed that would tend to impede its progress would be tantamount to matter literally fall through matter at gravitational acceleration.

The schematic below is just an illustration designed to generally represent all forms of natural failure modes for load bearing structures (take your pick). In all cases, whether a penny supported by aerogel, or a fifty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some variation of the scenario shown below will be the case. In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.

It's not what I want to conclude, it's what I'm being forced to conclude.... For all natural building collapses, pending some future explanation of the mechanism of operation involved in the kind of "extraordinary failure mode" espoused by the NIST that would constitute an exception/exemption from Newtonian physical principles.... The Chandler analysis prevails.

 

[E.L.C.]

Is it Sunder of the NIST, or Chandler the Physics Teacher?

There can be only one!

 

[E.L.C.]

I'm getting a bad feeling man!

 

[E.L.C.]

Hey man.... what a bummer! What's "pwng"?

 

[E.L.C.]

Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!

 

[daws101]

Right on Quantumhead.... I'm digging your vibe!

It doesn't look good for the NIST man!

David Chandlers informal initial calculations loosely indicated a free fall time of 2.5 seconds for WTC 7. Ultimately, the NIST not only confirmed that analysis, but actually enhanced it. By using a more precise formal method of measurement (using individual pixels from the video evidence as reference points), the now officially refined documented free fall time of 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet was arrived at.

In the case of WTC 7, both the so called "Conspiracy Theorist" (high school physics teacher David Chandler), and the "Official Authority" of record (the NIST, a federal agency of the United States) involved in this "discussion", if one can call it that, actually do remain in agreement to date....

edited for wall of text violation...and unnecessary reposting..

 

[daws101]

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


We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist

The Thermodynamics of 9/11

by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.



When hijacked airliners crashed into the tall Towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City, each injected a burning cloud of aviation fuel throughout the 6 levels (WTC 2) to 8 levels (WTC 1) in the impact zone. The burning fuel ignited the office furnishings: desks, chairs, shelving, carpeting, work-space partitions, wall and ceiling panels; as well as paper and plastic of various kinds.
The Thermodynamics of 9/11 » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The Fall of WTC 7

Dark Fire

by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.



Bright, windless September morning in Manhattan, looking south and slightly west across Vesey Street from the 12th floor of WTC 7. The eight story US Customs House (WTC 6) lies directly across the way, and beyond it the North Tower (WTC 1), slightly rightward to the west, with the South Tower (WTC 2) even further off, left of WTC 1 to the east.

Then a plane, loud, fast, low, directly overhead flying south; the sun glints off the dimpling of its shiny aluminum painted skin; its 156 ft wingspan over three quarters the width of a Tower face — puff! The lightning clarity of the moment blinks, the airplane disappears, an orange fireball erupts out of the north face of WTC 1 engulfing its ninth decade of stories. Thinking stops.
Dark Fire » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


I WIN!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!

Of course he vanished. The NWO & LPGA are very, very good at making that happen when we choose to.


You're next.

 

[Rockland]

Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!

He never existed. He was a manifestation of your feverish mind.

 

[daws101]

Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!

He never existed. He was a manifestation of your feverish mind.

that's true for all his friends...

 

[Two Thumbs]

Far out man! Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by 9/11 inside job as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?

yes

No one likes a whinny bitches