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

[TECSHARE]

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

500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spin is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.

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.

Exactly. A previously existing EXPLOSIVE force. Where was the ramp? I didn't see any ramps. No kids slides either.

[1714824523]

1714824523

[1714824523]

1714824523

[1714824523]

1714824523

[franky1]

500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spun is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.

no
im not saying its just spin..
thats about as short minded single pointe dipcrap to be expected of conspiracy loving guys lack of understanding

its the non demolition explosion thrust of a natural damage along with wind and other debris nd many other factors of nature aswel as the debris spin and height of the origin point..

heck. even swimming pool divers know how spin and jump force and lean and sway can affect how and where they land

you and your conspiracy buddies want the world to beleive that it must have come from a near ground level .. first error. and due to that it must have been pushed with substantial force only available through explosives.. second error

your conspiracy guys keep trying the horizontal projectile conspiracy.. when reality is actually a high up tumble initially pushed with alot less force than you want to admit
..
but you conspiracy guys are too ignorant to even watch videos and study basic physics.
instead you want to make up a narrative of a low level projectile just to set a goal of proving or disproving if a projectile can reach that far from your determined low level ..
thus capturing people into an endless no win scenario about a scenario that didnt happen but you want people to only talk about it as if that the only option..

but the real debate is not even about your high power projectile from low level.. the real debate is the real flow of debris from the real incident using real physics from the real high height.. not your story

[BADecker]

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

A model can't debunk itself except from gross math or other errors. Why not? It's a model. Nothing to debunk.

There is, however, one thing that the model does. It debunks the official report by taking into detailed account all kinds of things that the official report doesn't even begin to consider, but that are easily recognized as part of the equation once they are shown.

[TECSHARE]

500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spun is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.

no
im not saying its just spin..
thats about as short minded single pointe dipcrap to be expected of conspiracy loving guys lack of understanding

its the non demolition explosion thrust of a natural damage along with wind and other debris nd many other factors of nature aswel as the debris spin and height of the origin point..

heck. even swimming pool divers know how spin and jump force and lean and sway can affect how and where they land

you and your conspiracy buddies want the world to beleive that it must have come from a near ground level .. first error. and due to that it must have been pushed with substantial force only available through explosives.. second error

your conspiracy guys keep trying the horizontal projectile conspiracy.. when reality is actually a high up tumble initially pushed with alot less force than you want to admit
..
but you conspiracy guys are too ignorant to even watch videos and study basic physics.
instead you want to make up a narrative of a low level projectile just to set a goal of proving or disproving if a projectile can reach that far from your determined low level ..
thus capturing people into an endless no win scenario about a scenario that didnt happen but you want people to only talk about it as if that the only option..

but the real debate is not even about your high power projectile from low level.. the real debate is the real flow of debris from the real incident using real physics from the real high height.. not your story

Wind? That's what you are going with? Wind blowing multi-ton steel girders around? Even at the higher floors the amount of force required is in high explosive territory.

[franky1]

theres a combination of many factors
by you trying to be ignorant and think im suggesting one thing. or you being ignorant thinking it should/could only be one thing is just you showing limited capacity of thought

heck .. if you ever look at things like earthquakes these dont just make things fall.. it makes things rock and get thrown across

so before you reply 'earthquake, you going with that' no im going with rocking from the crumbling movement of the floors below shifting.. as they collapse

there are many many things involved. and your  fool if you just want to consider one. and deny any that just dont fit your narrative you came up with before doing independent research/understanding


the main issue and problem with conspiray people is this
1. they form an opinion before truly understanding the factors of the issues
2. they then seek out any small details that back up their opinion
3. they ignore/avoid/dismiss any info that debunks thier opinion
4. they have no interest in finding fact/truth. they just want to grab anything that adds weight to their initial thought
even if that initial thought is wrong
and finally
5. they will never admit they are wrong.. at very best they will change subject and move on. at worse they will blame others that sourced the data they grabbed

[Spendulus]

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

500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spin is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.

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.

Exactly. A previously existing EXPLOSIVE force. Where was the ramp? I didn't see any ramps. No kids slides either.

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.

[Spendulus]

its the non demolition explosion thrust of a natural damage along with wind and other debris nd many other factors of nature aswel as the debris spin and height of the origin point......

I've ignored wind, due to this particular object's density and mass.

Of course in the real world, the object would have various motions in all six degrees of freedom. But all these can I think be ignored, because the assertion is that it's a tremendous feat to launch a multi ton beam five hundred feet.

I have shown that for the length of time for an object to fall 300 meters (7.8 seconds), this only requires 18 meters per second sideways travel to get the beam sideways 500 feet.

That's 162 joules per kg, 364Kj total, which is simply not a huge amount of energy. It's roughly the kinetic energy in a car at 30-40 miles per hour.  This is eight grade stuff, guys.

Franky, after these guys lose on one point, they'll just slither to the next point on their conspiracy list. Notice that Badecker tried to slide this discussion into towers 1 and towers 2 after getting nowhere on Bldg 7?

