Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 19. (Read 2858 times)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.



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

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

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

 

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.