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

[franky1]

screw it. just to make you look a fool. ill give it a shot


YOUR conspiracy is how a girder went horizontally but you have no proof of a horizontal direction.. its just what you beleive
____
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      | . . . ||
|      |
|      |

reality is..
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |   .
|      |     .
|      |      .
|      |       .
|      |        .
|      |        ||
|      |
|      |

why
because that || steel girder was lodged into another building and the impact path in the other building reveals the angel of entry was not horizontal.. yep thats a real physics thing
..
also.. guess what.. theres a video of it

bet you wish you done your research before you came to your flawed no evidence conspiracy theory.

[1714824948]

1714824948

[1714824948]

1714824948

[1714824948]

1714824948

[1714824948]

1714824948

[BADecker]

screw it. just to make you look a fool. ill give it a shot


YOUR conspiracy is how a girder went horizontally but you have no proof of a horizontal direction.. its just what you beleive
____
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      | . . . ||
|      |
|      |

reality is..
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |   .
|      |     .
|      |      .
|      |       .
|      |        .
|      |        ||
|      |
|      |

why
because that || steel girder was lodged into another building and the impact path in the other building reveals the angel of entry was not horizontal.. yep thats a real physics thing
..
also.. guess what.. theres a video of it

bet you wish you done your research before you came to your flawed no evidence conspiracy theory.

Good job on your drawings! Congratulation. But the point is...

Girders and beams don't do that without force causing them to do that. Gravity pulls down, not sideways. The girders and beams should have fallen right with the rest of the building, into the building's own footprint. But the footprint fall is more proof of the demolition that was used to push the girders and beams so far away from the building proper. Buildings can't be built to perfectly fall into their own footprint at near free fall speeds without knowing well ahead of time what forces will act on them... except with demolition.

Or do you have the engineers and designers that can show this and prove it?

[TECSHARE]

screw it. just to make you look a fool. ill give it a shot


YOUR conspiracy is how a girder went horizontally but you have no proof of a horizontal direction.. its just what you beleive
____
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      | . . . ||
|      |
|      |

reality is..
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |   .
|      |     .
|      |      .
|      |       .
|      |        .
|      |        ||
|      |
|      |

why
because that || steel girder was lodged into another building and the impact path in the other building reveals the angel of entry was not horizontal.. yep thats a real physics thing
..
also.. guess what.. theres a video of it

bet you wish you done your research before you came to your flawed no evidence conspiracy theory.

Nice drawing. Who said anything about angle of entry? I said lateral movement, which by the way is demonstrated in both of your crayon renderings. Gravity pulls objects in one direction. Down. Not sideways. Also the landing spot of these girders is fact documented by FEMA, not based on "belief".



https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf

[franky1]

i think you have been watching too much of that WB cartoon called road runner.
where they run off the edge of a cliff.. stop just off it and drop down straight.

you like drawings so here is how i think you believe it should be
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |||

that dont happen.
lets put it another way. if you stood at the top of a building at the edge and just leaned forward to fall off. with leas force as possible..
you would not be faling with ur ankles grinding against the building as you fall
____
|      |
|      |.
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | ||

now if you do it with a bit of a force like a push or a jump
____
|      |
|      | .
|      |  .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   ||

now if you take a bit more force like bending metal like a spring/ slingshot. and add a bit of spin
you will get even further out
without needing any massive explosives..

but hey all it takes is to actually watch the videos and you will see the shrapnil fliying.. at an angle
not low level horizintal and not high level complete vertical

[BADecker]

i think you have been watching too much of that WB cartoon called road runner.
where they run off the edge of a cliff.. stop just off it and drop down straight.

you like drawings so here is how i think you believe it should be
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |||

that dont happen.
lets put it another way. if you stood at the top of a building at the edge and just leaned forward to fall off. with leas force as possible..
you would not be faling with ur ankles grinding against the building as you fall
____
|      |
|      |.
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | ||

now if you do it with a bit of a force like a push or a jump
____
|      |
|      | .
|      |  .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   ||

now if you take a bit more force like bending metal like a spring/ slingshot. and add a bit of spin
you will get even further out
without needing any massive explosives..

but hey all it takes is to actually watch the videos and you will see the shrapnil fliying.. at an angle
not low level horizintal and not high level complete vertical

Oh! They lied to us. It was only a quarter of a football field. Not two football fields. Well, if they lied about this, they lied about the rest.

