University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[TECSHARE]

and there we have it folks.
even when using his own image.. he cant see the obvious
it has been declared.. techshare is an idiot

while the real world can see its lodged in the roof from above.. meaning the numbers are different to techchshares fantasy of a horizontal thrust.
he can scream, and argue and cry as loud and for as long as he likes as many numbers as he wants about horizontal thrust. but he has already lost the debate by just saying horizontal


im moving on to other topics, because idiots cant be taught not to be idiots

[sees image]
[projects what he wants to see on it to confirm his bias]

"If you can't see it you are just an idiot!"

Speaking of idiots, you can't even define horizontal movement correctly. It is a 100% fact the panels moved horizontally. This part isn't even a debate.

How can I know this? Well, because if it only moved along a vertical axis downward, it would fall within the footprint of the building. The fact that it was lodged into a building 600 feet a way is 100% solid proof of horizontal movement. Maybe later you would like to regale me with your exceptional understanding of how sticking your finger into the barrel of a fired gun will cause it to backfire onto the shooter leaving you unharmed.

....
If anyone is interested in modern physics, research rotational frame dragging.   ...

Interesting subject. I was tempted to include the coriolis effect, but that would have violated Rule 1.

"Defeat conspiracy arguments about 911 with only 8th grade physics and chemistry."

....

The panels moved horizontally. That is not under debate. You have fun with the rest of that.

At about 18 meters/second, or 43 miles per hour.

REGARDLESS of the mass of the object or its sideways velocity, it will be moving at 77 meters per second downward when it strikes the ground.

.....

So you are suggesting a steel beam slides against itself and redirects its OWN momentum? What the fuck are you even talking about?

There are several problems with your assumptions here regarding the calculations. First of all, it wasn't just single beams launched hundreds of feet, it was entire panel sections. Second, you assume the explosive force you calculated is 100% efficient as if they were shot out of a canon, and that is not how reality works in this case.

"In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels."
[January 1, 1970, Engineering News Record, Volume 184, Part 1, 'World's tallest towers begin to show themselves on New York City skyline', pp. 26-27]

"The perimeter structure was actually formed from pre-fabricated sections of vertical columns attached to horizontal beams (called spandrels). The prefabricated sections were about 10 feet (3 m) wide, either two or three stories high, and weighed about 22 tons."....

You can see here an entire panel section on the roof of the winter garden approximately 600 feet away. ....

As far as conversion of a fraction of kinetic energy from straight vertical to horizontal it makes no difference whether an object hits a flat edge at a slant, or hits a slanted surface perpendicular or parallel to the Earth surface. Or two objects collide in flight. All you need is the end effect of some 5% conversion to horizontal.

It does NOT MATTER how many objects there were or how much they weighed. Each KG of mass has TE = (KE + PE), and requires 162 joules energy to achieve horizontal flight sufficient to reach 500 feet.

This is a simple ballistics trajectory problem. If the beam had MORE ENERGY than 162 joules launched from 300 meters height it would travel farther than 500 feet, and if it had less it would not go as far. Of course this changes with height, right? For example if you claimed the object was tossed through the air from 30 meters height, the numbers would be considerably different.

And no, I didn't assume "explosive force was 100% efficient" because there was no need for "explosive force."

If you want to assert that each kg had > 162 joules sideways force then you are going to have to explain why they did not travel FARTHER.

So let's hear it.

It does in fact matter how much they weighed, even making such a statement that it doesn't matter in this context shows extreme amounts of ignorance and or disingenuousness. The more massive the object, the more it necessitates increasing force in order to cause it to travel against the forces of gravity, 600 feet laterally.

I said nothing of the shape of any objects, you did. You made a claim that these panel sections were ramping off of themselves. Objects do not interact with themselves mechanically to produce momentum like standing in a sail boat and  blowing into the sail like in a cartoon, because every force has an equal and opposite reaction. 5% conversion of what? The resting state from which the panels were ejected?

You did assume 100% efficiency of explosive force in fact. Sorry if you forgot your own words already.

Duh, has it occurred to you that a section of steel beam is it's own ramp? Obviously not.  So, 2000 kg * 162 joules = 364,000 joules required to move this beam 500 feet.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. You've got a beam with PE = > 6 Mj and you are claiming that "High Energy Explosives" is required to supply the tiny amount of energy of 364 Kj?

If that were the case, the amount of TNT would be 2-3 ounces. I'm seriously not impressed with the utter necessity you project of explosives being "REQUIRED" here.

The numbers just don't show it. If I have missed something, please show the corrections.

Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

[1714984729]

1714984729

[1714984729]

1714984729

[franky1]

^
denies the video that shows the debris

thinks the only opinion is debris falling within a few feet from tall height.. or blown hundreds of feet from low down
he cannot see or accept even when there is video evidence the curve (diagonal)

idiot... definitely moving on because this guy will never learn to actually look at the video of the actual event.. and instead just continue circling his fantasy made up in his head

[TECSHARE]

^
denies the video that shows the debris

thinks the only opinion is debris falling within a few feet from tall height.. or blown hundreds of feet from low down
he cannot see or accept even when there is video evidence the curve (diagonal)

idiot... definitely moving on because this guy will never learn to actually look at the video of the actual event.. and instead just continue circling his fantasy made up in his head

You should learn what words mean, then get back to us.

[Spendulus]

...
Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

[BADecker]

...
Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

So, you're saying, that all that it takes to move something sideways against its weight and other forces that hold it in place is about 2 or 3 ounces of TNT. Have you measured all the counter forces that were attempting to hold these objects in place?

We don't know that the major explosions didn't boost the objects in question up into the air in a lateral upward boost. Gravity changed the vectors so that the objects came down with hardly any sideways force applied at all... not even 1 ounce of TNT sideways.


The university jokers have taken way more forces into account than you can even imagine existed.

[Spendulus]

...
Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

So, you're saying, that all that it takes to move something sideways against its weight and other forces that hold it in place is about 2 or 3 ounces of TNT. Have you measured all the counter forces that were attempting to hold these objects in place?

We don't know that the major explosions didn't boost the objects in question up into the air in a lateral upward boost. Gravity changed the vectors so that the objects came down with hardly any sideways force applied at all... not even 1 ounce of TNT sideways.


The university jokers have taken way more forces into account than you can even imagine existed.

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

[BADecker]

So, you're saying, that all that it takes to move something sideways against its weight and other forces that hold it in place is about 2 or 3 ounces of TNT. Have you measured all the counter forces that were attempting to hold these objects in place?

We don't know that the major explosions didn't boost the objects in question up into the air in a lateral upward boost. Gravity changed the vectors so that the objects came down with hardly any sideways force applied at all... not even 1 ounce of TNT sideways.


The university jokers have taken way more forces into account than you can even imagine existed.

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

The way you are impractical makes all you calc entirely worthless. Why? Because your calc doesn't fit the real beams in any way. After all, was there any force that might hinder beam movement? Consider simple resistance to beam movement:
1. If the beams were simply floating in the air, your forces might be nearly accurate;
2. If the beams were submerged in water, your forces might be nearly accurate. But there is more resistance in water than in air;
3. If the beams were lying on level ground with the friction of the ground the only thing to hinder their movement, you would have to drastically change your calc;
4. If the beams were up against the face of a mountain; your applied TNT wouldn't budge them a any measurable amount.
5. Depending on resistant forces, your calc could be right on, or it could be way off.

Play the physics game if you want. But don't go around expecting people to believe that you are in any way talking about 9/11.

[Spendulus]

....
Play the physics game if you want. ...

There is no other game.

Oh, I forgot. There is the game of the Chinese disinformation agents and spies that you push and encourage.

[BADecker]

....
Play the physics game if you want. ...

There is no other game.

Oh, I forgot. There is the game of the Chinese disinformation agents and spies that you push and encourage.

But of course. Even your deception falls under the classification of physics... at its base and core.

Now, do like the university study did, bring thousands of more physics calculations into it, rather than just one little point that doesn't really work without the rest of the calc.

[TECSHARE]

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

First of all you are still basing your calculation on a 2 ton mass. The photos I provided showed an ENTIRE panel section, coming in at 22 tons 600 feet away laterally from the point of origin. That aside, you are also pretending as if your calculation was based on a perfectly efficient explosion which transferred all of its energy into the mass. Your calculation shows only the energy used to move the mass itself and totally ignores inefficiencies that happen in real explosions. Real explosions follow the path of least resistance, so the pressure wave travels in all directions, most of the energy being wasted pushing air or other debris, meaning MUCH more explosives than you got from your calculation would be required. In summary your calculation is trash.

[franky1]

find a dictionary and learn the word diagonal
i know what diagonal is. but you are stuck with horizontal

[sirazimuth]

~Snip ...9/11 silliness~

For confirmation on a nonsensical conspiracy theory debunked years ago, just use a 2007 YouTube vid
with comments disabled. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Really dude? You still haven’t let this drivel go after 19 years?
Pushed by OP.... none  other than the resident bitcointalk,
 godswill, science denying, nut job troll, BADecker?
I honestly thought you were smarter than that.

[Spendulus]

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

First of all you are still basing your calculation on a 2 ton mass. The photos I provided showed an ENTIRE panel section, coming in at 22 tons 600 feet away laterally from the point of origin. That aside, you are also pretending as if your calculation was based on a perfectly efficient explosion which transferred all of its energy into the mass. Your calculation shows only the energy used to move the mass itself and totally ignores inefficiencies that happen in real explosions. Real explosions follow the path of least resistance, so the pressure wave travels in all directions, most of the energy being wasted pushing air or other debris, meaning MUCH more explosives than you got from your calculation would be required. In summary your calculation is trash.

