Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[femr2]

Why bother? You would just handwave it away,like you do with every fact that undermines your crazy position.

You hand-wave away the request for input from your *professional*. Cool.

What position would that be exactly ?

 

[femr2]

If you want to know where the energy came from,read a physics book.

I already know where the energy *comes from*. Tried to get you to stop and think about what you were saying. Seemingly didn't touch the sides.

It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy

 

[A W Smith]

Yawn

after I post this i will ask for a merge to an existing thread. Thanks for playing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=buckling+site:randi.org&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=,qdr:y

 

[BCR]

If neither of you can explain what happened, then obviously you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and I'll wait for someone else to relay the memo.

At the risk of annoying the moderators, it is not that we don't understand or can't explain. It is simply because we hate repeating ourselves to idiotic morons who don't understand physics.

 

[dafydd]

Not again. Yawn.

 

[grndslm]

If that's a joke, it's funny. If not, it's sad...very sad.

You can't spit it out, yet you "know" it. That's pitiful. What's just sad is that you "know" it and express your opinions instead of sharing your version of the truth. Why don't you just make a blog and give us the straight story so you don't have to get so upset at having to repeat yourself??

What is your point?
The collapse of the building took over 15 seconds, time it! Do you know how long it takes an object to fall in a vacuum as high as the WTC 7 is.

Did I say 15 seconds? Did I say the entire WTC 7 building?

DID I???

The point is obvious -- that for even just TEN FLOORS to offer no resistance from anything whatsoever, no walls, no steel columns.... when it WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE AT ALL.... is a point that speaks all by itself.

15 seconds is a lot longer than a collapse at g.

I feel like you're trying to take this thread off-topic. Am I correct?

The facade was timed and part of the time it accelerated close to g, but that confirms the interior structure was gone, already collapsed many seconds before the facade started to move in the fires place.

How many seconds did NIST and even fellow JREF members admit that WTC 7 *did* indeed fall for free fall acceleration??

2.5 sec (maybe 2.4, but who's counting?)!

So how many floors of the building is that weren't doing the job that it was doing before the building WASN'T hit by a plane??

1/2 * 9.8 * 2.5^2 = 30.625 m = 100.476 feet

100 feet of floors, walls, support columns, etc.... NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

There was no bending, or it wouldn't have fallen at free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds, people!!

The total collapse took more than sixteen seconds.

Off topic!

If 2.25 seconds occurred at free fall speed, then the remaining 13.75+ seconds took place at a rate well below that of free fall velocity.

So what's your point??

Oh, and BTW... It's FREE FALL ACCELERATION!!!

Whatever you think the 2.25 second free fall shows is conclusively dis-proven by the remainder of the collapse.

I think you need to take a logic class. This thread is restricted to the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration!!

after I post this i will ask for a merge to an existing thread. Thanks for playing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=buckling+site:randi.org&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=,qdr:y

Was there something that you wanted me to see there?

Surely not an answer that you could summarize conceptually for us, if not in any details that come from the top of your brain?

 

[Zep]

Well I'M convinced!

 

[dafydd]

I already know where the energy *comes from*. Tried to get you to stop and think about what you were saying. Seemingly didn't touch the sides.

It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy

Do you know anything about physics? I have seen no evidence that you do. Could you give me your full theory about the events of 911 please? How were the bombs planted,what were they made of,how were the rigged without anyone noticing,were the passengers in the planes involved in the conspiracy,was the entire NYFD in on it,little details like that. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BCR]

Well I'M convinced!

Yep, me too .... 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

 

[grndslm]

At the risk of annoying the moderators, it is not that we don't understand or can't explain. It is simply because we hate repeating ourselves to idiotic morons who don't understand physics.

See my response to Dog Town, above.

I'm not really sure if those of you getting angry are really mad at the sub-forum, itself, yourselves for entering the sub-forum, or just yourselves for not being able to comprehend something to the point where you can teach it to others.

Surely you're just mad at yourself for not creating ONE page with YOUR understanding, so that you can attach your name to it and receive criticism in return, right??

I know that if I understood why a building that wasn't hit by a plane fell at free fall acceleration for 100 feet, I'd want to share that with the world one time and post my name next to it on the internet, so that we can just end this sub-forum altogether.

PUT AN END TO THE REPETITION IF YOU CAN!! Stop repeating yourself and say it once and for all.

 

[BCR]

See my response to Dog Town, above.

I'm not really sure if those of you getting angry are really mad at the sub-forum, itself, yourselves for entering the sub-forum, or just yourselves for not being able to comprehend something to the point where you can teach it to others.

Nobody is getting angry, we just ain't taking you seriously. There are all kinds of threads on this topic here. Yet here you are with the same ole subject. So since you are being foolish in starting a n^th version of the same ole, same ole, we are just going to enjoy ourselves.

PARTY TIME!

 

[Carlos]

How did 10 floors just lose all structural integrity to the point where they didn't even bend, or the building didn't topple to one side??

Explain that!!

Well... I think it's you who need to explain why the building should necessarily topple over.

(...)