I bet those Chinese disinformation and propaganda agents are really laughing at how quickly these guys believe anything they put on the internet.

[franky1]

though i know "badecker" is not a real name of a real world person to defame. and just a pseudonym

my aim is more about to let others see how foolish his posts are.. because there are some people that would just latch onto some person and believe stupid things. so the sooner people realise badecker is a fool, the better it is for others.

i just have a personal bias against scammers and idiots that want to act cultish, trying to influence others for some personal gain

[Spendulus]

....
500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spin is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.....

But only a few percent of total energy (KE+PE) per unit of mass is required to do 500 feet laterally.

[Spendulus]

though i know "badecker" is not a real name of a real world person to defame. and just a pseudonym

my aim is more about to let others see how foolish his posts are.. because there are some people that would just latch onto some person and believe stupid things. so the sooner people realise badecker is a fool, the better it is for others.

i just have a personal bias against scammers and idiots that want to act cultish, trying to influence others for some personal gain

Right, and where all these arguments lead for them is the US Government did 911, not Al Queda, or Al Queda worked for the US, blah-blaH-BLAh. They'll eventually get around to that, but they never start off with those claims.

[franky1]

Right, and where all these arguments lead for them is the US Government did 911, not Al Queda, or Al Queda worked for the US, blah-blaH-BLAh. They'll eventually get around to that, but they never start off with those claims.

yea i know the long game they play. then its the al queda or gov debate
then if its a alqueda path..
then its a is alqueda foreign or us gov paid agent
then its how come bush went to wrong country in first couple years
then its.. and so on and so on and so on

i know the long game they play..
point is just to make them look stupid purely so others dont get involved in it..
.. imagine how much worse it would be if 10 newbies tried to argue with them..
best to cut it short and make badecker bored with only talking to one person

[Spendulus]

though i know "badecker" is not a real name of a real world person to defame. and just a pseudonym

my aim is more about to let others see how foolish his posts are.. because there are some people that would just latch onto some person and believe stupid things. so the sooner people realise badecker is a fool, the better it is for others.

i just have a personal bias against scammers and idiots that want to act cultish, trying to influence others for some personal gain

There is an attribute called "Intellectual dishonesty." This is for exmple when one asserts A and it is clearly shown beyond a doubt that not A but B is true. Later, the same person is asserting A.

In such a case, there are various reasons. Financial, political, religious, cultish, a need for attention, etc.

All Hail Lysencho! The great Trofin Lysencho!

[BADecker]

though i know "badecker" is not a real name of a real world person to defame. and just a pseudonym

my aim is more about to let others see how foolish his posts are.. because there are some people that would just latch onto some person and believe stupid things. so the sooner people realise badecker is a fool, the better it is for others.

i just have a personal bias against scammers and idiots that want to act cultish, trying to influence others for some personal gain

There is an attribute called "Intellectual dishonesty." This is for exmple when one asserts A and it is clearly shown beyond a doubt that not A but B is true. Later, the same person is asserting A.

In such a case, there are various reasons. Financial, political, religious, cultish, a need for attention, etc.

All Hail Lysencho! The great Trofin Lysencho!

The answer is reasononably easy in this case. Contact the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and tell them about the flaw(s) in their study. I'm sure they would want to see where they went wrong, and correct it. If you are good enough, they might even offer you a reward.

But when you do this, please get back to us with their answer, and contact points were we can confirm with them that you are explaining your meeting correctly.

[franky1]

see typical badecker who started this topic.. but now is trying to back out and point fingers back to alaska

badecker this topic is about YOUR opinion of WTC7..
i informed you of the flaw of their model

for YOU to not even have the intelect to even consider your opinion might be wrong. for you to lack the courage to actually want to know whats actually the truth. and for you to just want to point fingers just so you can remain lazy.. is your flaws

we all know that no matter if i did contact the model makers you would deny it happen and just play your usual empty buzzword nonsense games.

here is the point.. this topic is about YOUR opinion. so its up to you to fix yourself. by you actually trying to find the truth and facts for once. by looking at the actual evidence like the witness video of what actually happened at the WTC7

i have already told you the models dont match the video..
now its your time to see it.

this is not about getting alaska uni to correct the model.
this is about the links you provided do not show the conclusion you made.

.. ill word it more simply
you can get a combustion engine car.. and tell me that its powered by electric.. obviously it isnt. but you could demand i prove it. then play ignorant when i show you the fuel tank and why your wrong..
but instead of admitting it. you tell me to go to the car manufacturer and get them to make you a new electric car

sorry but thats not how life works. you need to realise the model does not match the actual video footage and thus proves nothing... and you got to admit a combustion engine car is a combustion engine car.

man up and realise your flaws. you dont win prizes for being ignorant

[TECSHARE]

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.

