'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.

I will do this as soon as you show that a collapse as described by NIST actually would violate the laws of physics. Not your understanding of these laws, the laws themselves.

I have no intention of giving you a physics lesson. You say the "official story" violates Newtonian physics. Prove it, just think, you'll be the first "truther" to do it.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why. Can anybody explain how a building can fall in free-fall acceleration, or anywhere near it, without the use of controlled demolition? All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.

Although others have given better explanations, I thought I'd throw in my two cents since this is such a great example of the type of logical failure which exemplifies the ultimate failure of the entire "truth" movement and shows why it will never budge from where it was years ago.

Unless you can show the only way for free fall to occur is by use of explosives, your entire argument is moot. Can you prove that an accumulation of local failures caused by fire could not cause global failure and free fall for a brief period?

If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

If the answer is, "because.....?", don't bother.

 

[beachnut]

Thank you all for your various replies to my observations and statement. I'm sorry I didn't re-post more quickly, I'm busy now and am not in front of my computer in daytime.

Wow, you took time out, yet you have overwhelming evidence for a the biggest Pulitzer Prize in history! AND you took time off??? Did you tell the FBI you figured out 911 and have the goods on ... OH, who did your fantasy version of 911? Bush, the Jews, or the MIB? Who? Who made you?

What could be more important than exposing this inside job? What?

BTW, they make laptops, smart phones, etc - you don't have to be, in front of your computer... What did the FBI say about your "overwhelming evidence"?

Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies and cover-ups of all that is going on in our rather complex world.

What a load of BS, fooled by lies from a fake movement based on hearsay, opinions, and dumbed down lies.

Thank you Miragememories for your well researched knowledge.

LOL, that is funny, you are skeptical of what really happened on 911, but accept lies and nonsense as the truth. 13th year and nothing MM has is true, and nothing 911 truth has is true. You picked the wrong "movement", yet they have the exact evidence for Bigfoot believers, Nothing. If 911 truth followers could do physics, fire science, math, reality based research, RADAR, FDR, DNA, and logical thinking : there would be no 911 truth followers.

I was hoping, perhaps naively, to discover a few more sceptical, critical thinkers who at least understand basic physics and have researched deeper in a genuine search for the truth and are able to see past the lies we have all been fed by the media. We were all victims to start with.

You can't list a single lie from the media on 911 which supports your fantasy thermite claims.

Your research amounts to google of 911 truth lies which you think are evidence for thermite and other insane claims made up by liars.

Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why.

911 truth followers have no clue what physics is, fall for 911 truth lies, idiotic lies. Playing the laws of physics card means 911 truth followers are posting woo.

Can anybody explain how a building can fall in free-fall acceleration, or anywhere near it, without the use of controlled demolition? All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.

The interior of the building already collapsed many seconds before the exterior; but you will deny this and make up lies. How can anything not obey Newton's laws? That is the dumbest stuff to say, and is a red flag for BS to follow; 911 truth makes up silly slogans and they fool you, and have you repeating stuff that means nothing. Zip. You can't explain how Newton's third law applies to your fantasy CD claims of no product thermite. You don't understand, but ZERO steel was damaged by thermite on 911, that is a fact. But you will deny it, and stick with the lies of thermite.

The initial NIST draft report of August 2008 was based on a theory of progressive collapse and denied any period of free-fall.

Not true, NIST already had the data, you have no point here except you failed to read and understand the purpose of the NIST study, and use them as a scapegoat for your ignorance of engineering, fire science, physics, and more.

When confronted by David Chandler, physics teacher, with multiple and absolute video proof of free-fall, easily checked and measured by anyone, they had to revise their report and in November 2008 issued the modified final report where they now admit 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

LOL, already in NIST's data. You are gullible.

This then invalidated their whole 3 years of theoretical simulation attempt to create a computer model showing a progressive collapse.

Nope, this exposes the fact 911 truth followers don't understand computer models, physics, math, and seem to be anti-science. Googling 911 truth lies and spreading them is not science, not research.

The latest and therefore present NIST report on WTC 7 is therefore a nonsense because any period of free-fall within the 7 second collapse negates the theory of progressive collapse.

The over 16 second collapse. Why do you lie? Is the interior collapsing part of the collapse? Yes. You spread lies you could debunk yourself with a video and a stopwatch; why don't you do it? To busy? so you google 911 truth lies, and repeat them

Progressive collapse involves things hitting other things, bending and breaking things on the way down.

