The Physics Of WTC 7

[Gamolon]

Obviously, any structural component can reach a point where it no longer offers any resistance to the load above it. It happens all the time, either because of overloading or damage to the load bearing structural component....

WOOHOO!!!

Your're starting to see the light moron! Good for you!

but it can't go into free fall unless/until structural failure is complete (bifurcation), which takes time.

So the time it takes for a structure to fail is dependent on how much of an increased load is applied to said structure AND how quickly said load is increased right?

 

[Gamolon]

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?

Hey E.L.C.

Why do you keep avoiding the question above? You see, this it where it all ties together and you get proven wrong.

 

[daws101]

you believe the bank trust building is wtc7 too! LMAO

This has nothing to do with quantum guessing.

still dodging and still wrong.

wrong application get a clue

there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

still dodging and still wrong.

wrong application get a clue

there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?

Why are you talking to it at all??

It's obvious that it's just another Twoofer playing the JAQing around game.

If you ignore it, maybe it will go away and JAQ around elsewhere.

 

[KokomoJojo]

still dodging and still wrong.

wrong application get a clue

there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?

ok apply it then!

oh and show your work.

 

[E.L.C.]

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.

 

[Gamolon]

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.

I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

 

[Gamolon]

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.

Explain this one thing. E.L.C.

David Chandlers graph shows a BREAK in freefall (inside the blue oval). How do you explain that?

 

[daws101]

wrong application get a clue

there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?

ok apply it then!

oh and show your work.

wrong again! it's your job to prove it wrong or right your the plaintiff

 

[KokomoJojo]

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.

Explain this one thing. E.L.C.

David Chandlers graph shows a BREAK in freefall (inside the blue oval). How do you explain that?

It shows 4 breaks, which one do you need explained, the slightly slower than freefall or the 3 that are slightly faster then freefall?

 

[KokomoJojo]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply

there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?

ok apply it then!

oh and show your work.

wrong again! it's your job to prove it wrong or right your the plaintiff

then want me to prove it for you.

 

[daws101]

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.

[ame=http://youtu.be/AzTGMQcXP1Q]South Tower Smoking Guns debunked Part1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/f7GWYK5AMKY]South Tower Smoking Guns Debunked Part2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply

ok apply it then!

oh and show your work.

wrong again! it's your job to prove it wrong or right your the plaintiff

then want me to prove it for you.

if you do it would be a first!

 

[daws101]

I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

you don't know! thanks for admitting that!

 

[Gamolon]

I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

you don't know! thanks for admitting that!

That's why Koko is on ignore for me. Never adds anything to the discussion and clutters the thread with useless pictures. Makes viewing this thread MUCH easier.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

you don't know! thanks for admitting that!

if you knew you wouldnt have to ask now would you.

you gamaclown rocksforbains and ratinsack are the 4 runnerups for top tard who will be the queen for today?

 

[daws101]

"so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply"-kokojo

the above is a false statement BECAUSE THE PERSON QUOTED cannot tell the difference between a statement of fact and a claim.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

you don't know! thanks for admitting that!

That's why Koko is on ignore for me. Never adds anything to the discussion and clutters the thread with useless pictures. Makes viewing this thread MUCH easier.

nope koko is on ignore with you because koko makes mincemeat out of your ass and like a few others you damn well know it!

 

[daws101]

I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods

you don't know! thanks for admitting that!

if you knew you wouldnt have to ask now would you.

you gamaclown rocksforbains and ratinsack are the 4 runnerups for top tard who will be the queen for today?

another false statement...I never asked you to solve it. you said: "then want me to prove it for you."-kokojo
my reply: "if you do, it would be a first!"-daws

making this statement absolutely true: you don't know! thanks for admitting that!"-daws