Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 18. (Read 2858 times)

The way you are impractical makes all you calc entirely worthless. Why? Because your calc doesn't fit the real beams in any way. After all, was there any force that might hinder beam movement? Consider simple resistance to beam movement:
1. If the beams were simply floating in the air, your forces might be nearly accurate;
2. If the beams were submerged in water, your forces might be nearly accurate. But there is more resistance in water than in air;
3. If the beams were lying on level ground with the friction of the ground the only thing to hinder their movement, you would have to drastically change your calc;
4. If the beams were up against the face of a mountain; your applied TNT wouldn't budge them a any measurable amount.
5. Depending on resistant forces, your calc could be right on, or it could be way off.

Play the physics game if you want. But don't go around expecting people to believe that you are in any way talking about 9/11.

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

So, you're saying, that all that it takes to move something sideways against its weight and other forces that hold it in place is about 2 or 3 ounces of TNT. Have you measured all the counter forces that were attempting to hold these objects in place?

We don't know that the major explosions didn't boost the objects in question up into the air in a lateral upward boost. Gravity changed the vectors so that the objects came down with hardly any sideways force applied at all... not even 1 ounce of TNT sideways.


The university jokers have taken way more forces into account than you can even imagine existed.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

You should learn what words mean, then get back to us.

^
denies the video that shows the debris

thinks the only opinion is debris falling within a few feet from tall height.. or blown hundreds of feet from low down
he cannot see or accept even when there is video evidence the curve (diagonal)

idiot... definitely moving on because this guy will never learn to actually look at the video of the actual event.. and instead just continue circling his fantasy made up in his head

[sees image]
[projects what he wants to see on it to confirm his bias]

"If you can't see it you are just an idiot!"

Speaking of idiots, you can't even define horizontal movement correctly. It is a 100% fact the panels moved horizontally. This part isn't even a debate.

How can I know this? Well, because if it only moved along a vertical axis downward, it would fall within the footprint of the building. The fact that it was lodged into a building 600 feet a way is 100% solid proof of horizontal movement. Maybe later you would like to regale me with your exceptional understanding of how sticking your finger into the barrel of a fired gun will cause it to backfire onto the shooter leaving you unharmed.


It does in fact matter how much they weighed, even making such a statement that it doesn't matter in this context shows extreme amounts of ignorance and or disingenuousness. The more massive the object, the more it necessitates increasing force in order to cause it to travel against the forces of gravity, 600 feet laterally.

I said nothing of the shape of any objects, you did. You made a claim that these panel sections were ramping off of themselves. Objects do not interact with themselves mechanically to produce momentum like standing in a sail boat and  blowing into the sail like in a cartoon, because every force has an equal and opposite reaction. 5% conversion of what? The resting state from which the panels were ejected?

You did assume 100% efficiency of explosive force in fact. Sorry if you forgot your own words already.


Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

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.

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."


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.


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.

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'

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

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

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.



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.



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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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