Or could it be you skewing the figures?

I think you are simply having fun drawing.

[TECSHARE]

i think you have been watching too much of that WB cartoon called road runner.
where they run off the edge of a cliff.. stop just off it and drop down straight.

you like drawings so here is how i think you believe it should be
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |||

that dont happen.
lets put it another way. if you stood at the top of a building at the edge and just leaned forward to fall off. with leas force as possible..
you would not be faling with ur ankles grinding against the building as you fall
____
|      |
|      |.
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | ||

now if you do it with a bit of a force like a push or a jump
____
|      |
|      | .
|      |  .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   ||

now if you take a bit more force like bending metal like a spring/ slingshot. and add a bit of spin
you will get even further out
without needing any massive explosives..

but hey all it takes is to actually watch the videos and you will see the shrapnil fliying.. at an angle
not low level horizintal and not high level complete vertical

I think it is you who gets his ideas of how physics work from roadrunner cartoons. "Spin" doesn't add momentum or distance to multi-ton steel girders. The amount of energy required to move such massive objects is a simple formula detailed in this video, and operates by the accepted laws of physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Yes, do watch the video. Watch how the debris goes up and out, not just down at a acute angle like your falling out a window theory, indicating a powerful outword force being exerted in EVERY direction. Interesting you use the word "shrapnil", because shrapnel by definition is an ejection from an explosive device.

[Vod]

I think it is you who gets his ideas of how physics work from roadrunner cartoons. "Spin" doesn't add momentum or distance to multi-ton steel girders. The amount of energy required to move such massive objects is a simple formula detailed in this video

They make simple formulas and simple videos for simple minds.

If anyone is interested in modern physics, research rotational frame dragging.   Techy's claim is no different than saying global warming is caused by lack of ocean pirates.  :/

[TECSHARE]

I think it is you who gets his ideas of how physics work from roadrunner cartoons. "Spin" doesn't add momentum or distance to multi-ton steel girders. The amount of energy required to move such massive objects is a simple formula detailed in this video

They make simple formulas and simple videos for simple minds.

If anyone is interested in modern physics, research rotational frame dragging.   Techy's claim is no different than saying global warming is caused by lack of ocean pirates.  :/

Yeah, who needs plain old physics when you can deflect from the scientific facts with irrelevant "modern physics" theories never intended to be applied to such a scenario. Clearly those plain old formulas for measuring mass and velocity over distance are outdated and need to be spiced up.

The fact that explosives were used is an indisputable fact based on the laws of physics. You feel free to argue against physics if you like. People like you are always crying for proof, well here it is, raw, undeniable, scientifically sound proof. You have fun arguing with all the other tards about no planes, nukes, and lasers if you like. All you need to prove the events of the day are the laws of physics.

[Vod]

Yeah, who needs plain old physics when you can deflect from the scientific facts with irrelevant "modern physics" theories never intended to be applied to such a scenario.

That's why physics keeps changing - we keep finding new things out.  Do you still believe the earth is the center of everything?

I don't mean to pressure you to keep current Techy - but you don't need to insult everyone when people propose something else.

[franky1]

I think it is you who gets his ideas of how physics work from roadrunner cartoons. "Spin" doesn't add momentum or distance to multi-ton steel girders. The amount of energy required to move such massive objects is a simple formula detailed in this video, and operates by the accepted laws of physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Yes, do watch the video. Watch how the debris goes up and out, not just down at a acute angle like your falling out a window theory, indicating a powerful outword force being exerted in EVERY direction. Interesting you use the word "shrapnil", because shrapnel by definition is an ejection from an explosive device.

the spin is not about causing more force to have more velocity. its about basic physics that it causes a bit of varience to its direction and path down to the ground
think about it this way. if you jump off a building straight. vs if you do a cartwheel off a building. you wont land in the same place... same force, same distance to ground.. but follows a different path

its you conspiracy guys that think its explosives. so yea i used shrapnel as a subtle buzzword, just to tickle your metaphoric genitals, thinking it might actually awaken a part of your brain to atleast think about it. rather then just be a reality denier

[Spendulus]

"velocities that require" what?