I'm not solving your problem of trying to figure out why and how EXPLOSIVE FORCE is required and don't lecture me about real explosions. I know there was zero need for explosions for this case. That's you that believes there was that need, but you haven't proved it. You've just talked about how INCREDIBLE it was that a MASSIVE BEAM was moved 500 feet. And don't try to explain to me about inefficiencies in a spherical expansion of mass being inefficient in producing movement in just one direction. I could have thrown that formula in, but didn't for several reason.

You have several misunderstandings, the first one being attempting to shoe horn this problem into EXPLOSIONS REQUIRED. If they are required, they are, and if they are not, they are not required.

Finally, I am surprised that apparently even at this point, you do not see that the E = (KE + PE)/KG is and will always be PER KG. It does not matter that your "massive beam" is 2 or 22 tons.

But now you seem to want to talk about a 22 ton piece of metal and 600 feet of travel. So this will be not 5% but 6-7% of starting PE, energy of position. So what? It's a tiny part of the instantaneous energy.

Seriously, if you showed some big heavy thing 500 feet after a 4 story building fell down, you'd have a point. But you don't.

No explosives were needed to produce the effects seen.

[franky1]

each floor has air in it. and windows dont open. so when a floor collapes that air (wind) has to go somewhere
no explosives are needed just air pressure escaping each floor plus debris spinning.
as seen on THE ACTUAL VIDEO. not some conspiracy blog of words wrote by people that were not even at the scene

but hey

----> techshare
vs

\
 \
  \
   | science/phsyic/commonsense/witnesses/evidence

[BADecker]

whole world view, evidence view
#
  #
   #
    #
    #

techshare view
###

im still laughing

But we don't know that it wasn't something like this:


            #  #
        #          #
     #                #
  #                     #
#                         #
                             #
                              #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #

[franky1]

But we don't know that it wasn't something like this:


            #  #
        #          #
     #                #
  #                     #
#                         #
                             #
                              #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #

video shows it wasnt the case
you know. the video.. you know actual account of actual events.you know evidence. proof

but atleast you admit you dont know. so now you can stop guessing

[Spendulus]

But we don't know that it wasn't something like this:


            #  #
        #          #
     #                #
  #                     #
#                         #
                             #
                              #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #

video shows it wasnt the case
you know. the video.. you know actual account of actual events.you know evidence. proof

but atleast you admit you dont know. so now you can stop guessing

Such things have a parabolic down ward path.

[TECSHARE]

find a dictionary and learn the word diagonal
i know what diagonal is. but you are stuck with horizontal

Diagonal movement is a combination of movement along a vertical and horizontal axis, thus the panels moved horizontally. I know this is hard... but think. Rub those last 2 brain cells together.

I'm not solving your problem of trying to figure out why and how EXPLOSIVE FORCE is required and don't lecture me about real explosions. I know there was zero need for explosions for this case. That's you that believes there was that need, but you haven't proved it. You've just talked about how INCREDIBLE it was that a MASSIVE BEAM was moved 500 feet. And don't try to explain to me about inefficiencies in a spherical expansion of mass being inefficient in producing movement in just one direction. I could have thrown that formula in, but didn't for several reason.

You have several misunderstandings, the first one being attempting to shoe horn this problem into EXPLOSIONS REQUIRED. If they are required, they are, and if they are not, they are not required.

Finally, I am surprised that apparently even at this point, you do not see that the E = (KE + PE)/KG is and will always be PER KG. It does not matter that your "massive beam" is 2 or 22 tons.

But now you seem to want to talk about a 22 ton piece of metal and 600 feet of travel. So this will be not 5% but 6-7% of starting PE, energy of position. So what? It's a tiny part of the instantaneous energy.

Seriously, if you showed some big heavy thing 500 feet after a 4 story building fell down, you'd have a point. But you don't.

No explosives were needed to produce the effects seen.

Nice circular logic. The initial starting energy is actually the vast majority of the energy needed, but conveniently you pretend that is not the case. It didn't just fall, it traveled 600 feet horizontally against the effects of gravity. Objects don't fall sideways.

[BADecker]

But we don't know that it wasn't something like this:


            #  #
        #          #
     #                #
  #                     #
#                         #
                             #
                              #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #

video shows it wasnt the case
you know. the video.. you know actual account of actual events.you know evidence. proof

but atleast you admit you dont know. so now you can stop guessing

What video?     

[franky1]

What video?     

its only been 6 days since the last time you asked.
wow you really are forgetful
here again.

And you don't have a link to the witness video you were talking about.

dang you have a real memory loss problem
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236144.msg54127072#msg54127072