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

[Spendulus]

....

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.

I'm not at all certain that with the posters on this thread, any possibility exists to get the discussion up to the 8th grade level.

[BADecker]

....

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.

I'm not at all certain that with the posters on this thread, any possibility exists to get the discussion up to the 8th grade level.

If you happened to get up to 8th grade level, you WOULD be certain. Why? You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

[sirazimuth]

 You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

[TECSHARE]

 You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

[BADecker]

 You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

Since established science continually changes based on the self-proclaimed ignorance of scientists, you are basing your faith on a will-o'-the-wisp or ignis fatuus.

[Naida_BR]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

Why not? If the reasons of the collapse are not true we need to reveal the truth.
Even if there was a fire that caused collapse how come an airplane crashed to a building in a huge city in the US without taking into consideration this airplane that was flying in such low feet?
This puzzles me a lot and I think a lot of people as well...

[Spendulus]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

Why not? If the reasons of the collapse are not true we need to reveal the truth.
Even if there was a fire that caused collapse how come an airplane crashed to a building in a huge city in the US without taking into consideration this airplane that was flying in such low feet?
This puzzles me a lot and I think a lot of people as well...

Why was the plane flying so low? Because the Islamic terrorists trained to ram plane into buildings at that altitude. What about it is puzzling?

[BADecker]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

Why not? If the reasons of the collapse are not true we need to reveal the truth.
Even if there was a fire that caused collapse how come an airplane crashed to a building in a huge city in the US without taking into consideration this airplane that was flying in such low feet?
This puzzles me a lot and I think a lot of people as well...

Why was the plane flying so low? Because the Islamic terrorists trained to ram plane into buildings at that altitude. What about it is puzzling?

Why kill a bunch of terrorists and place them on board? The planes were simply radio controlled buzz-bombs, there as a distraction to attempt to cover the demolition. Worked pretty well, too... at least in your case.

[Spendulus]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

Why not? If the reasons of the collapse are not true we need to reveal the truth.
Even if there was a fire that caused collapse how come an airplane crashed to a building in a huge city in the US without taking into consideration this airplane that was flying in such low feet?
This puzzles me a lot and I think a lot of people as well...

Why was the plane flying so low? Because the Islamic terrorists trained to ram plane into buildings at that altitude. What about it is puzzling?

Why kill a bunch of terrorists and place them on board? The planes were simply radio controlled buzz-bombs, there as a distraction to attempt to cover the demolition. Worked pretty well, too... at least in your case.

It's that easy to get a modern jet full of passengers to operate via remote control?

Nope. However, go ahead and double down on stupid.

That does have the effect of enabling you to continue on contributing to anti-American, likely Iranian propaganda.

[BADecker]

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

Why not? If the reasons of the collapse are not true we need to reveal the truth.
Even if there was a fire that caused collapse how come an airplane crashed to a building in a huge city in the US without taking into consideration this airplane that was flying in such low feet?
This puzzles me a lot and I think a lot of people as well...

Why was the plane flying so low? Because the Islamic terrorists trained to ram plane into buildings at that altitude. What about it is puzzling?

Why kill a bunch of terrorists and place them on board? The planes were simply radio controlled buzz-bombs, there as a distraction to attempt to cover the demolition. Worked pretty well, too... at least in your case.

It's that easy to get a modern jet full of passengers to operate via remote control?

Nope. However, go ahead and double down on stupid.

That does have the effect of enabling you to continue on contributing to anti-American, likely Iranian propaganda.

What does a jet full of passengers have to do with anything? First, nobody knows for sure that there were passengers. Second, passengers aren't allowed near the controls. Passengers or not, remote control is still remote control.

Since you seem to be American, and since you are promoting American underhandedness, obviously American virtue is crumbling.

[Spendulus]

....

What does a jet full of passengers have to do with anything? First, nobody knows for sure that there were passengers. Second, passengers aren't allowed near the controls. Passengers or not, remote control is still remote control....