Explosive force?

That's good for a laugh. There's really no meaning to the term, is there? There's just watts, joules, ways of measuring or calculating energy.

Gravity is 32 ft/sec^2.

That adds up pretty fast.

How does a bullet ricochet?

As in there is no way to get such a massive object moving such lateral distances in such a short period of time without the use of explosives. Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Bullets use explosive force...

How does a bullet ricochet? Redirection of previously existing force.

Behavior of an object under gravity on a ramp is textbook beginning physics.

As in there is no way to get such a massive object moving such lateral distances in such a short period of time without the use of explosives.

Clearly you believe that. But this is a physics problem, so can you just show the work, the equations that prove that? No YouTube links please, just the 8th grade physics equations.

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

[Vod]

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

If you heat up something fast, an atmospheric tsunami wave could also push something without an explosion.  The large solar collectors that concentrate power on a single spot vaporize water with no explosions involved.

Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist. 

[Spendulus]

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

...

Classical physics vs others, so what? The nature of the force of gravity is not relevant here, right? (Actually I always thought it more accurate to think in terms of gravity causing the space between objects to shrink)

Here is a useful on line calculator.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Taking a quick look, a 1 kg mass takes 7.82 seconds to fall 300 meters and when it goes splat, has kinetic energy of 2940 joules. "Multi ton" is not relevant, each unit of mass has its own potential energy which may become one of several forms of kinetic energy.

To move sideways "500 feet" in 7.82 seconds starting with an energy impulse only requires a velocity of 18 meters per second. That is about 162 joules/kg. So out of 2940 joules/kg, 162 must be converted to horizontal force for all this to happen. This is for 1 kg, for larger mass the problem scales proportionally. It does not matter how heavy the object is.

There's no need here for "explosive force" and the "very heavy multi ton beam" is not correct thinking, the initial energies of position (potential energies) are quite large, and the speed required to move the object 500 feet is quite low.

Conversely, if explosive force is required, I am sure you can show it to be required, right?

Regarding "Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist." the entire point here is to show that these arguments are wrong using 8th grade physics. That's how really, really stupid the arguments are.

[BADecker]

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

If you heat up something fast, an atmospheric tsunami wave could also push something without an explosion.  The large solar collectors that concentrate power on a single spot vaporize water with no explosions involved.

Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist. 

LOL! A standard demolition explosive explosion IS heating something up fast. What is heated up fast? The explosive material as it is exploding.

[BADecker]

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

...

Classical physics vs others, so what? The nature of the force of gravity is not relevant here, right? (Actually I always thought it more accurate to think in terms of gravity causing the space between objects to shrink)

Here is a useful on line calculator.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Taking a quick look, a 1 kg mass takes 7.82 seconds to fall 300 meters and when it goes splat, has kinetic energy of 2940 joules. "Multi ton" is not relevant, each unit of mass has its own potential energy which may become one of several forms of kinetic energy.

To move sideways "500 feet" in 7.82 seconds starting with an energy impulse only requires a velocity of 18 meters per second. That is about 162 joules/kg. So out of 2940 joules/kg, 162 must be converted to horizontal force for all this to happen. This is for 1 kg, for larger mass the problem scales proportionally. It does not matter how heavy the object is.

There's no need here for "explosive force" and the "very heavy multi ton beam" is not correct thinking, the initial energies of position (potential energies) are quite large, and the speed required to move the object 500 feet is quite low.

Conversely, if explosive force is required, I am sure you can show it to be required, right?

Regarding "Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist." the entire point here is to show that these arguments are wrong using 8th grade physics. That's how really, really stupid the arguments are.

That's why it's so easy getting a car rolling by pushing, right? How many tons were those girders? Were they on wheels to let them roll easily? Were they attached to the building?

The basic 8th grade physics might apply. But the complexity of forces in the demolition doesn't use the physics the way that eighth-graders would. Totally inappropriate comparison.

[Spendulus]

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

...

Classical physics vs others, so what? The nature of the force of gravity is not relevant here, right? (Actually I always thought it more accurate to think in terms of gravity causing the space between objects to shrink)

Here is a useful on line calculator.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Taking a quick look, a 1 kg mass takes 7.82 seconds to fall 300 meters and when it goes splat, has kinetic energy of 2940 joules. "Multi ton" is not relevant, each unit of mass has its own potential energy which may become one of several forms of kinetic energy.

To move sideways "500 feet" in 7.82 seconds starting with an energy impulse only requires a velocity of 18 meters per second. That is about 162 joules/kg. So out of 2940 joules/kg, 162 must be converted to horizontal force for all this to happen. This is for 1 kg, for larger mass the problem scales proportionally. It does not matter how heavy the object is.

There's no need here for "explosive force" and the "very heavy multi ton beam" is not correct thinking, the initial energies of position (potential energies) are quite large, and the speed required to move the object 500 feet is quite low.

Conversely, if explosive force is required, I am sure you can show it to be required, right?

Regarding "Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist." the entire point here is to show that these arguments are wrong using 8th grade physics. That's how really, really stupid the arguments are.

That's why it's so easy getting a car rolling by pushing, right? How many tons were those girders? Were they on wheels to let them roll easily? Were they attached to the building?

The basic 8th grade physics might apply. But the complexity of forces in the demolition doesn't use the physics the way that eighth-graders would. Totally inappropriate comparison.

2980 joules/kg for EVERY kg that fell, and only 162 joules required imparted in sideways force.

Those are THE numbers, really nothing is going to change them.

For exmple, I kg of TNT (4.6 megajoule) would impart  2300 joules of energy on every kg of that two ton beam. But the inherent potential energy of that beam IS HIGHER (5.96 megajoule). And the energy for the sideways movement is only a few percent of either number.

So now, where do you think "explosive force" comes from?

[BADecker]

That's why it's so easy getting a car rolling by pushing, right? How many tons were those girders? Were they on wheels to let them roll easily? Were they attached to the building?

The basic 8th grade physics might apply. But the complexity of forces in the demolition doesn't use the physics the way that eighth-graders would. Totally inappropriate comparison.

2980 joules/kg for EVERY kg that fell, and only 162 joules required imparted in sideways force.

Those are THE numbers, really nothing is going to change them.

For exmple, I kg of TNT (4.6 megajoule) would impart  2300 joules of energy on every kg of that two ton beam. But the inherent potential energy of that beam IS HIGHER (5.96 megajoule). And the energy for the sideways movement is only a few percent of either number.

So now, where do you think "explosive force" comes from?

So, in simple terms, what does that mean? Sideways force comes from somewhere, doesn't it? Also, the sideways force is a one-time force. Downward force is an acceleration that is constant, except when hindered, of course.

If the sideways force came from vectored downward force, and we have nearly free-fall speeds down, how can you calculate what force went where, and on which materials without complex, computer models? And that is exactly what the university guys did in their study... they did the complex study.

It doesn't simply fall together the way you say it. It's way more complex than that, even if the "crash" uses much of the simplicity that you talk about. It uses the simplicity in many ways, many angles, many vectors, many impedances, almost like multitudes of different kinds of fractals.

Simple talk doesn't produce this type of model. Computerization barely does it. But the computer models are way more accurate because they take many things into account.

[franky1]

but we already debunked how the computer models of WTC7 you linked didnt account for the left side (south facing) damage before the fall

[BADecker]

but we already debunked ow the computer models of WTC7 you linked didnt account for the left side (south facing) damage before the fall

LOL! You would have to go to school first, before you could debunk the university model.

 

[franky1]

LOL! You would have to go to school first, before you could debunk the university model.

the model itself by lacking the left facing defect first. debunks itself. just by watching the video of the actual events

but its you that even has to learn to question things. to then go to school to learn to then go research the truth.
but instead ull play your ignorance game