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

[TECSHARE]

Or people ignored an assertion that was non sensical.

There's nothing wrong with your "Tell me what is wrong..." except that you can't even prove that the collection of disassembled objects previously know as WTT, then falling from one of the World Trade Towers were or were not falling at "free fall speed."

Given the huge clouds of dust, you'd have to rely on radar or acoustic signatures. Then given the settling of the debris, you'd at best have an envelope of uncertainty around your imaginary concept of "free fall speed."

Next you'd have to conjecture that the resistance of the collapse somehow was outside of the bounds of that envelope of uncertainty. Being Tecshare, you'd like to determine that by PROCLAMATION BY TECSHARE.

It doesn't work that way. Show the math and the numbers if you want to be taken seriously.

How about the official 9/11 commission report?

"From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds..."
P. 305 "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT"

How tall was it?

"The North Tower rose 1,368 feet—1,730 feet with a large antenna—and the South Tower stood 1,362 feet high."

https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history


1362 feet in 10 seconds. This requires zero resistance to reach these speeds.



"But its smokey!" You say. What about WTC 7?


"Freefall Acceleration of WTC7"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw


It is not complicated. The official story claims the floors impacted each other progressively on the way down. For this to be possible, Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down.

Tell me more about baseless proclamations as you do exactly what you accuse me of.

[Spendulus]

....

It is not complicated. The official story claims the floors impacted each other progressively on the way down. For this to be possible, Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down.

Tell me more about baseless proclamations as you do exactly what you accuse me of.

I don't recall "the official story claiming" for WTC7, the floors impacted each other progressively.

That phenomena is an accurate description of what everyone's seen on video regarding the twin towers. For WTC 7, it collapsed inwards.

Please stop sayng nonsensical things such as "Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down."

Without accurate and precise measurements of the "rate of speed of the fall", you cannot make any claim as to the matter.

The way this actually works would be if we say the time of fall is known within certain upper and lower bounds, then the effective gravitational force would be known within certain bounds, and since g is known, then the range of a possible second variable that might decrease the effective g is known. Not that it would be proportional to g at all speeds, but you should get the idea.

Or people ignored an assertion that was non sensical.

There's nothing wrong with your "Tell me what is wrong..." except that you can't even prove that the collection of disassembled objects previously know as WTT, then falling from one of the World Trade Towers were or were not falling at "free fall speed."

Given the huge clouds of dust, you'd have to rely on radar or acoustic signatures. Then given the settling of the debris, you'd at best have an envelope of uncertainty around your imaginary concept of "free fall speed."

Next you'd have to conjecture that the resistance of the collapse somehow was outside of the bounds of that envelope of uncertainty. Being Tecshare, you'd like to determine that by PROCLAMATION BY TECSHARE.

It doesn't work that way. Show the math and the numbers if you want to be taken seriously.

How about the official 9/11 commission report?

"From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds..."
P. 305 "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT"

How tall was it?

"The North Tower rose 1,368 feet—1,730 feet with a large antenna—and the South Tower stood 1,362 feet high."

https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history


1362 feet in 10 seconds. This requires zero resistance to reach these speeds.

You've pulled that quote from a general description of the events, not even related to timing.
How do you figure "requires zero resistance"?

Here is the paragraph in full and in context.

...First responders assisted thousands of civilians in evacuating the towers, even as incident com- manders from responding agencies lacked knowledge of what other agencies and, in some cases, their own responders were doing.

From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—both first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud.The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Regardless, why would you use the highest elevation to calculate the speed of fall? the collapse started from about the 80th floor. Seems you've improperly described the events in order to make a point.

From page 294.

At 9:03:11, the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 77th to 85th floors.

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

[groggin]

  

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

  no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall
     --it's like saying the trunk of a tree has little or no influence over the loft of it's branches ...  

  

... badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.

  thank you for stating an ongoing conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

[BADecker]

 no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall

  

... badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.

  thank you for stating a conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

Another way to explain it is to find a mountain that thrusts up 1,000 feet on a flat plain. One such mountain is Rib Mountain, near Wausau, Wisconsin.

Stick a guy holding a 5-pound, steel ball on the top of Rib Mountain. Then get another guy with a 5-pound, steel ball in a helicopter over the plain next to Rib Mountain, 1,000 feet above the ground. Have both guys drop their 5-pound, steel balls at the same time. Which ball will hit the ground at plain-level first?