The families of those who got on four planes on 9/11 would disagree with you.

If it's that easy to poke holes in your favorite conspiracy theory it's probably a pretty worthless theory.

[franky1]

20 pages on and badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.
poor guy.

as for his latest assertions. many buildings are built to not instantly fall on impact. but the minor damage caused by the impact can cause a secondary structural collapse.
also the one of the trade towers was hit by a plane 20% heavier than what the building was designed to handle.. thus 20% more risk of catastrophic failure


its why if a car hits a train bridge they dont just say its fine. they rush to repair the bridge.
its why skyscapers have evacuation procedures. and not just tell office staff to sit back at their desks
its why when idiots get dropped on their head as a baby. they initially think its ok.. but then that kids grows up to be an idiot called badecker

have you ever tried to squeeze an egg open.. its hard.
but just crack one side of it. and most of the shell structure remains intact and the yolk contents stays inside..but then just the smallest squeeze makes it fall apart

have you ever stood on a frozen lake. initially it holds your weight. but just make a hole in the ice. and you think for a few minutes all is fine.. but then the whole ice sheet cracks

badecker cant grasp reality.

[alexforneus]

Yeah, jet fuel cant melt steel beams...
But for what gov need it? Pros of this collapse are so low

[BADecker]

....

What does a jet full of passengers have to do with anything? First, nobody knows for sure that there were passengers. Second, passengers aren't allowed near the controls. Passengers or not, remote control is still remote control....

The families of those who got on four planes on 9/11 would disagree with you.

If it's that easy to poke holes in your favorite conspiracy theory it's probably a pretty worthless theory.

Paid actors, if they exist at all.     

[BADecker]

20 pages on and badecker is still trying to roll with a conspiracy thats over 18 years old.
poor guy.

I guess I have turned into franky1's hero somehow. He/she constantly focuses on me. But he/she talks about the things I say, which things millions of other people agree with, and also which make sense.

Thanks, franky1. Not that I need your confirmation. And not that other people need to be reinforced in things that they know. But we seem to make a good team, don't we?

[Spendulus]

....

What does a jet full of passengers have to do with anything? First, nobody knows for sure that there were passengers. Second, passengers aren't allowed near the controls. Passengers or not, remote control is still remote control....

The families of those who got on four planes on 9/11 would disagree with you.

If it's that easy to poke holes in your favorite conspiracy theory it's probably a pretty worthless theory.

Paid actors, if they exist at all.     

Really? Paid actors? That's the best you can do?

That doesn't quite work. In fact it's totally ridiculous.

Among those killed were television producer David Angell, who co-created the sitcom Frasier,[92] and actress Berry Berenson,[93] both passengers on Flight 11. Barbara Olson, television political commentator and the wife of then-U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, was aboard Flight 77.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Aboard_the_four_planes

Yeah, jet fuel cant melt steel beams...
...

Guys that want to bend steel just heat it .... it gets really soft pretty fast ...

[TECSHARE]

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

Amazing how quickly you guys jump to topic slide when you are presented with a question you can't logically answer.

[Spendulus]

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

Amazing how quickly you guys jump to topic slide when you are presented with a question you can't logically answer.

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.

[BADecker]

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

Amazing how quickly you guys jump to topic slide when you are presented with a question you can't logically answer.

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.

Actually, you don't have to prove the math and numbers for any demolition or free-fall. All you have to do is show that the official story is way off. Let the engineers and demolition experts handle the numbers.

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

[Spendulus]

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

Amazing how quickly you guys jump to topic slide when you are presented with a question you can't logically answer.

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.

Actually, you don't have to prove the math and numbers for any demolition or free-fall. All you have to do is show that the official story is way off. Let the engineers and demolition experts handle the numbers.

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

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.

Side note. Even though this idiot is wrong, what he's claiming is quite different than either you or Tecshare. So what is it, you guys each have a different theory?

That's why we do best to simply stick with actual 8th grade math, physics and chemistry. If you take the lazy way out, you might believe ridiculous things.