Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 4. (Read 2858 times)

how exactly do you "watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground"?

Answer: You can't.

Closest you can get is to look at the acoustics tracks

Another way to explain it is to find a mountain that thrusts up 1,000 feet on a flat plain. One such mountain is Rib Mountain, near Wausau, Wisconsin.

Stick a guy holding a 5-pound, steel ball on the top of Rib Mountain. Then get another guy with a 5-pound, steel ball in a helicopter over the plain next to Rib Mountain, 1,000 feet above the ground. Have both guys drop their 5-pound, steel balls at the same time. Which ball will hit the ground at plain-level first?

In order for the top of either of the Towers to hit the ground at almost free-fall speed, the rest of the tower had to decide to get out of the way at exactly the same time. But the Towers were built to stand, not to get out of the way. And they just don't have the ability to decide to do anything other than what they were designed for. To get out of the way, they needed help... like demolition help.

Since this case isn't being re-opened, and since the inside-job perpetrators aren't being found out and prosecuted and executed, the whole government is guilty. This being the fact, we can see that at best, government might be accidentally telling the truth about some of this Covid stuff.

  
  no spendy, we just watch how long it takes the rooftop @ 1,362 feet to meet the ground, and determine instantly that some 200+ vertical steel columns provided ZERO resistance to the fall
     --it's like saying the trunk of a tree has little or no influence over the loft of it's branches ...  

  
  thank you for stating an ongoing conspiracy exists, perhaps we can move on  

I don't recall "the official story claiming" for WTC7, the floors impacted each other progressively.

That phenomena is an accurate description of what everyone's seen on video regarding the twin towers. For WTC 7, it collapsed inwards.

Please stop sayng nonsensical things such as "Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down."

Without accurate and precise measurements of the "rate of speed of the fall", you cannot make any claim as to the matter.

The way this actually works would be if we say the time of fall is known within certain upper and lower bounds, then the effective gravitational force would be known within certain bounds, and since g is known, then the range of a possible second variable that might decrease the effective g is known. Not that it would be proportional to g at all speeds, but you should get the idea.


You've pulled that quote from a general description of the events, not even related to timing.
How do you figure "requires zero resistance"?

Here is the paragraph in full and in context.

...First responders assisted thousands of civilians in evacuating the towers, even as incident com- manders from responding agencies lacked knowledge of what other agencies and, in some cases, their own responders were doing.

From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—both first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud.The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Regardless, why would you use the highest elevation to calculate the speed of fall? the collapse started from about the 80th floor. Seems you've improperly described the events in order to make a point.

From page 294.

At 9:03:11, the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 77th to 85th floors.

Assuming 12 feet per floor, 12*80 = 960 feet until the section above the crash zone hit the debris pile. And how long is your prized "free fall speed" for 960 feet?

Looks about 7.3 seconds. Looks like your theory is disproved, because initial presumptions were incorrect.

How about the official 9/11 commission report?

"From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds..."
P. 305 "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT"

How tall was it?

"The North Tower rose 1,368 feet—1,730 feet with a large antenna—and the South Tower stood 1,362 feet high."

https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history


1362 feet in 10 seconds. This requires zero resistance to reach these speeds.



"But its smokey!" You say. What about WTC 7?


"Freefall Acceleration of WTC7"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw


It is not complicated. The official story claims the floors impacted each other progressively on the way down. For this to be possible, Netwon's 3rd law of motion would need to be violated as any resistance would decrease the rate of speed of the fall due to the resistance encountered in the way down.

Tell me more about baseless proclamations as you do exactly what you accuse me of.

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.

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.

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.

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

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




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

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?

Paid actors, if they exist at all.     

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...