In order for the top of either of the Towers to hit the ground at almost free-fall speed, the rest of the tower had to decide to get out of the way at exactly the same time. But the Towers were built to stand, not to get out of the way. And they just don't have the ability to decide to do anything other than what they were designed for. To get out of the way, they needed help... like demolition help.

Since this case isn't being re-opened, and since the inside-job perpetrators aren't being found out and prosecuted and executed, the whole government is guilty. This being the fact, we can see that at best, government might be accidentally telling the truth about some of this Covid stuff.

[Spendulus]

 

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

  no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall
     --it's like saying the trunk of a tree has little or no influence over the loft of it's branches ...  

  

... badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.

  thank you for stating an ongoing conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

how exactly do you "watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground"?

Answer: You can't.

Closest you can get is to look at the acoustics tracks

[Spendulus]

...

Since this case isn't being re-opened, and since the inside-job perpetrators aren't being found out and prosecuted and executed, the whole government is guilty. ...

Iranian propaganda is your thing, apparently.

[BADecker]

 

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

  no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall
     --it's like saying the trunk of a tree has little or no influence over the loft of it's branches ...  

  

... badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.

  thank you for stating an ongoing conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

how exactly do you "watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground"?

Answer: You can't.

Closest you can get is to look at the acoustics tracks

I was going to do a big laugh. But then I realized that you aren't even funny anymore. There's videos of the fall, well, maybe not all over the place. But in lots of places. What? Are you trying to measure, the fall in nano-seconds or something?

...

Since this case isn't being re-opened, and since the inside-job perpetrators aren't being found out and prosecuted and executed, the whole government is guilty. ...

Iranian propaganda is your thing, apparently.

Your thing is to cover up an inside job.     

[Spendulus]

 

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

  no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall
     --it's like saying the trunk of a tree has little or no influence over the loft of it's branches ...  

  

... badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.

  thank you for stating an ongoing conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

how exactly do you "watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground"?

Answer: You can't.

Closest you can get is to look at the acoustics tracks

I was going to do a big laugh. But then I realized that you aren't even funny anymore. There's videos of the fall, well, maybe not all over the place. But in lots of places. What? Are you trying to measure, the fall in nano-seconds or something?

...

Since this case isn't being re-opened, and since the inside-job perpetrators aren't being found out and prosecuted and executed, the whole government is guilty. ...

Iranian propaganda is your thing, apparently.

Your thing is to cover up an inside job.     

Inviting guys like you to prove up your assertions with simple math is the exact opposite of covering anything up. You believe in the Iranian propaganda and promote it.

But you have not proved it. Quite the opposite. You are the guy that thought this link was authoritative.

Oh, that's right. The did it already. One little place is right here - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html.

You were wrong. Whoever wrote that page did not even have an understanding of 8th grade physics.

You mean those guys that got it wrong by 8th grade physics? Yea, you do. Like right here in this section?

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

Deal with it.

[BADecker]

The info at the below link has all kinds of backup bibliography. But if you need more, go to https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-14-911-new-york-fire-commissioners-call-new-investigation.html to see that the New York Fire Department is picking this whole thing up again, to get some REAL answers.

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition of an old Vegas casino? It looks just like what happened to Building 7

The mainstream media and official narrative-pushers have had to perform all sorts of logical and gravitational gymnastics to try to explain away what happened to Building 7, which was located relatively far from the twin towers and minimally impacted by their collapse. Those who ask honest questions about why this building imploded when it wasn’t even hit by the planes have long been dubbed conspiracy theorists for even bringing it up.

[TECSHARE]

I don't recall "the official story claiming" for WTC7, the floors impacted each other progressively.

That phenomena is an accurate description of what everyone's seen on video regarding the twin towers. For WTC 7, it collapsed inwards.

Please stop sayng nonsensical things such as "Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down."

Without accurate and precise measurements of the "rate of speed of the fall", you cannot make any claim as to the matter.

The way this actually works would be if we say the time of fall is known within certain upper and lower bounds, then the effective gravitational force would be known within certain bounds, and since g is known, then the range of a possible second variable that might decrease the effective g is known. Not that it would be proportional to g at all speeds, but you should get the idea.

...

You've pulled that quote from a general description of the events, not even related to timing.
How do you figure "requires zero resistance"?

Here is the paragraph in full and in context.

...First responders assisted thousands of civilians in evacuating the towers, even as incident com- manders from responding agencies lacked knowledge of what other agencies and, in some cases, their own responders were doing.