So? What does this mean for your fantasy thermite CD nonsense?

There could not be free-fall while this is happening because it would be slowed down. Free-fall requires zero resistance.

Wrong again. sorry, but you are ignoring the interior already collapsed before the exterior, you failed to study how WTC 7 was constructed after 911 truth too all that time posting the plans. 911 truth debunk themselves, yet you missed it, because you failed to study their presentation, which fails to present evidence.

Free-fall is what we measured and is therefore what happened.

Most like the interior collapse was pulling down the exterior, thus taking on the speed of the interior which was collapsing 9 seconds prior to the exterior, bet the math matches this with a momentum model. Got physics? No, you have woo from 911 truth, and you don't know it.

I don't think anyone seriously believes Chris Mohrs personal theory of cantilevered, accelerated descent resulting in a net zero resistance.

How would you know, when did you graduate from engineering school; did you take dynamic, or statics? It appears you never took physics the way you fell for the silly "Newton third law" nonsense.

Certainly not NIST and certainly not any qualified engineer that I've come across and neither is it supported by any observation I've seen.

How would you know, you never read NIST. You made this up.

The theory that the inside of the building collapsed leaving an empty shell which then collapsed at free-fall is not proposed by NIST and is not supported by video evidence.

How would you know, you never read NIST, you repeat lies from 911 truth like a cult member in some religion of woo.

It is physically impossible and could not be repeated in an experiment on any scale.

How would you know, do you have an engineering degree, like all of the NIST engineers, and outside engineers they hired? You google 911 truth lies, and post them freely as if you were a cult member.

The penthouse was seen to go down half a second before the rest and this confirms a classic implosion.

let us see, half a second before? lol, you don't do research, you make up lies as you go

It was 9 seconds, and the interior of WTC 7 was gone before the exterior collapsed, thus the falling interior is why the exterior point studied was at free-fall, faster than free-fall, but part of a system that was slower than free-fall. You have one point study, and failed to take into account the infinite points falling inside WTC 7. You don't understand engineering, or the NIST report, so you mock it due to ignorance.

A technique used in controlled demolition to help collapse the structure into its own footprint. The interior leading and pulling in the outside as it goes.

WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint, this catch phrase is a red flag for lies from 911 truth. Drop the "its own footprint", it makes no sense for your fantasy.

The comparison of the loudness of the explosive sounds relative to known controlled demolitions is interesting but irrelevant because nano-thermite was used, an incendiary not an explosive.

lol, you don't get it, no steel had any evidence thermite was used on 911. This is a fact you will ignore and and stick with your fake claims of thermite you googled and accepted by faith from 911 truth.

There were, in any case plenty of witnesses who also heard explosives as well as the video evidence.

No body heard explosives. There is no video evidence of explosives on 911. You are spreading lies again, lies you googled from 911 truth. You might want to learn what simile is.

I am trying to gently help people to wake up but I can see that some peoples instinct to cling to what they want to believe is too strong to allow an open mind to simply observe and believe what you see and the laws of physics, not what you've been told that you see.

911 truth followers never took physics, and have no clue there was no damage to any WTC steel from thermite. 911 truth followers are in some fantasy-land; proof, they don't have time to back up their claims and they post lies and fantasy in a sub-forum where crazy 911 truth claims are discussed. 911 truth followers have no evidence, don't understand physics, and post lies they plagiarized from 911 truth.

I'm sorry to not be able to help you more but I hope through calm rational research on truth sites such as ae911truth.org you will one day discover the truth before it's too late.

There is no evidence or rational claims at ae911truth.org. Gage work is a scam to get donations to support himself since he can't get a job, and seem to lost his family when he went off the deep end plagiarizing lies from 911 truth as his source for his talks which make him 500k/yr. You were fooled by a liar.

Try to accept the obvious fact that governments and mainstream media lie, most of the time.

Wow, the government lies most of the time, and you and 911 truth lie all the time; and you can't do physics, the government can do physics and put men on the moon; you can't figure out 911 given the answer and 13 years. The government figure out 911 in one day - not as good as the Passengers on Flight 93, who figured out 911 in minutes. You are last to figure out 911 with the rest of the paranoid conspiracy theorists in 911 truth. Why are you so slow to wake up to reality. BTW, assuming the government is spreading lies about 911 is the dumbest thing you can say, since we all saw 911 on video, live, after the first impact.
All the evidence, and witnesses to 911, RADAR, FDR, DNA, prove you are spreading idiotic lies about people planting thermite who you can't name, and you have no evidence. You spread lies and mock the murdered of 911; a task done by 19 nuts, who figured out 911 more than 13 years before you.

Thank goodness there are over 100 000 NYC residents who have signed the demand for the High Rise Safety Initiative which must therefore now go ahead.

100,000 who have no clue WTC 7 was investigated, and buildings are already investigated when big fires occur... oops -

The high rise safey initiative is BS, WTC 7 was already investigated and people who building high-rises, have already used improvements from the disaster. You have no clue the initiative was a way for people to take money for themselves - you are so naive, as you support idiotic junk.
WTC 7 was investigaged, you can't figure it out.
When there are major disaters to building, they are investigated already, no need for some silly 911 truth BS to get money for the people running the initiative. You are gullible. Hate to be skeptical about your love of the high rise initiative, but there is already a mechnisism for the study of high-rise collapses/buildings totaled by fire.
One Meridian Plaza, studied ...
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
OOPS - already done - the initiative will be tabled if there are rational people in government. You are not a skeptic, and you don't do more than shallow research, jumping on 911 truth lies as if they make sense. You like the sound of 911 truth lies.

If I believed that buildings could fall at close to free-fall just by office fires then I would never go inside a building again.

We will not see you in buildings any more. BTW, no building on 911 was close to free-fall; WTC7 took over 16 seconds to fall, and never was the building at free-fall, you don't understand you were only seeing the data for one point, not the complete mass of WTC 7. 911 truth does not do engineering.

For those ready to learn more I also recommend the 4 ½ hour film by Massimo Mazzucco; September 11, The new Pearl Harbour.
Thank you.

You fall for lies. A movie by an idiot. How could you endorse a film with so many lies about 911 and dishonor those murdered by 19 terrorists. Why do you lie about 911, and you have no idea. Why wait 13 years to spread lies about 911? It would be hard to be more disrespectful of those murdered on 911.

 

[DGM]

For those ready to learn more I also recommend the 4 ½ hour film by Massimo Mazzucco; September 11, The new Pearl Harbour.
.

Tell you what. I'll watch this as soon as you explain the significance of the phrase "The new Pearl Harbor"

I know where it comes from. You tell us how it fits with the PNAC's agenda. While you're at it, explain how 9/11 wasn't polar opposite of what they wanted (and explained so in later messages).

I bet you make more of a fool out of yourself trying. (if you try at all)

I bet you think Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit..............(you guys are too funny)

 

[000063]

This is as far as I got. I guess I have a problem with being assumed clueless.

I don't get it. I long ago realized that insulting people made them not want to listen to me. But truthers rarely seem to get it, and use the exact same derogatory language to refer to debunkers even when they're talking to said debunkers.

Of course, there are plenty of non-truther adults who never seem to learn that either.

 

[Realtruthseeker]

Hello again, To Seymour Butz: I'm sorry that you took it so hard. I honestly don't want to insult anyone because we can all learn from all points of view but that may not stop me from being brutal with the truth. I would never call you a “brainwashed moron”, you are certainly not a moron because you are showing an interest in 9/11 truth by merely being here. That's a lot more advanced than some others who have no interest at all. Brainwashed is something that can happen to any of us, we can only try to avoid it by being open to the possibility that it has happened to us by changing our frame of reference and examining things from a different perspective to see if things look different or still the same. Pan-determined is one way of expressing that.
You criticize my knowledge of physics but don't offer yours to contradict it. Can you explain how a building can accelerate downwards at “g”without controlled demolition? Go on, have a go! Show us your knowledge of physics please. Go ahead.
To Spanx: I'm not trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job yet, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. I would like you to ponder this fact or disprove it. Thank you Sir.
To DGM: You are not “assumed clueless”, you are here and so you have an interest and you can learn, as we all can, me included, from the debate.
To LSSB: Thank you for being scientific, I like it that way because it helps lead us toward the truth. Yes, free-fall is the state of an object falling only under the effect of the force of gravity, without any resistance. Strictly, it is in a vacuum to avoid air resistance but I'm trying to keep it simple as the air resistance is slight in the first 2 seconds for lumps of concrete and steel.
I find it very funny this theory of the shell of the building going faster than “g”. There would have to be an elastic effect involved. The interior falls at “g”, then the exterior suddenly decides it must catch up so it goes “pow” and zooms down trying to catch up with its own innards as if it was attached by elastic. Sounds like a comic theory. Have you seen that in the NIST report?
To Jay Utah: I would never call you a “brainwashed moron”, Those were Seymour Butz's words not mine. You are certainly not a moron because you are showing an interest in 9/11 truth by merely being here.
Newton didn't do particle physics in 1687, that concept came much later when we discovered the atom was composed of particles closer to early 20th century. Referring to Newtons 3rd law,“what Newton actually formulated" is this: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" Can I say it any clearer? You say: "At least we know who your physics teacher is". No, I didn't say that. Mazzucco is a researcher and film maker. I learn t my physics first by observation as a child who pushed his milk bottle off the high chair to see how fast it fell, then later in school, then later as a motor engineering student, then later as a professional flying instructor and pilot.
Thank you, I'm honored by your interest Sir.

 

[DGM]

To DGM: You are not “assumed clueless”, you are here and so you have an interest and you can learn, as we all can, me included, from the debate.

Do you plan on entering a debate on what you consider "truth" or will you continue to tell us what "truth" is?

Your instinctual knowledge of physics will not convince anyone that actually took any physics in school.

Your knowledge of factual information on 9/11 comes only from sources with similar believes as yourself.


Why exactly should anyone listen to you?

 

[LSSBB]

To LSSB: Thank you for being scientific, I like it that way because it helps lead us toward the truth. Yes, free-fall is the state of an object falling only under the effect of the force of gravity, without any resistance. Strictly, it is in a vacuum to avoid air resistance but I'm trying to keep it simple as the air resistance is slight in the first 2 seconds for lumps of concrete and steel.
I find it very funny this theory of the shell of the building going faster than “g”. There would have to be an elastic effect involved. The interior falls at “g”, then the exterior suddenly decides it must catch up so it goes “pow” and zooms down trying to catch up with its own innards as if it was attached by elastic. Sounds like a comic theory. Have you seen that in the NIST report?

I think you misread me. Free fall is not falling only under the effect of gravity. It is something moving toward the center of the earth at the acceleration that it would if freely falling. There can be other forces - as long as they are cancelled out, e.g. working in opposite directions. Something can be pushing from above, and something pushing from below. If they cancel, at a particular point in time, then the only effective force is that of gravity.

Read again what I said, and think it through. The broken bottom of the exterior is still trying to hold it up while it collapses, only it can't because it has broken. The inside of the building is pulling down on the exterior. When these two forces are in balance, all that is left is the force of gravity on the exterior - for that particular moment!

This is a dynamic situation, and parts are breaking at the bottom and along the inside. So the acceleration changes constantly, the forces are never in balance for more than a moment.

You can see this on the acceleration graph. Here is one from FEMR2:

The exterior doesn't 'decide' anything. It is just subject to the forces of the collapse. By the way, there is a kind of elastic involved - that is the 'give' in the connections of the beams and girders of the floors and trusses to the exterior, and also in the building frame. However, the main point is that the exterior is being pulled down from the inside, and so it has forces applied - in addition to its own weight.

 

[Realtruthseeker]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

 

[beachnut]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

And that is a false statement. WTC 7 collapse took over 16 seconds, you need a new stop watch.

 

[DGM]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

Would you like to support that claim with yours? I'll even give you a hint, when you say "near", wouldn't that indicate there was in fact some resistance? Are you prepared to support how this amount would differ from a natural gravitational collapse? You are aware the majority force in a CD is gravity?

Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"?

I can't wait. (actually I can, no "truther" has supported this to date).

 

[LSSBB]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

As DGM, said, you will have to prove what you are saying. Basic physics contradicts you:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There we go with another Freudian psychoanalysis of why theories brought up about controlled demolitions would be disagreed with and contradicted by evidence. Maybe people are adamant about the WTC not being a CD because... I don't know... maybe the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny... I've been at this for 5 years... pardon if I'm more than a little condescending when I say that making a case for CD with no evidence other than "freefall = CD" is one hell of an ironic way to call peers stupid.

 

[DGM]

... pardon if I'm more than a little condescending when I say that making a case for CD with no evidence other than "freefall = CD" is one hell of an ironic way to call peers stupid.

