Free-fall speed proves progressive collapse.

Marokkaan you believe everything you see that you agree with, no questions asked, don't you? For example, you MUST believe the collapse of the Penthouse and the rest of the building were 2 separate events, but you are in the minority on this point. You don't care though, because if they weren't 2 separate events you would be wrong. And you just can't be wrong, can you?

You read conspiracy websites and aren't skeptical about what they tell you.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti agrees with this analysis, and adds:

"The WTC 7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from the exterior columns and moving down completely also."

In other words, had the initial collapse of the penthouse been caused by a collapse of the core of the main building, then the rest of the roof would have collapsed at the same time as the penthouse. Because it didn't, this is strong evidence that the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the main building were wholly separate events. "
Click to expand...

Please dont ever quote Szamboti again....his posts here have shown him to be as bad aT physics as his papers implied.

After reading some of the crap that Szamboti had said....everything the guy says is pretty much now assumed to be completely wrong.


Marokkaan said:
David chandler:

“Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”
Click to expand...

Please dont ever quote Chandler again either....his papers are as bad as Szambotis....Chandler is a High School physics teacher who should have kept teaching his class and not written physics papers revealing how incompetent he is at physics.

Everything he says is also assumed to be completely wrong.


Chandler = Incompetent
Szamboti = Incompetent

Please don't ever ever ever quote either of them again............EVER!
 
One of my favourite explanations was over on the Skeptoid page, where one of the Truthers explained that of course it didn't look like a Controlled Demolition, it wasn't done the same way as controlled demolition, with all that carefully placed explosives and det-chord, it was a rush job by spies.

So we know it was a deliberate demolition inside the building because it doesn't look like one. It looks like aircraft hit the building and the fire made the building collapse as different parts of the infrastructure gave way to the immense damage. Which means it must have all been C4/Thermite/Nano Thermite/ Nanoo Nanoo right?
 
newton3376 said:
I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....:)
Click to expand...

Seeing as how we still argue with jfkers, moon hoaxers, and holocaust deniers, this will be around a while.
 
newton3376 said:
Chandler = Incompetent
Szamboti = Incompetent

Please don't ever ever ever quote either of them again............EVER!
Click to expand...

What I find simply fascinating is that Marokkaan believes whatever Chandler and Szamboti write as if it was the word of God. I guess it's okay to be skeptical only of things you don't agree with.

Marokkaan I challenge you to seek a second opinion. I KNOW you aren't qualified to judge what they write for yourself, so find out what the rank-and-file engineering and scientific community thinks of these "gentlemen".

You'll find that your heroes aren't what you think they are.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Seeing as how we still argue with jfkers, moon hoaxers, and holocaust deniers, this will be around a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah...you are likely correct I guess....maybe I'm just projecting thought about myself here onto the rest of the forum....

I'm just about ready to simply say it's done.
 
twinstead said:
What I find simply fascinating is that Marokkaan believes whatever Chandler and Szamboti write as if it was the word of God. I guess it's okay to be skeptical only of things you don't agree with.

Marokkaan I challenge you to seek a second opinion. I KNOW you aren't qualified to judge what they write for yourself, so find out what the rank-and-file engineering and scientific community thinks of these "gentlemen".

You'll find that your heroes aren't what you think they are.
Click to expand...

That is a good idea....he should take their few "papers" to some engineering and physics professors at a local university and see what they think...

Or find a company that has several mechanical or structural engineers that work on buildings and let them read the papers....

Both groups will basically have the same "not truther friendly" reaction....
 
newton3376 said:
Yeah...you are likely correct I guess....maybe I'm just projecting thought about myself here onto the rest of the forum....

I'm just about ready to simply say it's done.
Click to expand...

Well newton is was done like 9 years ago. We have basically just been poking the bones of a long since decayed corpse for many years now. It's quite disturbing, really.
 
twinstead said:
What I find simply fascinating is that Marokkaan believes whatever Chandler and Szamboti write as if it was the word of God. I guess it's okay to be skeptical only of things you don't agree with.

Marokkaan I challenge you to seek a second opinion. I KNOW you aren't qualified to judge what they write for yourself, so find out what the rank-and-file engineering and scientific community thinks of these "gentlemen".

You'll find that your heroes aren't what you think they are.
Click to expand...

I provided the Bazant papers to them, I'm sure they didn't even read them, and if he did, it's over his head. Which is one reason I'm fairly certain he falls for their nonsense, they're simpletons preaching to simple people. Bazant, a man reknowned for his accomplishment's in the field MUST be wrong, yet this insignificant high school teacher (chandler) is spot on. I wonder when Northwestern University will hire Mr. Chandler as they did Bazant? I'm guessing never.
 
newton3376 said:
I often wonder how much longer this forum will be active before the majority of posters simply move on and stop bothering with insane truther theories....it seems to work for the majority of the rest of the world....:)
Click to expand...

We are left with the rubber room brigade. The smart truthers realized their mistake a long time ago.
 
NoahFence said:
Nearly 24 hours have elapsed since you made this simple statement - and you've yet to even hint that you're going to explain it.

Truthfully typical.
Click to expand...

He must have a very slow dial up internet. He'll be back when he can peruse some dingbat websites.
 
I am not even sure that there are examples of CD falling at free-fall acceleration over the entire length of the process. There may be a ff drop at the onset, but that would slow when the bottom edge of the structure met the rubble pile below.

It is starting out in pieces, accelerating to ffs, then slowing down that does not look right.

Twoofer version of WTC 7 would have somebody setting off charges once downward motion was already intitated.

This makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom