Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 3. (Read 2858 times)

That still makes him a an Iranian puppet, just an unintentional Iranian puppet.

It remains that argument by proclamation isn't a debate or a discussion.

I rather doubt he’s an Iranian puppet.
More likely just a silly deluded fool who likes to perpetuate his nonsensical threads on
these boards because of course he can.
I always picture the sane folks on this forum who are familiar with his buffoonery,
more than likely just shake their head, roll their eyes and scroll past him whenever
he chimes in with his drivel.

Proclaim all you want, that's idiotic. If you can't actually discuss the physics of your claims at least at the 8th grade level I'm done with you.

Do the bidding of your Iranian puppet masters in spreading propaganda.

Yes! By proclamation. How can that be? Easy answer. Because all that you say is by proclamation. And I am simply answering your proclamation by proclaiming better.

Why is my proclamation better. Because it makes sense. It isn't from an 8th grader or less, like yours is... by your own proclamation.

Btw. What do arguments have to do with it? The towers fell, but not by arguments.

There you go with proclamations as THE TRUTH again.

Either show your correctness with math, or you have not shown it. Start with fall times and bounds of uncertainty.


By proclamation? Because you said so, just having made that up?

That's ridiculous enough to not get you a response. You've pretty much proved you don't really have any arguments except one way or another, you believe something.

Give him just a little more rope, and he will debunk the laws of physics with 8th grade laws of physics.

You know that he is enjoying this, don't you? He has already made jokes about some of the things he has said, just like he were debunking himself.

You haven't refuted anything, you just obfuscated the issue and proclaimed the laws of physics "debunked".

Well, the overall effect was near free-fall. But to get the overall effect, some of it was accelerating faster than gravity acceleration at times, and traveling much faster than free-fall velocity at other times.

Poor little baby. It must be so emotionally painful to find out that people are realizing you are mixed up. Adhominem can be quite fun when you use it, but oh, so painful, if it is used on you. Of course it wasn't used on you. You simply cried adhominem  wolf.

Actually, you are getting boring. Just like an 8th grader who can't understand when he is wrong.

But I'm not the one to make an argument here, I am only interesting in refuting arguments, and only if it can be done with 8th grade science.

Now that your "free-fall" nonsense is refuted, what are you going to do? Revert to a ridiculous "Well now it has to be falling FASTER THAN GRAVITY" like someone else here, or simply admit you were wrong about that?

Yeah, only chumps with no argument do that.

Nasty little habit you of going into adhominem mode and lying when you are prove wrong.

First it's free fall, then when you get shown that's not true, it becomes "faster than free-fall."

Oh, Spendy. You are so funny. Lol. The only junk I linked to was your post, which is also proof for stuff falling faster than free-fall if you apply it to the falling Towers.

I gotta go mow lawn. So I wasn't even going to login. But between you and F-1, you jokers are so funny, that I just couldn't hold back. Lol.

The junk you linked to was meaningless word salad. It means nothing and thus can't support any arguments.


As for junk falling "faster than free-fall", prove it.

Thanks, Spendy, for trying to confuse the issue with all kinds of junk that doesn't apply because it isn't enough of what really happened.

In order to get to near free-fall speeds in a building collapse, you have to remove the resistance. In the case of the towers, parts of them were actually falling way faster than free-fall. How do we know? Because it was the top of the tower that we base the free-fall speed on.

This means that the parts under the top,
which started to fall a whole lot later than the top,
would have to accelerate at far faster than gravitational acceleration,
which was already moving faster than the building under it that hadn't started falling yet,
so that those parts could get out of the way of the top,
to let it continue on down at free-fall speeds.

What is there than can cause parts of the building in the middle, to suddenly accelerate to faster than free-fall, just to get out of the way of the top which landed as though it fell at free-fall? Two things:
1. Demolition pushed the lower parts out of the way so the top could fall like free-fall (making them accelerate way faster than free-fall acceleration, btw);
2. The top was accelerated downward (by demolition) way faster than free-fall acceleration, so it could squash the lower parts that were trying to hinder its fall, fast enough so that it could take the whole thing down at free-fall speeds.

In other words, all the junk you said that I just quoted, helps to show that there was some kind of demolition or other force causing the buildings to fall, that was way greater than the force of gravity.

Actual written down math equations will always beat your blabber. You don't appear to even understand the matter, though. Here you go.

"Free fall" speed is not 32 ft/s2. That's the acceleration.

The speed may be considered as 32 ft/sec for the first second, 64 ft/sec for the 2nd section, and so forth. We're using 8th grade here, so no calculus. But it still works fine.
v (ft/sec) = 32(ft/sec2) * t(sec)

As the speed doubles, the kinetic energy quadruples.
e = 1/2*m*t^2

That "friction" that you keep harping about does not have to be zero. It could be a small amount, or a moderate amount. It's only in your head that it has to be zero. I repeat your assertion. "It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. ..."

Obviously, this "slowing of v" is trivial. It might have a significant effect on the 1st second. Say that is 1 second longer. It will then have 1/4 that effect on the 2nd second, 1/9 on the 3rd and so forth.

The series described is 1/2, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25. That is the Basel problem, first solved in 1734. I confess to thinking it would be beyond 8th graders capabilities, and started to just suggest something less that 1.7 seconds.

But then I found this dude.

Ikhwan Mirza Hafiz
i'm 13 and i like maths and science.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ikhwan-Mirza-Hafiz

eight graders are 12-14, I guess I can continue.

He showed the answer is pi squared / 6, or 1.644934066848.

What this means. Even with serious "friction", you will never have more than 1.64 seconds added to the descent time. You actually have at least 1.64 seconds of uncertainty in the descent time. You have two initial presumptions that are incorrect. (1) REQUIRES zero resistance (2) a mislead certainty as to the "descent time". And so what you thought proved one thing, proves the opposite.

It doesn't matter which direction it collapses. Collapsing inwards doesn't magically remove the resistance of the internal infrastructure. Fire doesn't do that. Impact damage doesn't do that. I don't need precise measurements of every detail and qualifier you want to tack on for you to obfuscate that your theory requires the laws of physics to be violated. Gravitational acceleration, or "free fall" speed is approximately 32 ft/s2. Anything close to, at, or above that downward velocity REQUIRES zero resistance form internal infrastructure to be achievable under Newtons third law of motion. It is required, because if there was resistance, some of the energy held in the velocity of the downward acceleration would be lost in the destruction of the internal infrastructure as it fell, resulting in the slowing of its fall. You keep trying to argue against the laws of physics. Like I said before, all the other theories are useless. When it comes down to it you have to argue against the laws of physics itself to claim your "pancake collapse" theory is true.

The info at the below link has all kinds of backup bibliography. But if you need more, go to https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-14-911-new-york-fire-commissioners-call-new-investigation.html to see that the New York Fire Department is picking this whole thing up again, to get some REAL answers.

Inviting guys like you to prove up your assertions with simple math is the exact opposite of covering anything up. You believe in the Iranian propaganda and promote it.

But you have not proved it. Quite the opposite. You are the guy that thought this link was authoritative.

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

You were wrong. Whoever wrote that page did not even have an understanding of 8th grade physics.

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.

Deal with it.

I was going to do a big laugh. But then I realized that you aren't even funny anymore. There's videos of the fall, well, maybe not all over the place. But in lots of places. What? Are you trying to measure, the fall in nano-seconds or something?



Your thing is to cover up an inside job.     

Iranian propaganda is your thing, apparently.