No pardon is necessary. The stupidity only comes when someone brings it outside of the intended audience.

 

[beachnut]

Nothing can fall faster, or at free fall without CD...



http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/fallingchains/

Must be CD... silent explosives, or the secret no product thermite - where do they find those silent explosives - in their minds

 

[pgimeno]

For reference, this is the hypothesized mechanism of action that produced the over-g:



Where instead of a turret there is the core, instead of the crane there is the perimeter, instead of the cable from crane to turret there are the beams and girders, and instead of a very short sudden pull, it was more elastic and progressive.

The crane tip experiences a strong jerk, far stronger than g, and begins to fall with negligible resistance (unable to hold its own weight).

How else do you explain the over-g period? Any other hypothesis? Because I know of absolutely no CD where basically the whole building falls faster than g as a block.

Or even at g! There is no known demolition where the building falls at g. Imagine that.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Hello again, To Seymour Butz:
You criticize my knowledge of physics

Not JUST your knowledge of physics.

Can you explain how a building can accelerate downwards at “g”without controlled demolition?

There's zero proof that the whole building did that. Any study of accelerations are on a single point only.

Therefore, your question is invalid and there's no reason for anyone to explain it to you.

Go on, have a go! Show us your knowledge of physics please. Go ahead.

However, since you are begging for enlightenment, let me say this. The first 1.75 seconds/7' of fall of the exterior is where the columns buckled. At that point, the columns broke. Broken columns aren't going to give any resistance until the ends fall into a debris mass.

That is the laymans explanation. I doubt that you even understand what I just wrote, never mind agree ....

a “brainwashed moron”, Those were Seymour Butz's words not mine. .

Liar.

 

[JayUtah]

To Jay Utah: I would never call you a “brainwashed moron”, Those were Seymour Butz's words not mine.

Actually they were my words. I just put appropriate words to the sentiment you were laying down. You insinuated we were taken in by the mainstream press. You insinuated we collectively had little knowledge of physics. "Brainwashed" covers the first part, "moron" covers the second. You may not have wished to express your sentiment in so harsh a phrase, but the sentiment itself is that harsh.

Sadly none of it is correct. Very few people here, if any, are simply expressing faith in the mainstream. Contrary to what your Truther handlers have inculcated, most of us here are fairly well educated in the appropriate sciences and have studied the 9/11 conspiracy theories in probably more depth than you have. As I said -- assuming your critics are brainwashed and uneducated is a poor way to argue.

And no, I have no interest in 9/11 "truth" if by that you mean the long-debunked theories you've brought to the table. I long ago put those to the test and dismissed them as ludicrous, unsupportable pseudo-science. My only interest these days is in correcting the horrible misapprehension of structures, engineering, and investigative process that the "Truth" movement relies upon for its continued donations.

Newton didn't do particle physics in 1687...

I'm not talking about particle physics. I'm talking about what Newton meant by "particle," which is not an elementary particle (e.g., fermions or quarks). And the fact that you would make that mistake shows quite keenly that you've never read a single thing Newton actually wrote, nor any of the pile of textbooks available today on Newtonian mechanics (which use Newton's concept of a "particle").

So thank you for playing. But since you've decided to talk "down" to us from a position of abject ignorance on the subject, I have very little further to say to you.

I learn t my physics first by observation as a child who pushed his milk bottle off the high chair...

Good for you. I learned my physics via a decade or so of college, after which I practiced it professionally as an engineer where I make my living by my knowledge of physics.

As I said, thank you for playing, but you really have absolutely no concept of what Newtonian mechanics really is. Your arguments express about as much correct understanding as a baby in a high chair.

 

[beachnut]

... then later as a professional flying instructor and pilot. ...

Have you joined pilots for truth? They could use your overwhelming evidence - all their claims are based on BS like your claims are.

Where does 911 truth hide the evidence?

If you are an instructor pilot, you could debunk pilots for truth lies - have you done that? If you can't debunk pilots for truth, it might be a reflection of why you fall for the fantasy of CD for the WTC complex.

 

[TJM]

Barry Jennings who was trapped inside WTC7 after an explosion blew out the stairwell he was using to evacuate, reported clearly hearing repeated internal explosions, yet they were not recorded, or noted, by outside observers.

Yeah...



... Just gonna leave that here.

Carry on.