What brought down WTC7

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Be truthful... you are having withdrawal symptoms and trying to convince yourself that what causes them is the presence of Kyle's posting when the absence of such still enables you to post.

What?

I meant that he has not posted in awhile in his thread.

Exactly!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

It not only includes demolition but proves it... heheheheh

The cuts made at a 45 degree angle coupled with explosive devices forced the structure to offset the downward force of gravity. It sort of free floated there for the time explained to catch up with the g constant.. which build up when it is not employed.
A newly created building does not fall down... but a very old one increases the g on a yearly basis so that when it is no longer viable, and you can visualize this.. the buildings look awful and are falling apart.. that is g... then when you blow them up g is so much more powerful than the up bit that it pulls em down faster than a newer building... AND the construction material's age matters in this equation as well... You need to use steel of the same manufacture date or you won't know what to expect.

EDIT: It is part of that conservation of energy thing.

god i hope you are not serious

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

god i hope you are not serious

Beats the heck out of steel devouring termites. And, a site I went to last nite that sees evil faces in the dust clouds from 9/11 and that that is proof of the extra forces needed!

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

god i hope you are not serious

Beats the heck out of steel devouring termites. And, a site I went to last nite that sees evil faces in the dust clouds from 9/11 and that that is proof of the extra forces needed!

No, it really doesn't. g is a constant. That means it doesn't change. This has been scientifically proven so many times over the last century it's ridiculous. You are a moron.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

It not only includes demolition but proves it... heheheheh

The cuts made at a 45 degree angle coupled with explosive devices forced the structure to offset the downward force of gravity. It sort of free floated there for the time explained to catch up with the g constant.. which build up when it is not employed.
A newly created building does not fall down... but a very old one increases the g on a yearly basis so that when it is no longer viable, and you can visualize this.. the buildings look awful and are falling apart.. that is g... then when you blow them up g is so much more powerful than the up bit that it pulls em down faster than a newer building... AND the construction material's age matters in this equation as well... You need to use steel of the same manufacture date or you won't know what to expect.

EDIT: It is part of that conservation of energy thing.

Wait....wait...............wait.........what?

I am shocked by this post. I mean......I don't even know. I cant put it in words

 

[Exterous]

I'm sorry but I can't stop thinking about that post. I mean - really? Come on. If that were the case gravity would have condensed the Earth to a tiny fraction of it's current size - due to the buildup of gravity on a yearly basis


Conservation of energy means energy is neither created nor destroyed - not that gravity builds up

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

god i hope you are not serious

Beats the heck out of steel devouring termites. And, a site I went to last nite that sees evil faces in the dust clouds from 9/11 and that that is proof of the extra forces needed!

No, it really doesn't. g is a constant. That means it doesn't change. This has been scientifically proven so many times over the last century it's ridiculous. You are a moron.

g varies with elevation. But for all intents and purposes, it is constant on earth, varying only slightly from the highest elevation to the lowest elevation (something like .05 m/s^2 is the range of error).

G (the gravitational constant) is constant wherever you go.

....

(just read Lunars Post)

g Does NOT vary from building to building. In the same area, g is essentially constant. And for all intents and purposes, doesn't change at all. (maybe it will in the next 30 million years)

... let me put it this way. If you take an object, and put it on a book shelf for 3 billion years, then take another object, and set it right next to the object on the book shelf, both objects will have the exact same amount of energy. (assuming equal mass).

 

[LunarRay]

Gee folks

I was trying to give you all some really insane stuff to jump on so you wouldn't have to do with out a target... hehehehhehehe someone said Kyle wasn't posting and I felt bad for you all...

I can't imagine that stuff I posted made any sense at all... I made it up on the fly.. even I don't know what I said...


Edit: I guess I should have used an emote to indicate that... which one would be appropriate when I'm trying to make a funny?

I just re-read the bit about cutting stuff at a 45 degree angle... heheheheheh floating steel... really now, is that not sorta what some folks are trying to say... ??

"When some stuff gets blown up it goes down.
Gravity therefore is not a constant but, rather, it is the adverse reaction to intention. It is proportional and arbitrary. "

I thought that bit was especially well reasoned out... no?

 

[event8horizon]

this is what i was talking about earlier:
Depending on latitude and other variables, there are slight differences in gravitational acceleration. There is a table at this link that shows the gravitational acceleration of various cities including new york to be 9.802 m/s2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

if the link doesnt work, at wiki type in earth's gravity. it shows different accelerations in different cities.

In new york:

9.802 m/s2 would be like 32.158 ft/s2.
In the NIST wtc 7 report, it states that g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2).
Thats not a big difference but when one converts 32.2 ft/s2 to meters, that would equal 9.814 m/s2. That is higher than the gravitational acceleration could possibly be in new york.

just some observations concerning nist and gravitational acceleration in new york.
im wondering if that would have any effect on their math?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is what i was talking about earlier:
Depending on latitude and other variables, there are slight differences in gravitational acceleration. There is a table at this link that shows the gravitational acceleration of various cities including new york to be 9.802 m/s2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

if the link doesnt work, at wiki type in earth's gravity. it shows different accelerations in different cities.

In new york:

9.802 m/s2 would be like 32.158 ft/s2.
In the NIST wtc 7 report, it states that g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2).
Thats not a big difference but when one converts 32.2 ft/s2 to meters, that would equal 9.814 m/s2. That is higher than the gravitational acceleration could possibly be in new york.

just some observations concerning nist and gravitational acceleration in new york.
im wondering if that would have any effect on their math?

No

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is what i was talking about earlier:
Depending on latitude and other variables, there are slight differences in gravitational acceleration. There is a table at this link that shows the gravitational acceleration of various cities including new york to be 9.802 m/s2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

if the link doesnt work, at wiki type in earth's gravity. it shows different accelerations in different cities.

In new york:

9.802 m/s2 would be like 32.158 ft/s2.
In the NIST wtc 7 report, it states that g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2).
Thats not a big difference but when one converts 32.2 ft/s2 to meters, that would equal 9.814 m/s2. That is higher than the gravitational acceleration could possibly be in new york.

just some observations concerning nist and gravitational acceleration in new york.
im wondering if that would have any effect on their math?

It's called ROUNDING. I know this might seem strange to you, but they actually do do it when working with math and real life scenarios. My heck, you would probably complain if they said that pi = 3.14 and say "No, it is 3.1425.. See, They Lie!!"

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman


It's called ROUNDING. I know this might seem strange to you, but they actually do do it when working with math and real life scenarios. My heck, you would probably complain if they said that pi = 3.14 and say "No, it is 3.1425.. See, They Lie!!"

What tickles me most is when someone takes some aspect of a string of assumptions/approximations and takes some factor to the extreme max after the decimal.

hehehehe no one has hard figures on the mass or the rate of acceleration but want to use actual figures for NYC.... I suggest they should take absolute readings from the center of each site... <---- a funny!...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Cogman


It's called ROUNDING. I know this might seem strange to you, but they actually do do it when working with math and real life scenarios. My heck, you would probably complain if they said that pi = 3.14 and say "No, it is 3.1425.. See, They Lie!!"

What tickles me most is when someone takes some aspect of a string of assumptions/approximations and takes some factor to the extreme max after the decimal.

hehehehe no one has hard figures on the mass or the rate of acceleration but want to use actual figures for NYC.... I suggest they should take absolute readings from the center of each site... <---- a funny!...

The gravity was greater when the buildings were there.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is what i was talking about earlier:
Depending on latitude and other variables, there are slight differences in gravitational acceleration. There is a table at this link that shows the gravitational acceleration of various cities including new york to be 9.802 m/s2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

if the link doesnt work, at wiki type in earth's gravity. it shows different accelerations in different cities.

In new york:

9.802 m/s2 would be like 32.158 ft/s2.
In the NIST wtc 7 report, it states that g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2).
Thats not a big difference but when one converts 32.2 ft/s2 to meters, that would equal 9.814 m/s2. That is higher than the gravitational acceleration could possibly be in new york.

just some observations concerning nist and gravitational acceleration in new york.
im wondering if that would have any effect on their math?

lmao. Someone never learned about significant figures.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Cogman


It's called ROUNDING. I know this might seem strange to you, but they actually do do it when working with math and real life scenarios. My heck, you would probably complain if they said that pi = 3.14 and say "No, it is 3.1425.. See, They Lie!!"

What tickles me most is when someone takes some aspect of a string of assumptions/approximations and takes some factor to the extreme max after the decimal.

hehehehe no one has hard figures on the mass or the rate of acceleration but want to use actual figures for NYC.... I suggest they should take absolute readings from the center of each site... <---- a funny!...

The gravity was greater when the buildings were there.

Compressed mass !!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is what i was talking about earlier:
Depending on latitude and other variables, there are slight differences in gravitational acceleration. There is a table at this link that shows the gravitational acceleration of various cities including new york to be 9.802 m/s2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

if the link doesnt work, at wiki type in earth's gravity. it shows different accelerations in different cities.

In new york:

9.802 m/s2 would be like 32.158 ft/s2.
In the NIST wtc 7 report, it states that g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2).
Thats not a big difference but when one converts 32.2 ft/s2 to meters, that would equal 9.814 m/s2. That is higher than the gravitational acceleration could possibly be in new york.

just some observations concerning nist and gravitational acceleration in new york.
im wondering if that would have any effect on their math?

I enjoy watching you own yourself!! Self-pwnage is where it is at!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Cogman


It's called ROUNDING. I know this might seem strange to you, but they actually do do it when working with math and real life scenarios. My heck, you would probably complain if they said that pi = 3.14 and say "No, it is 3.1425.. See, They Lie!!"

What tickles me most is when someone takes some aspect of a string of assumptions/approximations and takes some factor to the extreme max after the decimal.

hehehehe no one has hard figures on the mass or the rate of acceleration but want to use actual figures for NYC.... I suggest they should take absolute readings from the center of each site... <---- a funny!...

The gravity was greater when the buildings were there.

Compressed mass !!

Just the mass but gravity increased as they fell and lessened as they were removed. The amounts, however, are trivial as is the difference of one place on earth vs another. My guess is that gravity is strongest over batholithic intrusions.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


The gravity was greater when the buildings were there.

So... it depends on what the buildings are made up of? ...

IF I made a building of say photons and applied F=MA and if Mass = 0 then F=A. Newton would not say F=0A. if a building sits still... on its foundation then F= 00... no gravity force? If that is true then I need no internal structure but do need to toss some steel on the roof?
Or would it be F=0A... same result I guess.

Which might mean light don't bend but space does but it has no reason to?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

god i hope you are not serious

Beats the heck out of steel devouring termites. And, a site I went to last nite that sees evil faces in the dust clouds from 9/11 and that that is proof of the extra forces needed!

No, it really doesn't. g is a constant. That means it doesn't change. This has been scientifically proven so many times over the last century it's ridiculous. You are a moron.

g varies with elevation. But for all intents and purposes, it is constant on earth, varying only slightly from the highest elevation to the lowest elevation (something like .05 m/s^2 is the range of error).

G (the gravitational constant) is constant wherever you go.

....

(just read Lunars Post)

g Does NOT vary from building to building. In the same area, g is essentially constant. And for all intents and purposes, doesn't change at all. (maybe it will in the next 30 million years)

... let me put it this way. If you take an object, and put it on a book shelf for 3 billion years, then take another object, and set it right next to the object on the book shelf, both objects will have the exact same amount of energy. (assuming equal mass).

Oh you people and your irrelevant details.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

god i hope you are not serious

Beats the heck out of steel devouring termites. And, a site I went to last nite that sees evil faces in the dust clouds from 9/11 and that that is proof of the extra forces needed!

No, it really doesn't. g is a constant. That means it doesn't change. This has been scientifically proven so many times over the last century it's ridiculous. You are a moron.

g varies with elevation. But for all intents and purposes, it is constant on earth, varying only slightly from the highest elevation to the lowest elevation (something like .05 m/s^2 is the range of error).

G (the gravitational constant) is constant wherever you go.

....

(just read Lunars Post)

g Does NOT vary from building to building. In the same area, g is essentially constant. And for all intents and purposes, doesn't change at all. (maybe it will in the next 30 million years)

... let me put it this way. If you take an object, and put it on a book shelf for 3 billion years, then take another object, and set it right next to the object on the book shelf, both objects will have the exact same amount of energy. (assuming equal mass).

Oh you people and your irrelevant details.

But speaking of irrelevant details, he forgot to figure in the patina on the older book. And I bet he doesn't know the density of patina.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Cogman

g varies with elevation. But for all intents and purposes, it is constant on earth, varying only slightly from the highest elevation to the lowest elevation (something like .05 m/s^2 is the range of error).

G (the gravitational constant) is constant wherever you go.

....

(just read Lunars Post)

g Does NOT vary from building to building. In the same area, g is essentially constant. And for all intents and purposes, doesn't change at all. (maybe it will in the next 30 million years)

... let me put it this way. If you take an object, and put it on a book shelf for 3 billion years, then take another object, and set it right next to the object on the book shelf, both objects will have the exact same amount of energy. (assuming equal mass).

Oh you people and your irrelevant details.

Just putting that out there before kyle comes in and says. "You falsers are so wrong because you think gravity is the same everywhere!!!1! That proves that my physics is correct!"

 

[Ozoned]

What affect did the 2 nearby seismic events that occured earlier in the day have on the foundation of WTC7?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as posted over there:

Without numbers your comments are meaningless.

Plug in whatever numbers you like, it won't change the conclusion. And yes, I got tired of posting at JREF as they are too damn oblivious to understand such things, and certainly weren't receptive to me explaining as much too them. I'd hoped for better here, but I'm not holding my breath.

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Well, perhaps your kids can help you come to terms with the fact that the examples you provided include a force beyond that of gravity being exerted on the system.

On the contrary, the only one needing to come to terms with the physics is you.

Says the guy who can't even acknowledge the fact I noted in the the quote above.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Your OP is based on an ignorant assumption, and an incorrect one at that. Rapidly running out of patience waiting for you to prove it.

Rather, your inability to come to terms with the facts I presented in my OP is based in ignorant assumption, and while I can lead you to water, I have no means to overcome your refusal to drink.

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme
To those who might be mislead by TLC's deceptions, the proof of him lying is right here in the fact that he can't provide any source to substantiate his claim. Nor can he be expected to, as the math in question was my own work.

He won't post it because he knows my claim is correct.

Gee, Kyle, is this true? If so, you're nothing but a troll here.

No, it's not true, but you'd obviously rather take the word of a liar to wave yor finger at me rather than come to terms with such facts.

Originally posted by: event8horizon
that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

Nah, their measurements are well within the margin of error for measuring off the video they used, and they were just speaking of commonly cited acceleration of gravity as the difference between locations is rather inconsequential. Granted, their claim that fires lead to the free fall is still patently false.

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

I dislike how some people are so small minded as to not realise others have interests and responsibilities outside of this forum.

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What affect did the 2 nearby seismic events that occured earlier in the day have on the foundation of WTC7?

Little to none, just like any other building in the area.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What affect did the 2 nearby seismic events that occured earlier in the day have on the foundation of WTC7?

Little to none.

The nist report suggested that the foundation of WTC7 did play a role in the collapse.

500,000 tons dropping 1200 feet in 10 seconds would send out a significant shock wave, wouldn't it?

 

[kylebisme]

Not compared to a real earthquake, which such structures are reasonably designed to endure.

Also, not my edit above, and perhaps you might consider how no other building in the area even partially collapsed, even ones that were considerably more beat up by rubble from the towers.