The virtually free-fall acceleration occurred when the structure of 8 floors (not 10) became unable to support all the weight of more than 30 floors.

This condition was not achieved instantaneously. The process began when the first structural component failed, hours before the collapse. It was aggravated by the damage caused by fire, by the subsequent partial collapses and further structural failures until the beginning of the total collapse.

 

[beachnut]

I already know where the energy *comes from*. Tried to get you to stop and think about what you were saying. Seemingly didn't touch the sides.

It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy

It is gravity. E=mgh With no gravity, no energy for the... Gravity collapse. Why is it called a gravity collapse?

What did you substitute for g in your energy demolition claims, which you don't make but imply with failed names on your no comment videos? Thermite? C4? RDX? HMX? Beams? Nukes?

The g thing, it is gravity, it is a part, it is the primary source in CD for the destruction of the building, and that is a fact. You can quibble about it not being energy, but it is the source, the primary thing used to destroy buildings. There is no explosives, only fire and gravity, the mass and the height. Your closet CD theories, your inability to understand 19 terrorist are the sole cause of 911 is your problem due to you just asking questions and failing to learn, or set goals.

Exceeded g Beachnut.

How did it exceed g? The silent suck-a-boom-thermite-sulphur-rich-super-duper-nano-exlosives? Now you have vacuum bombs, silent vacuum bombs pulling down. Or you mean...



So? How is your CD theory going? What would exceeding g mean? Nothing - exactly! Gravity collapse is what we see in 7, due to fires not fought.
Just asking questions. Wait, you only ask questions, no goals, just asking questions. Guess who asks a lot of questions? Darn, another thing you will not be answering.

No, it doesn't. Indeed the ability for portions of the facade to exceed g implies a still pretty firmly attached *interior structure*

Really? How do you know? You said.

I'm not making claims. I am asking questions. Please answer the questions.

See, you never do set goals, and you will not be able to make statements like you just did because you don't know what happen, you want a new investigation because you can't understand the first one. A dumbed down version of 911? Darn another question; sorry.

Was that a claims you made? What is the goal of the claim? (oops)

Nonsense.

Me? Oops, another question.
You do it better than I can.

We are asked to believe that 2,966 gallons of jet fuel, essentially kerosene, caused the collapse of the South Tower. (femr2)http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/12-11-1

NIST never asked anyone to believe this; it is, Nonsense. On face value.

You're not doing so well yourself Beachnut.

I was flying supersonic aircraft solo at the age of 23, so repeating myself on 911 issues and understanding 19 terrorists were solely responsible for killing people on 911 is not doing so well, but your continuous silly questions is in the same not do so well boat? Add the supersonic aircraft, since I am not doing so well; it is a correct statement, like my conclusions on 911, unlike your closet CD can't make a conclusion, have to say only asking questions; for over 9 years... Your are right, who would let an engineer fly supersonic aircraft; life is not fair.



What can you prove about WTC 7? If you only answered questions.

What is your goal? What is your conclusion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb1PfiBT7A0 WTC Demolition? Are you are a closet CD conspiracy theorist. ? another question.
WTC Demolition - WTC2 Destruction Above Initiation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psh8kFMKRMk You asking questions, about your WTC Demolition. What is your goal naming your videos, Demolition? You post a video of a gravity collapse and name it Demolition. Oops, your goal is...

I'm not making claims. I am asking questions. Please answer the questions.

For 9 years? (oops)

when you blatantly dismiss clear fact in order to maintain the fictional Official Theory. femr2

The fictional official story? The only fiction on 911 is 911 truth. What is your goal as 911 truth approach a perfect 10 years of no evidence and perfected failure, grandfathered failure for eternity? dang, another darn question, and you don't do questions.

Love your web stuff and your ability to remain wrong, claiming the "official story" is fiction. When will you prove it? Oops, you don't do question, you ask questions. Sorry again.

I keep forgetting the only goal you have. I am sorry I missed this goal. My bad.

I'm not making claims. I am asking questions. Please answer the questions. (femr2)

Will you answer some questions? Break your goal? Good luck with 911, it can be very confusing. The complex plot of fake hijackings, to keep everyone under-control, and crashing into buildings is uniquely complex. I can understand why you will not be able to figure out 911 after 10 years. It is hard, it took Flight 93 Passengers more than 10, minutes to figure out 911. They beat us.

 

[femr2]

you should be in a tizzy about where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble.

Gravity. In the real world,that is.

Howsabout cranes, or petrol, or even plankton

Stop being silly ... Try opening a physics textbook

To stop the inevitable long-winded drone...Gravity is a force (as far as needs explaining here. Potential field.). Have a think about that dafydd.

If you want to know where the energy came from,read a physics book. Where did you study physics and what are your qualifications?

I already know where the energy *comes from*. Tried to get you to stop and think about what you were saying. Seemingly didn't touch the sides.

It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy

Do you know anything about physics? I have seen no evidence that you do.

Getting rather hum funny now, with lashings of potential irony on top.

 

[femr2]

Perfect timing

It is gravity.

The energy does not *come from* gravity.

