University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 5.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: sirazimuth on May 15, 2020, 10:48:28 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 15, 2020, 02:50:45 PM

You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Cool

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

Since established science continually changes based on the self-proclaimed ignorance of scientists, you are basing your faith on a will-o'-the-wisp or ignis fatuus.

Cool

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: sirazimuth on May 15, 2020, 10:48:28 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 15, 2020, 02:50:45 PM

You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Cool

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.

sirazimuth

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 3514

born once atheist

Quote from: BADecker on May 15, 2020, 02:50:45 PM

You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Cool

Says the ignoramus who denies evolution, is anti,vax, and prays to his imaginary invisible sky fairy.
My money's on established science, not some delusional troll in a bitcoin forum.
Carry on dude, as usual your absurd lunacy never fails to give me a good laugh.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on May 15, 2020, 01:27:36 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 15, 2020, 11:41:46 AM

....

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.

Cool

I'm not at all certain that with the posters on this thread, any possibility exists to get the discussion up to the 8th grade level.

If you happened to get up to 8th grade level, you WOULD be certain. Why? You would see that the rest of us are at least way past college level in our discussion.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: BADecker on May 15, 2020, 11:41:46 AM

....

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.

Cool

I'm not at all certain that with the posters on this thread, any possibility exists to get the discussion up to the 8th grade level.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on May 15, 2020, 06:34:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 14, 2020, 10:30:58 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:32:53 PM

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

The proof or lack of your statements really is in the equations.

You not only refuse to provide the math but actively deny the need for it.

It's not credible to assert that I'm "playing intellectual" if I'm keeping the discussion at the 8th grade level.

LOL! He's got you there, TECSHARE. Cheesy

He certainly isn't playing intellectual by keeping the discussion at 8th grade level. He has to get the discussion up to 8th grade level to keep it there.

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 14, 2020, 10:30:58 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:32:53 PM

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

The proof or lack of your statements really is in the equations.

You not only refuse to provide the math but actively deny the need for it.

It's not credible to assert that I'm "playing intellectual" if I'm keeping the discussion at the 8th grade level.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:32:53 PM

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 14, 2020, 08:04:18 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 07:20:05 PM

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 14, 2020, 08:04:18 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 07:20:05 PM

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

There is one other way free-fall speeds could have been attained. And it answers the point that no explosives could have been sneaked into the buildings.

The answer is that they were landed on the top of the buildings by helicopter, days before 9/11. It's these explosives that pushed the buildings into near free-fall speeds, and caused the "pancaking" that many seemed to have observed.

Of course, others have talked about missiles. So, maybe it was a missile or two, that had "shaped charge explosives" of the kind used in tank shells. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead.

Cool

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 07:20:05 PM

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded ok too? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: groggin on May 14, 2020, 04:39:04 PM

Quote from: Spendulus

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

k spendy, i'll bite:

any questions?

(click the pic to visit the website and try it yourself)

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

groggin

legendary

Activity: 1894

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Spendulus

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

k spendy, i'll bite:

any questions?

(click the pic to visit the website and try it yourself)

sirazimuth

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 3514

born once atheist

Quote from: BADecker on May 14, 2020, 12:15:17 PM

....
Stick to real, easily identified pseudo science, like I do.
Cool

ftfy

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 11:43:08 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 14, 2020, 10:30:09 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:11:17 AM

Quote from: groggin on May 13, 2020, 09:41:48 PM

....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

Garbage deleted.

The "equations" are quite simple. They are called "ground" or "the earth" or some similar thing.

Have you never noticed that stuff doesn't just fall through the ground to the center of the earth? Why doesn't it? Isn't it because all that solid earth is in the way?

So, why would stuff fall through the beams and girders and columns that are solid stuff, almost as though there was nothing there?

Spendy, I do feel a little sorry for you. Even the 8th graders have waked up to the fact that free-fall through solid material doesn't make sense. You should really check yourself into a psychiatric clinic while you have the chance... before you become a babbling idiot, and they can't do anything to help you any longer.

Garbage deleted.

Forget all the stupid non-science that Spendy promotes all the time. Stick to real, easily identified science, like the fact that solid beams and girders and columns don't simply jump out of the way without demolition... especially in a near-free-fall situation.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: BADecker on May 14, 2020, 10:30:09 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:11:17 AM

Quote from: groggin on May 13, 2020, 09:41:48 PM

....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

Garbage deleted.

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on May 14, 2020, 09:11:17 AM

Quote from: groggin on May 13, 2020, 09:41:48 PM

....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

The "equations" are quite simple. They are called "ground" or "the earth" or some similar thing.

Have you never noticed that stuff doesn't just fall through the ground to the center of the earth? Why doesn't it? Isn't it because all that solid earth is in the way?

So, why would stuff fall through the beams and girders and columns that are solid stuff, almost as though there was nothing there?

Spendy, I do feel a little sorry for you. Even the 8th graders have waked up to the fact that free-fall through solid material doesn't make sense. You should really check yourself into a psychiatric clinic while you have the chance... before you become a babbling idiot, and they can't do anything to help you any longer.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: groggin on May 13, 2020, 09:41:48 PM

....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

groggin

legendary

Activity: 1894

Merit: 1001

fwiw/ fiend o mine had a bud on one of those planes. USMC vet, i volunteered my opinions on 911 and came close to being beat up ... don' think i blame him ...

but it is what it is, 911 was an elite-op designed to take away our liberties

spendy you should be ashamed that you speak for them.

quarter mile high steel framed buildings cannot collapse at freefall speed without the aid of incendiaries/explosives

10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on May 07, 2020, 05:52:35 PM

Quote from: BluePowder on May 07, 2020, 04:31:37 PM

They didn't go anywhere. Some people died at WTC but no deaths anywhere else. Even lucky Larry survived, what are the odds there, he just happened to take a day off that day. Nothing is anti american, like I said 9/11 stinks of British and Israeli intelligence.

I guess you already watched the 2hr video in 15 minutes and have your report on it.

No, there is a complete list of every person who died on the four airplanes.

Your version of 911 and your posts reek of pro-Saudi Islamic propaganda.

If not, then list where those people missing from their families who said they got on one of those planes are today. Go ahead, prove it to the world. Here is your chance. I'll make it easy. Just show how half of those people are imaginary people with imaginary families.

Go to a baby-names website, and I'll bet you can find even more names for your list.

Cool

Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 5. (Read 2858 times)