Denie

You need to dumb it down for yourself, not me. Just post the physics and don't worry yourself about what I understand.

Maybe you don't understand the many peer reviewed published papers that blow your "theory" flat, but I do understand them.

So let's try this again. Show me either the calculation to support your claims or a paper on the subject published in an engineering/physics journal. Please don't point to some website ran by the author of the paper...this really make one look foolish.

You claim to be sure the some physicist could write out this formula, yet to date not one ever has done so and published it in a related journal. Explain how you're sure of something that has not yet happened.

Not answering the question because you somehow know my knowledge is not capable of the answer makes you look kind of , well, like you haven't a clue of what you're talking about.

Maybe you'd like to come over to rumbleville and debate me on how the Moon landings were a hoax because the radiation in the VAB cannot be overcome as a few of your fellow CTists have tried.

Denie

What a shocker...can't seem to locate a credible paper on why any of the WTC buildings should NOT have fallen in the manner in which they did?

Come on, you guys must have one published paper, right?

Denie

LMAO!! Did any care to count the floors visible in the 3rd video here?

20 floors visible above the buildings in the foreground. Now, count the seconds it takes from the time of first movement in the video until the top of the building disappears behind these buildings...you guessed it...almost 6 seconds.
So, we have a 47 story building which takes 6 seconds to collapse 20 floors.

Does anyone need the math on this done for them?

As usual, WR posts utter horseshit again.

Dianekkdi

Originally Posted by White Rabbit
The Vertical Collapse of Building 7

1)Building 7 fell with a smooth vertical motion.

2)The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds.

3)Free-fall time from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds.


Please watch all videos they are from main stream media and show the same thing form different view points.

YouTube - 9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES...

YouTube - WTC Building 7 Collapse Compared with...

YouTube - WTC-7 Any Questions

YouTube - WTC 7 Explosive Energy

YouTube - "Seven is Exploding"

This is the primary reason I do not believe the 911 commission report to be factual. If you look at these videos and can't use your own eyes and common sense that building 7 was brought down than you may want to by the Brooklyn Bridge.

This is only the tip of the iceberg as I went to investigate the veracity of the
of the official story I was faced with red flag after red flag.
You are kidding, aren't you? You are doing the counting? A little 1, 1000, 2, 1000, 3, 1000 .....my goodness aren't we scientific?

__________________

----------------------
Reinvestigate 9/11
Impeach......Prosecute......Imprison

"...The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed...."
--Thomas Jefferson

djack

D'oh. I lost count. Can I do it over?

__________________

al Asaad

For the sake of discussion, I will stipulate high energy explosives brought down WTC 7.
After they were allegedly set off, the building fell on its own.
There was no giant hand pushing it down, nor could it have fallen any slower once the fall began.

I have never witnessed such hysteria over a natural event, "natural event" being any falling object, which, left to its own devices-rapidly accelerates as it falls and if allowed to fall long enough, would reach terminal velocity (126mph).

Tune in to any program showing Glaciers calving.
Watch in awe as 400-500 foot tall solid sheets of ice fall off the face of glaciers, displacing awesome volumes of water.

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what made any WTC building fall: the law of physics made them acclerate, accounting for the short time of fall.
-30-

al Asaad

The speculation about the collapse of WTC 7 is a comical blend of media hype, conspiracy theorists and rank (uninfored) speculation.

And those supposed "side by side" demostrations showing how "fast" WTC 7 fell?

All the supporters of explosives bringing WTC 7 down forget that the buildings they so gleefully compare the fall of WTC 7 to are in fact controlled explosions-the building falling in sections vis-a-vis WTC 7s free fall.

chrisbb

that is what i had been forgetting when i was a truther

eagleclaw

"left to own devices" "acceleration" "glaciers calving"......you really have thought this out carefully, haven't you?

Please explain how steel beams where ejected AWAY from the WTC collapse if it was an "acceleration that was left to it's own devices".

Highschool Physics shows towers were Demolished

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newton’s law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.


Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we’ve seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.

In the “official” explanation of the collapse, the so-called “pancake theory”, the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that’s what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise.

How much slower? You don’t have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably.

The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds.

What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill.

__________________
All the time, always

djack

The glacier thing changed my mind. Of course!! Buildings like glaciers 'calve' all the time. What could be more natural? I feel like the blind man must have felt when Jesus opened his eyes.

__________________