From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—both first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud.The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Regardless, why would you use the highest elevation to calculate the speed of fall? the collapse started from about the 80th floor. Seems you've improperly described the events in order to make a point.

From page 294.

At 9:03:11, the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 77th to 85th floors.

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

It doesn't matter which direction it collapses. Collapsing inwards doesn't magically remove the resistance of the internal infrastructure. Fire doesn't do that. Impact damage doesn't do that. I don't need precise measurements of every detail and qualifier you want to tack on for you to obfuscate that your theory requires the laws of physics to be violated. Gravitational acceleration, or "free fall" speed is approximately 32 ft/s2. Anything close to, at, or above that downward velocity REQUIRES zero resistance form internal infrastructure to be achievable under Newtons third law of motion. It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. You keep trying to argue against the laws of physics. Like I said before, all the other theories are useless. When it comes down to it you have to argue against the laws of physics itself to claim your "pancake collapse" theory is true.

[Spendulus]

....


It doesn't matter which direction it collapses. Collapsing inwards doesn't magically remove the resistance of the internal infrastructure. Fire doesn't do that. Impact damage doesn't do that. I don't need precise measurements of every detail and qualifier you want to tack on for you to obfuscate that your theory requires the laws of physics to be violated. Gravitational acceleration, or "free fall" speed is approximately 32 ft/s2. Anything close to, at, or above that downward velocity REQUIRES zero resistance form internal infrastructure to be achievable under Newtons third law of motion. It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ...

Actual written down math equations will always beat your blabber. You don't appear to even understand the matter, though. Here you go.

"Free fall" speed is not 32 ft/s2. That's the acceleration.

The speed may be considered as 32 ft/sec for the first second, 64 ft/sec for the 2nd section, and so forth. We're using 8th grade here, so no calculus. But it still works fine.
v (ft/sec) = 32(ft/sec2) * t(sec)

As the speed doubles, the kinetic energy quadruples.
e = 1/2*m*t^2

That "friction" that you keep harping about does not have to be zero. It could be a small amount, or a moderate amount. It's only in your head that it has to be zero. I repeat your assertion. "It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ..."

Obviously, this "slowing of v" is trivial. It might have a significant effect on the 1st second. Say that is 1 second longer. It will then have 1/4 that effect on the 2nd second, 1/9 on the 3rd and so forth.

The series described is 1/2, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25. That is the Basel problem, first solved in 1734. I confess to thinking it would be beyond 8th graders capabilities, and started to just suggest something less that 1.7 seconds.

But then I found this dude.

Ikhwan Mirza Hafiz
i'm 13 and i like maths and science.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ikhwan-Mirza-Hafiz

eight graders are 12-14, I guess I can continue.

He showed the answer is pi squared / 6, or 1.644934066848.

What this means. Even with serious "friction", you will never have more than 1.64 seconds added to the descent time. You actually have at least 1.64 seconds of uncertainty in the descent time. You have two initial presumptions that are incorrect. (1) REQUIRES zero resistance (2) a mislead certainty as to the "descent time". And so what you thought proved one thing, proves the opposite.

[BADecker]

....


It doesn't matter which direction it collapses. Collapsing inwards doesn't magically remove the resistance of the internal infrastructure. Fire doesn't do that. Impact damage doesn't do that. I don't need precise measurements of every detail and qualifier you want to tack on for you to obfuscate that your theory requires the laws of physics to be violated. Gravitational acceleration, or "free fall" speed is approximately 32 ft/s2. Anything close to, at, or above that downward velocity REQUIRES zero resistance form internal infrastructure to be achievable under Newtons third law of motion. It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ...

Actual written down math equations will always beat your blabber. You don't appear to even understand the matter, though. Here you go.

"Free fall" speed is not 32 ft/s2. That's the acceleration.

The speed may be considered as 32 ft/sec for the first second, 64 ft/sec for the 2nd section, and so forth. We're using 8th grade here, so no calculus. But it still works fine.
v (ft/sec) = 32(ft/sec2) * t(sec)

As the speed doubles, the kinetic energy quadruples.
e = 1/2*m*t^2

That "friction" that you keep harping about does not have to be zero. It could be a small amount, or a moderate amount. It's only in your head that it has to be zero. I repeat your assertion. "It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ..."

Obviously, this "slowing of v" is trivial. It might have a significant effect on the 1st second. Say that is 1 second longer. It will then have 1/4 that effect on the 2nd second, 1/9 on the 3rd and so forth.

The series described is 1/2, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25. That is the Basel problem, first solved in 1734. I confess to thinking it would be beyond 8th graders capabilities, and started to just suggest something less that 1.7 seconds.

But then I found this dude.

Ikhwan Mirza Hafiz
i'm 13 and i like maths and science.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ikhwan-Mirza-Hafiz

eight graders are 12-14, I guess I can continue.

He showed the answer is pi squared / 6, or 1.644934066848.

What this means. Even with serious "friction", you will never have more than 1.64 seconds added to the descent time.

Thanks, Spendy, for trying to confuse the issue with all kinds of junk that doesn't apply because it isn't enough of what really happened.

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. How do we know? Because it was the top of the tower that we base the free-fall speed on.

This means that the parts under the top,
which started to fall a whole lot later than the top,
would have to accelerate at far faster than gravitational acceleration,
which was already moving faster than the building under it that hadn't started falling yet,
so that those parts could get out of the way of the top,
to let it continue on down at free-fall speeds.

What is there than can cause parts of the building in the middle, to suddenly accelerate to faster than free-fall, just to get out of the way of the top which landed as though it fell at free-fall? Two things:
1. Demolition pushed the lower parts out of the way so the top could fall like free-fall (making them accelerate way faster than free-fall acceleration, btw);
2. The top was accelerated downward (by demolition) way faster than free-fall acceleration, so it could squash the lower parts that were trying to hinder its fall, fast enough so that it could take the whole thing down at free-fall speeds.

In other words, all the junk you said that I just quoted, helps to show that there was some kind of demolition or other force causing the buildings to fall, that was way greater than the force of gravity.

[Spendulus]

....

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...

The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.


As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.

[BADecker]

....

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...

The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.


As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.

Oh, Spendy. You are so funny. Lol. The only junk I linked to was your post, which is also proof for stuff falling faster than free-fall if you apply it to the falling Towers.

I gotta go mow lawn. So I wasn't even going to login. But between you and F-1, you jokers are so funny, that I just couldn't hold back. Lol.

[Spendulus]

....

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...

The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.


As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.

The only junk I linked to was your post, which is also proof for stuff falling faster than free-fall...

Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.

First it's free fall, then when you get shown that's not true, it becomes "faster than free-fall."

[TECSHARE]

Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.

...you maroon...

Yeah, only chumps with no argument do that.

[Spendulus]

Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.

...you maroon...

Yeah, only chumps with no argument do that.

But I'm not the one to make an argument here, I am only interesting in refuting arguments, and only if it can be done with 8th grade science.

Now that your "free-fall" nonsense is refuted, what are you going to do? Revert to a ridiculous "Well now it has to be falling FASTER THAN GRAVITY" like someone else here, or simply admit you were wrong about that?

[BADecker]

....

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. ...

The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.


As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.

The only junk I linked to was your post, which is also proof for stuff falling faster than free-fall...

Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.

First it's free fall, then when you get shown that's not true, it becomes "faster than free-fall."

Well, the overall effect was near free-fall. But to get the overall effect, some of it was accelerating faster than gravity acceleration at times, and traveling much faster than free-fall velocity at other times.

Poor little baby. It must be so emotionally painful to find out that people are realizing you are mixed up. Adhominem can be quite fun when you use it, but oh, so painful, if it is used on you. Of course it wasn't used on you. You simply cried adhominem  wolf.

Actually, you are getting boring. Just like an 8th grader who can't understand when he is wrong.

[TECSHARE]

But I'm not the one to make an argument here, I am only interesting in refuting arguments, and only if it can be done with 8th grade science.

Now that your "free-fall" nonsense is refuted, what are you going to do? Revert to a ridiculous "Well now it has to be falling FASTER THAN GRAVITY" like someone else here, or simply admit you were wrong about that?

You haven't refuted anything, you just obfuscated the issue and proclaimed the laws of physics "debunked".

[BADecker]

But I'm not the one to make an argument here, I am only interesting in refuting arguments, and only if it can be done with 8th grade science.

Now that your "free-fall" nonsense is refuted, what are you going to do? Revert to a ridiculous "Well now it has to be falling FASTER THAN GRAVITY" like someone else here, or simply admit you were wrong about that?

You haven't refuted anything, you just obfuscated the issue and proclaimed the laws of physics "debunked".

Give him just a little more rope, and he will debunk the laws of physics with 8th grade laws of physics.

You know that he is enjoying this, don't you? He has already made jokes about some of the things he has said, just like he were debunking himself.