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."
[https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc4.htm]








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



More evidence of high speed ejections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A

To take such a massive object in a resting state and to accelerate it with enough velocity to move it in a ballistic trajectory 600 feet laterally within seconds requires high explosive amounts of force.

I've ignored wind, due to this particular object's density and mass.

Of course in the real world, the object would have various motions in all six degrees of freedom. But all these can I think be ignored, because the assertion is that it's a tremendous feat to launch a multi ton beam five hundred feet.

I have shown that for the length of time for an object to fall 300 meters (7.8 seconds), this only requires 18 meters per second sideways travel to get the beam sideways 500 feet.

That's 162 joules per kg, 364Kj total, which is simply not a huge amount of energy. It's roughly the kinetic energy in a car at 30-40 miles per hour.  This is eight grade stuff, guys.

Franky, after these guys lose on one point, they'll just slither to the next point on their conspiracy list. Notice that Badecker tried to slide this discussion into towers 1 and towers 2 after getting nowhere on Bldg 7?

I bet those Chinese disinformation and propaganda agents are really laughing at how quickly these guys believe anything they put on the internet.

We aren't talking about falling, we are talking about lateral motion of massive multi-ton steel panels from a full stop momentum, to hundreds of feet away in a few seconds.

I am not Badecker. You will notice I have had one point this entire time and I have stuck with it. You and your buddy Franky however are having a grand time topic sliding all over the place though in a really sad attempt to break up the cohesion of the discussion, because so far neither of you has been able to offer any kind of valid factually or scientifically based retort to this evidence.

theres a combination of many factors
by you trying to be ignorant and think im suggesting one thing. or you being ignorant thinking it should/could only be one thing is just you showing limited capacity of thought

heck .. if you ever look at things like earthquakes these dont just make things fall.. it makes things rock and get thrown across

so before you reply 'earthquake, you going with that' no im going with rocking from the crumbling movement of the floors below shifting.. as they collapse

there are many many things involved. and your  fool if you just want to consider one. and deny any that just dont fit your narrative you came up with before doing independent research/understanding


the main issue and problem with conspiray people is this
1. they form an opinion before truly understanding the factors of the issues
2. they then seek out any small details that back up their opinion
3. they ignore/avoid/dismiss any info that debunks thier opinion
4. they have no interest in finding fact/truth. they just want to grab anything that adds weight to their initial thought
even if that initial thought is wrong
and finally
5. they will never admit they are wrong.. at very best they will change subject and move on. at worse they will blame others that sourced the data they grabbed

Earthquakes are in no way comparable to this event, the fact that you think they are even remotely comparable is just asinine and demonstrates your gross understanding of even the most basic physics. You will notice you aren't actually addressing any of the evidence I presented, you are just forming a list of character attacks, assumptions, and your own confirmation bias.

[franky1]

do you now, using your own link you provided atleast admit that from the angle of how that beam lodged into the roof shows that it was not a horizontal trajectory. which would require extra force... but instead more of a fall into building from above

ill ask it again to ensure that its not confusing
dont worry ill get to the rest after.. but can you atleast take the very first step of admitting it was not a horizontal trajectory of a panel slapping against the building. but instead a sloped/diagonal/vertical directory of coming from above and falling to lodge into the roof

ill ask again. saves having to make many posts trying to get an answer
can you take that first step in admitting what actually happened..
if you can.. then we can move onto the next detail of contention . but first.. please lets handle the first critical detail of contention.. the direction of trajectory

[TECSHARE]

do you now, using your own link you provided atleast admit that from the angle of how that beam lodged into the roof shows that it was not a horizontal trajectory. which would require extra force... but instead more of a fall into building from above

ill ask it again to ensure that its not confusing
dont worry ill get to the rest after.. but can you atleast take the very first step of admitting it was not a horizontal trajectory of a panel slapping against the building. but instead a sloped/diagonal/vertical directory of coming from above and falling to lodge into the roof

ill ask again. saves having to make many posts trying to get an answer
can you take that first step in admitting what actually happened..
if you can.. then we can move onto the next detail of contention . but first.. please lets handle the first critical detail of contention.. the direction of trajectory

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

[franky1]

do you now, using your own link you provided atleast admit that from the angle of how that beam lodged into the roof shows that it was not a horizontal trajectory.

The panels moved horizontally.

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

ill just leave this here.. and "troll" in this case =techshare


watch the video and you will see..
(i still laugh at techshares 'no spin' 'horizontal' 'huge force to cause horizontal trajectory needed'

[Spendulus]

....
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.

[BADecker]

Kids play a little informal game of baseball. One of them hits the ball over the 9-foot high chain-link fence. One of the outfielder kids runs around the fence to retrieve the ball, but he happens to be a kid with a weaker throwing arm. So, he walks up to the fence, and tosses the ball over the fence. It lands on the other side, a few feet away from him, the fence in between him and the ball.

There wasn't any sideways.

Joules schmoules. The demolition experts were good. But a few of the pieces got wildly away. You jokers have it backwards.