As I am sure you well know, we're talking about gravitational potential energy, and that all basically came from converting chemical energy into kinetic energy with some cranes elevating mondo masses high into the air, giving rise to the potential if that mass then displaced earthwards And yes, I'm fully aware that could be worded much more precisely, but I don't wanna hurt your noodle bud

E=mgh

Happy with that. Mass and relative displacement within the field included.

With no gravity, no energy for the... Gravity collapse. Why is it called a gravity collapse?

You're defending the inept use ? Funny.

Gravity driven ?
Force of gravity ?

Ringing any bells ?

Gravity != Energy.

The g thing, it is gravity, it is a part, it is the primary source force in CD for the destruction of the building, and that is a fact.

ftfy

You can quibble about it not being energy

I know I can, and so should you.

but it is the source, the primary thing used to destroy buildings.

I was going to fix that for you also, but it's just nonsense.

Kinetic energy going to come into play anywhere in your Beachnut certified physical world ?

How did it exceed g?

Measurement from a point a distance from COG.

Now you have vacuum bombs, silent vacuum bombs pulling down.

ROFL

Or you mean...

Yes Beachnut.

I'll get around to your rambling waffle when I have time.

Have fun.

 

[Christopher7]

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over one half hour before the collapse.
[FONT=&quot]NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. [/FONT]

But the NIST hypothesis says:

NCSTAR 1A pg 53 [pdf pg 95]
The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79. [/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not making this up:

[FONT=&quot]On page 33 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf[/FONT]


NIST actually says that after the girder gets pushed off its seat to the west, the beams buckle and rock it off the seat to the east.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [pdf pg 397][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b) [to the east]

[/FONT]

 

[beachnut]

Perfect timing


The energy does not *come from* gravity.

As I am sure you well know, we're talking about gravitational potential energy, and that all basically came from converting chemical energy into kinetic energy with some cranes elevating mondo masses high into the air, giving rise to the potential if that mass then displaced earthwards And yes, I'm fully aware that could be worded much more precisely, but I don't wanna hurt your noodle bud

... when I have time. ...

... Have fun.

Hurt my noodle? Bud? Time, the time you should have taken over 9 years ago to understand the 911 event? That is it, you never took the time to understand 911. I get it now, you failed to take the time to figure out 911.

E=mgh E is what? This is where the enegy comes from for the gravity collapse. Go ahead quibble and correct me, it can only make you able to figure out 911 without a new investigation. Do it.

Your need for the new investigation is based on your hidden CD delusion. You think/state the "official story", 19 terrorist killing Americans, is fiction for you. You deny 911 happened the way it did, you need a new investigation, you never figured out the first investigations, yep investigations. You can't comprehend building failing due to fire, or 19 terrorists, which you claim is fiction. Is Flight 93 fiction? 77 fiction? DNA, of 77 victims fiction? Flight 93 victim DNA fiction for you?

Why can't you commit/comment to your opinions?

If you want to quibble about the energy available to destroy the WTC complex, make my day. Get all technical, if you do it right, you will debunk your need for a new investigation. I dare you to step up, do it. Correct my pilot/engineering failure to be textbook perfect, but I already understand 911 from day one, at the second impact as I drove to work at a USAF base. I suspected UBL; I was right it was his crew, his guys, his perversion of Islam. You can't figure this out given 9 years, and I did it in hours, orders of magnitude slower than Flight 93 passengers, but appears several orders of magnitude faster than all of 911 truth.

No need for a new investigating, just a need to educate those who can't figure out what ordinary people figured out in minutes. Flight 93 passengers, why did they stand up and make a difference!? 911 truth why do they make up lies and delusions?

In a leadership training course I have have seen groups that excel, like flight 93, and groups that crash and burn, like 911 truth. Which group are you in? 911 truth is fiction, your hidden claims of CD are fiction. You are 911 truth, the facts and evidence you left all over the Internet prove it.

Go trace the gravity collapse. Now that is irony, as you say gravity collapse is fiction. And you trace it. Or is that another 911 truther?

Yes Virgina, collapsing buildings expel air. Another thing you don't understand and deny. What was your conclusion on 911; oh, it is you need new investigation because you claim, without evidence, the "official story" (you never define), is fiction.

 

[femr2]

Hurt my noodle?

Yes, you seem to be having trouble with the simplest of physical principles.

E=mgh E is what? This is where the enegy comes from for the gravity collapse.

Gravity is not *enegy* Beachnut.

Is English your first language ? (As what you are writing is pretty nonsensical)

Correct my pilot/engineering failure to be textbook perfect

One would have thought that a basic understanding of gravity would be a pre-requisite for pilot training where you are. I shudder to think how many times you have proclaimed *got physics ? got math ?*, and yet you seem more than a little lacking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know that if I understood why a building that wasn't hit by a plane fell at free fall acceleration for 100 feet, I'd want to share that with the world one time and post my name next to it on the internet, so that we can just end this sub-forum altogether.

Horatius just posted the answer in another thread. Not wanting to give the game away, but I'll just mention multi-storey buckling, the candlestick, plastic hinge fracture, Colonel Mustard and the library; the true culprits are somewhere in that list.

Dave