Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 25, 2011.
But it offered no resistance to the free fall claim that you make?
If you read the report, you'll find that it contributed to it.
and you witnessed that or summoned it up in a seance with your friends on the psychic hotline?
what kind of trash is that?
if the columns went into a condition that they gave no support to the building such that the whole thing comes down and at some point hits freefall that can only be done by demolition.
Demolition causes columns to buckle effortlessly DUH
fraud why do you let these guys get away with this lind of BS? Its not about engineering with them its about word games.
Yeah. Demolition takes no effort. It's like magic.
Except it's not.
First of all, in a demolition it's only the uncut columns that buckle. Shaped charges shear support columns. They do not buckle them. And it most certainly does take effort. This "effort", or force, must shear the columns at an angle so that gravity pulls the upper portion of the column over or off of the portion below. This does not happen at "free fall" speed. The rate of "global collapse" as you keep calling it depends on the angle of the cuts, and the timing of the cuts. Demolished buildings can be dropped slowly or quickly depending on where they want the building to fall. The entire collapse, however, never takes place at free fall speed. From the start of the collapse to the end of the collapse is ALWAYS slower then the time it would take a object to fall from the highest point in the building.
Most importantly, the time it takes for a displaced column to fall is not much different then a buckled column to fall. Once a column reaches its elastic limit it buckles. Heat reduces the column's modulus of elasticity. Without any extra effort, heat alone can cause a column to buckle. Once buckled, the column offers no resistance to gravity for the mass it previously held. The mass it held falls just as fast as a column that was sheared with charges.
Buildings are not demolished by heat induced buckling because it's too difficult to control a building's fall. That does not mean that a building cannot fall at the same rate as a building that was intentionally demolished.
The Ozians, especially H, will continue to a use certain words to get around admitting controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings. It is what they do to derail and distract. They don't want attract any attention to any debate or discussion about controlled demolition and the events of 9/11
None of the buildings fell at free fall speed, at certain points during each collapse free fall ocurred but only briefly, this can be said about any building demolished using explosives. We have seen the videos comparing the controlled drops for multiple buildings and WTC7, there is no doubt in my mind about similiaraties and almost identical collpase speeds.
Don't get caught in these circular debates they engaging.
Ask them how a fire and some small minor damage to another part of the building removed or destroyed ALL support columns in WTC7 simultaneously. That is the only way that building could have collapsed the way it did. They can cite any BS report the gov has submitted, or talk about physics until the hell freezes over, but they can NOT explain the loss of support from ALL WTC7s columns
And you started out so good to, too bad.
wtc 7 hit global freefall for 2+ seconds, global freefall is impossible without demolition.
back to the books for you.
please review your grades and use them as a guide to correct your errors and resubmit your paper before the class is dismissed if you wish to receive extra credit to bring your grade up to a passing level.
nist never submitted a final report in terms of statisfactory, nist washed their hands of it and refuse to disclose the numbers they used to fudge the results.
state precisely what you believe portion is and where you claim to have heard it from both parties.
please show your conclusive evidence that the building did not suffer global failure resulting in freefall for 2+ seconds.
Records show the whole building reached freefall if you have records that demonstrate that is not the case post them for review or we will be forced to conclude this is nothing more than another red herring that certain people with hats over their eyes are so infamous for pulling.
Columns sheared with a charge do not buckle. The shearing force within the column snaps it even if the column is not completely sheared by the charge. A column is buckled with compressive force. When it's sheared, that's not the same as buckling.
I'm glad we agree that buildings do not freefall through 100% of collapse. We haven't been discussing any buildings that did that, so I'm not exactly sure where that gets you...
The loss of a sheared column can cause other columns to buckle, but the charge does not directly buckle a column. Buckling is only accomplished with compressive force. This force has to be applied parallel to the column. Charges are only used to apply a force perpendicular to the column. This is basic.
Adjoining structure doesn't pull anything. Gravity pulls all of it.
In Newtonian physics gravity acts across all distances instantly. The acceleration of gravity does occur instantly. This is one of the reasons why we haven't fully described gravity.
Prove that it isn't. I can mathematically prove that it is.
No it's not.
And you've provided zero argument to prove that it isn't.
sure I did, but if you do not understand it that is simply not my problem;
if you are incapable of understanding it may want to either educate yourself or find threads that are more suitable to your talents.
That whole comment was complete nonsense.
This was the most egregious:
In modern theory, alterations to the gravitational field take place at the speed of light. The field itself applies a force instantly.
This means that if you add mass to the Earth, the change in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field will propagate at the speed of light. Once the field reaches another mass, the field will instantly apply a force. It does not take time for the field to affect the other mass.
Therefore, if you remove the support from a mass, the Earth's gravitational field will instantly accelerate that mass as it converts potential energy into kinetic energy. This is no different if you drop an object that was supported from above, like a penny from the Eiffel tower, or if you drop an object that was supported from below, like 20 floors of the WTC.
well I guess I will have to write to them and have them change that as it is not precisely correct.
so can we get back to the topic of freefall = demolition or do you want to talk about fluffy next?
You're going to write to them and have them change what Newton wrote?
Yeah. They're going to do that...
well there is a more accurate and meaningful definition for it sorry.
see thats the trouble people run into when all they can do is cut and paste.
Without cutting and pasting why don't you tell me how this "more accurate and meaningful definition" diverges from what I wrote.
I will be happy to do just that as soon as you can show me that you have reached an academic level to carry on a productive discussion of the matter.
If you were knowledgeable in these matters you would already noticed your answer from what I have already stated.
*Ponders all the hype over a building where no one was killed.*
If I was a paranoid lunatic, I'd wonder if the 'WTC7conspiracrowd' were trying to distract from something.
jennings testified under oath and is also in interviews stating that he stepped over dead bodies when they rescued him as a result of the bomb that blew out floors 7 and 8 at the same time wtc 2 was allegedly hit by a *cough* plane.
jennings died and untimely death.
that will teach people for telling the truth.
were you involved in his murder?
No, he didn't. What you posted there is a total fabrication.
yeh actually he did,
its a matter of record.
do a little homework for a change.
Cite the record.
He never did.
he testified in front of the commission. get your own records, you can write for them under fioa AND PAY
Barry Jennings witnessed what went on in WTC7 and was disposed of. Surprise, surprise. You're pretty weak on anything that strays from the "official" story, aren't you? Stray sometime. You'll learn something true.
Barry Jennings did not testify in front of the 9/11 commission.
In his interview with Dylan Avery, he said he "felt like he was stepping over people".
He never stated 'that he stepped over dead bodies when they rescued him as a result of the bomb that blew out floors 7 and 8'. You fabricated that statement, as is your usual.
ETA: He stated in a later interview that he 'never saw dead bodies'.
Separate names with a comma.