The Physics Of WTC 7

[Two Thumbs]

why does anyone still bother with these idiots?

they have all been debunked multiple times

 

[Rat in the Hat]

why does anyone still bother with these idiots?

they have all been debunked multiple times

I do it because I see this sub-forum as a high tech version of Whack-A-Mope.

 

[E.L.C.]

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.

Nothing you guys have said changes any of that. You've shown no exception to the rule. It won't do you any good to take out your frustrations on me either. You see, some guy called Newton came up with it.... not me.

It's not my fault you can't prove or even elucidate your "Never Before Seen In The History Of Science Unique Non-Newtonian Extraordinary Structural Failure Mode Exemption Theory".... you could shorten the title a little though!


Your problem is with that Newton guy. Prove an exception without resorting to magic or sorcery, or....

You lose.​

lose definition

lose /loooooz/ /looooozer/ /looooozing/ .... that means you!

verb: lose; 3rd person present: loses; past tense: lost; past participle: lost; gerund or present participle: losing

to be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something, like an argument).
"He lost the argument because of Newton"

synonyms: be deprived of, suffer the loss of; no longer have
"Newton made him Lose the argument"

cause (someone) to fail to gain or retain (something).
"Newton lost him the opportunity to win the argument"

synonyms: be deprived of an opportunity, fail to benefit, be disadvantaged, be the loser
"because of Newton, he will lose the argument"

be deprived of (such as a ridiculous notion or idea) through it being impossible to prove
"knowing nothing of them, he lost the argument over Newtonian principles"

 

[percysunshine]

So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... Please, just the physics. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?

THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7

Images courtesy of KokomoJojo

Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, states free fall only happens when an object (or building) “...has no structural components below it.” He says despite the existence of structural components (mass) below it, WTC 7 went into free fall as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.

David Chandler, a retired physics teacher, states free fall only happens (to a building) when an "....external force removes the supporting structure." He says energy would have to to be added from some external source to remove structural components (mass) below it for free fall to occur as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.

Chart courtesy of KokomoJojo

They agree that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet but....

There can be only one, they cannot both be true.... Or can they?

Is it Chandler on the left, or Sunder on the right?

My schematic animated representations of both theories.​

This does not look that unusual. It only takes milliseconds to atomize a support, and the number presented is 2.25 seconds. 2250 milliseconds. Four significant figures are needed to describe the physical process, but only three significant figures were measured.

We would need to repeat the experiment with more accurate measurements if we wanted to draw any conclusions.

.

 

[E.L.C.]

Milliseconds? For the sake of precision, why not 2250000000 nanoseconds? That way we can set up high speed demolition proof cameras and track each particle after collapse is initiated to see if anything contradicts that Newton guy.

Right.... repeating the experiment will be easy, I'll just run out in a couple of days and buy a 47 story scyscraper for the purpose. I'll get back to you on that asap!

You can't be serious.

 

[percysunshine]

Milliseconds? For the sake of precision, why not 2250000000 nanoseconds? That way we can track each particle after collapse is intiated to see if anything contradicts that Newton guy.

Right.... repeating the experiment will be easy, I'll just run out in a couple of days and buy a 47 story scyscraper for the purpose. I'll get back to you on that asap!

You can't be serious.

It is milliseconds and not nanoseconds because that is the rate that molecular bonds are broken en-masse by these types of physical reactions. Nanoseconds would be sub-atomic reaction rates.

Hold on a second! WTC 7 might have been nuked!

 

[E.L.C.]

It is milliseconds and not nanoseconds because that is the rate that molecular bonds are broken en-masse by these types of physical reactions. Nanoseconds would be sub-atomic reaction rates.

Hold on a second! WTC 7 might have been nuked!

Fascinating!​

​

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Wrong.



Where the load becomes high enough and the column resistance becomes zero.

 

[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?

 

[E.L.C.]

Alright.... Gamaclown (among others) just keeps talking, and it might take several minutes to figure out what he's actually trying to say. I'll be right back.

 

[E.L.C.]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

 

[daws101]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

ok the parameters
which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
Bing Dictionary
pa·ram·e·ter[ pə rámmətər ]
limiting factor: a fact or circumstance that restricts how something is done or what can be done
variable quantity determining outcome: a measurable quantity, e.g. temperature, that determines the result of a scientific experiment and can be altered to vary the result
notable characteristic: a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic

 

[eots]

why does anyone still bother with these idiots?

they have all been debunked multiple times

by who ? when ?

 

[daws101]

why does anyone still bother with these idiots?

they have all been debunked multiple times

by who ? when ?

 

[E.L.C.]

ok the parameters
which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
Bing Dictionary
pa·ram·e·ter[ pə rámmətər ]
limiting factor: a fact or circumstance that restricts how something is done or what can be done
variable quantity determining outcome: a measurable quantity, e.g. temperature, that determines the result of a scientific experiment and can be altered to vary the result
notable characteristic: a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic

Well, you loser, your comment shows you read the definition of loser I posted.... it's a very good fit for you. At least now you're actually starting to learn proper diction. Fabulous! I've always said that anyone who functions at diminished capacity (no matter the circmstances) should nevertheless make some attempt to broaden their horizons.... Hats off to you man!

By the way, that link you posted, What are the laws of physics, goes directly to a site that says all the textbooks I ever read are wrong and that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science was, or something like that. Funny, but not realistic, unless of course one is functioning at diminished capacity (that would be you).

I'm talking to Gamaclown right now, but I promise, I'll be sure to get back to you if/when I'm stoned and drunk (shouldn't be long at this rate) to assure a level playing field for the exchange.

 

[daws101]

ok the parameters
which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
Bing Dictionary
pa·ram·e·ter[ pə rámmətər ]
limiting factor: a fact or circumstance that restricts how something is done or what can be done
variable quantity determining outcome: a measurable quantity, e.g. temperature, that determines the result of a scientific experiment and can be altered to vary the result
notable characteristic: a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic

Well, you loser, your comment shows you read the definition of loser I posted.... it's a very good fit for you. At least now you're actually starting to learn proper diction. Fabulous! I've always said that anyone who functions at diminished capacity (no matter the circmstances) should nevertheless make some attempt to broaden their horizons.... Hats off to you man!

By the way, that link you posted, What are the laws of physics, goes directly to a site that says all the textbooks I ever read are wrong and that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science was, or something like that. Funny, but not realistic, unless of course one is funtioning at diminished capacity (that would be you).

I'm talking to Gamaclown right now, but I promise, I'll be sure to get back to you if/when I'm stoned and drunk (shouldn't be long at this rate) to assure a level playing field for the exchange.

pretentious and wrong.
oh by the way the diction spelling and diminished capacity shit is played out...
you asshats play that game when you're getting your ass handed to you..
wow 55 and no more mature than in high school!




oh btw you dodged the question:which definition

 

[E.L.C.]

It's dawsian physics Mr. Spock!

 

[SAYIT]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

 

[Rockland]

Poor T.N.U.C.; nothing more than a (sock)puppet with dreams of one day becoming a real boy.

 

[Gamolon]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

You've already set the parameters!

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.

Here is a failing structure.



Are you telling me that no matter how much that load increases, there is no chance for that column beneath it to EVER reach zero resistance?

And you keep avoiding my other question.

When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?