Building 7

[floridaorange]

Re: Building 7

Exactly my point. You're not a structural engineer, therefore your claim has no basis, it's purely regurgitated conspiracy ramblings...

I've spoken with real structural engineers and nobody they know, including themselves agree with the points you try to make.

which by the way, is partly why your statements are often laughed at and mocked by the majority of the members...

...most everyone here knows your claims are backed by lunatic notions derived from other paranoid individuals from god knows where.

[floridaorange]

Re: Building 7

you're grasping at straws with this youtube "free-fall" nonsense...

...once again, you look ridiculous, so please do yourself and all of us a favor...

...and JUST STOP.

[floridaorange]

Re: Building 7

insert line after line of BS ramblings by Runningman here:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[runningman]

Re: Building 7

http://www.ae911truth.org/

These guys are conspiracy nutjobs? You have over 1100 architects and engineers saying it is impossible.

I look ridiculous? HAHAHAHA.. Ya ok Florida. You see that is all that guys like you and Reso have.. name calling.. you never get down to the science or the facts because it scares you. Free fall speed is physics




The gov't could tell you the keebler elves took down the building and you would believe it. You would be telling me how the cookie dough turned the steel into mold.

[runningman]

Re: Building 7

Free Fall

[change in] v = a * t
[change in] y = v [initial] * t + 1/2 * a * t^2

v = velocity (in m/s)
a = acceleration (in m/s^2); for free fall, it's 9.81 m/s^2
t = time (in s)
y = vertical displacement (in m)




God Damn I love Smacking People Around on Here!!!

[runningman]

Re: Building 7

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[Michael^Heaven]

Re:

So...how about that Healthcare Bill?

[dig72]

Re: Building 7

^Are you intentionally being thick dig72?


(and fyi, it was TEXAS)

And which plane hit wtc 7?

[res0nat0r]

Re: Building 7

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Freefall+Speed

Did any of the three WTC Buildings collapse at freefall speeds? No.

Pictures of the Towers clearly show debris falling separately from the main tower. It descends at a rate of speed (and acceleration) much faster than that of the main portion of the collapse.


Perimeter columns from the South Tower are on the left. Perimeter columns from the North are on the right. You can see that these pieces are falling faster than the actual collapse, because they've fallen below where they broke off. You can see the undamaged face of the South Tower to the extreme left and the undamaged face of the North Tower to the extreme right.

I've prepared a short video showing that 7 World Trade took

to fall completely, with seismic information indicating 18 seconds. However, CD advocates are usually referring to a single portion of the entire collapse, when the roofline begins to fall.



The Final Report on 7 World Trade from NIST demonstrates that this section fell 40% slower than it would have if moving at freefall speeds.

AE911Truth has graphed out the descent of this final portion to have a 9.1 m/s-squared constant. Gravity accelerates at 9.8 m/s-squared. Even this portion of the building does not descend at freefall speeds.


This graphic is currently found on the AE911Truth slide 73.
"Near" Freefall Speeds?

Did any of the three WTC buildings fall at "near" freefall speeds?

That all depends on how "near" is defined. An acceleration rate of 9.1 m/s-squared is nearer to 9.8 than 8.7, but it's further away than 9.7. Trying to define "near" in this case is a fool's game.

The more appropriate question to ask is, "How fast should these buildings have fallen?" If mathematical analysis takes all appropriate factors into account and shows the buildings fell within an expected time range, then it wouldn't matter if the buildings fell at freefall speed, near freefall speed, or much slower than freefall speed. There would be nothing unusual about the time at all. If, however, the actual speed is outside this range, that would indicate a significant factor that had not been accommodated, one of which could conceivably be controlled demolition.

Such analysis has been done. As NIST explains:

...the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

The section of 7 World Trade in the final part of the collapse is quite similar in mass to the upper sections of the towers.

More rigorous calculations have been published in respected scientific journals (Bazant & Zhou (pdf), and Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (pdf) (in press)). The results work out to the same conclusion. The dynamic loads of the descending mass was far too large to be redistributed by any structure available to resist them. The speed of their descent was not mathematically unusual.

Therefore, the buildings falling at speeds that can be described as "near freefall speed," whatever that vague term means, isn't something that rules out the buildings falling naturally.

AE911Truth's Arguments

No Change in Timing?

The argument made by AE911Truth about freefall speed has changed in the case of 7 World Trade. Their first couple of presentations described 7 as falling at freefall speed, period. That has changed. Now they describe 7 as falling at "nearly freefall speed" just as they always have the towers.

However, they continue to say that 7 World Trade fell in 6.5 seconds. You can still see Gage make this claim in interviews available on their front page, and a graphic detailing this claim appears at the link to their "WTC 7 Evidence" page in this paragraph. However, assuming that their graphic does count off the seconds accurately, the building clearly has one-third of its height left to fall when AE911Truth stops the count.


NEXT TOPIC!!

[runningman]

Re: Building 7

Did you not watch the video where NIST admits it fell at free fall speeds? Watch part 3 it will do you some good. They admit that the building fell at free fall speed for 2 seconds. Which is impossible.

They did not stop the count early.. Listen to those guys bumble around trying to make up answers. It really is funny to watch scientific men at a loss when trying to explain their thesis.

Also the WTC towers, when buildings are damaged they fall over not into the most reistance..

[res0nat0r]

Re: Building 7

NEXT TOPiC!!

[chunky]

Re: Building 7

Not closing the thread again are you.

[res0nat0r]

Re: Building 7

NEXT TOPIC!!

NEXT TOPiC!!

See previous quotes!!

Not closing the thread again are you.

YES!! You guys are going to bring up the same unsubstantiated bullshit again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again.

NEXT TOPIC!!

[chunky]

Re: Building 7

According to demolitions experts, the term "pulled" means to literally pull down a building with cables and ropes. It is not used to describe a controlled demolition.

What sort of structure would a controlled demolition company pull down using cables and even stranger ropes?

[chunky]

Re: Building 7

See previous quotes!!

YES!! You guys are going to bring up the same unsubstantiated bullshit again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again.

NEXT TOPIC!!

I dont think you have noticed but your thread closing nonsense isn't working. You may a well stick to putting your hands on your ears while making a noise waggling your tongue.