To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Oh well done! You finally got it after Googling the answer!
You got the formula right, though not sure why you think you need a graph and your description of the math process is very bizarre and sounds a bit more like you're trying to pretend to know what you're doing.

Oh... And there's just one teeny problem...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

So in your stellar research you for the height of the building entirely wrong.

Lol.

Lol googled someone throwing a ball off the roof of WTC7? What site did i get it from? I just got bored listening to you and decided to do the math.

Really?

From your link.
Height
Architectural
743 ft (226 m)[2]
Roof
741 ft (226 m)[3]
Top floor
679 ft (207 m)[2]

Is actually 226m do you want me to do the math again?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lol googled someone throwing a ball off the roof of WTC7? What site did i get that from? I just got bored listening to you and decided to do the math.

You googled the equation. I told you it was simple.
Your description of how the math works is complete nonsense however, so it's clear you don't understand it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Really?

From your link.
Height
Architectural
743 ft (226 m)[2]
Roof
741 ft (226 m)[3]
Top floor
679 ft (207 m)[2]

Yes really.
The figure you are quoting is not the height of the old WTC 7. It is the height of the new building.
I quoted the height of the old building as 190 metres.

Also, another teeny detail...
In your post you said that the height was 266 metres, not even the incorrect 226 metres you are quoting now.

This is just sad now.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You googled the equation. I told you it was simple.
Your description of how the math works is complete nonsense however, so it's clear you don't understand it.

Yes really.
The figure you are quoting is not the height of the old WTC 7. It is the height of the new building.
I quoted the height of the old building as 190 metres.

Also, another teeny detail...
In your post you said that the height was 266 metres, not even the incorrect 226 metres you are quoting now.

This is just sad now.

If was simple you would not have waited for me to answer. I know it and you know it.

You correct though the old building is 190m. They need to fix that website to reflect the change.

So that proves I did the math correctly for 266m, so you wrong.

Cheerful Spring

Did a quick change

t = sqrt(2h/g)

WTC7=190 metres.

We go this way - negative/ Time= 2d - g = 2x 190 the height= 380/ 9.8 m/s^2? (gravity) divide= 38.

We have to get the square root (9.8 m/s^2)of 38= 6 seconds. 6.2 seconds to be exact.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If was simple you would not have waited for me to answer. I know it and you know it.

It was simple. I didn't need you to actually explain the math to me as I knew it. The whole point was yo demonstrate that you knew the math you said you did. But I think it's clear that you only just recently googled the equation and don't actually understand it
This is evidenced by your very odd description of the way you did the math.
None of what you said made sense and it was more movie style technobabble you rattled off to pretend you knew what you were doing
Again you aren't fooling anyone Cheerful. No one older than 10 will fall for it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You correct though the old building is 190m. They need to fix that website to reflect the change.

Lol its not anyone else's fault you cannot do a basic level of research.
The Wikipedia article is very very clear about what it was referring to. You just didn't read it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So that proves I did the math correctly for 266m, so you wrong.

Yup, you did the equation right. Or more likely googled the equation and how to use Google to solve it. I don't for a second believe that you "worked it out on paper".

However your answer is still wrong because you weren't able you do a basic level of research.

It also raises problems with your previous answers.
Original you claimed the answer was 8-9 seconds, not 7.3. You then later claimed this was due to increased air resistance due to dust in the air.
So why did you lie?

You also said that the equation required "complex symbols". I still do not know what this refers to. Not that you know the equation, could you explain and point out the "complex symbols" are and what about them prevented you from posting the math eariler?

I am also curious why you think a graph is needed for your answer or what you think it would show.
Please do the graph on paper and show your work.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did a quick change

t = sqrt(2h/g)

WTC7=190 metres.

We go this way - negative/ Time= 2d - g = 2x 190 the height= 380/ 9.8 m/s^2? (gravity) divide= 38.

We have to get the square root (9.8 m/s^2)of 38= 6 seconds. 6.2 seconds to be exact.

Hooray, finally!
The description of the math is still utterly bizarre though.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Hooray, finally!
The description of the math is still utterly bizarre though.

Which part? negative value has to be added to any object falling down or you talking about something else?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Which part? negative value has to be added to any object falling down or you talking about something else?

All of it frankly.
And no, you don't make the time here negative, as it's a positive value at the end.
If you expressed time as negative at the end, that would indicate that the ball was on the ground 6 seconds before it was dropped.
You are thinking of height, as falling down is generally though as the negative axis.
However the sign there is irrelevant.

Also that is never expressed as "negative/Time".
Such a term makes no sense.

But this is just one indication. You are bull****ing to make yourself sound smarter than you are.
I outlined several other points in my previous post.
Don't deflect, it's just making you look even worse and you've already embarrassed yourself to no end.
Dig up, Cheerful.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

All of it frankly.
And no, you don't make the time here negative, as it's a positive value at the end.
If you expressed time as negative at the end, that would indicate that the ball was on the ground 6 seconds before it was dropped.
You are thinking of height, as falling down is generally though as the negative axis.
However the sign there is irrelevant.

Also that is never expressed as "negative/Time".
Such a term makes no sense.

But this is just one indication. You are bull****ing to make yourself sound smarter than you are.
I outlined several other points in my previous post.
Don't deflect, it's just making you look even worse and you've already embarrassed yourself to no end.
Dig up, Cheerful.

Explanation.
A negative velocity means that the body is moving in the negative direction of the y axis—that is, downward. This is true no matter where the body is located. We take the acceleration to be negative (-9.8 m/s2) in all problems dealing with falling bodies.

Embarrassing myself, lol when you refused to even post the answer to your own question.

Time to move on from this nonsense. I have answered your question. See I right when I said you keep deflecting and continue bull****ting.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is building seven after 3 pm. Notice the fire isolated in small pockets.

"Small office fires"

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

]

Explanation.
A negative velocity means that the body is moving in the negative direction of the y axis—that is, downward. This is true no matter where the body is located. We take the acceleration to be negative (-9.8 m/s2) in all problems dealing with falling bodies.

Embarrassing myself, lol when you refused to even post the answer to your own question.

Time to move on from this nonsense. I have answered your question. See I right when I said you keep deflecting and continue bull****ting.

Yes Cheerful, you apply negative to the displacement or to the velocity or acceleration.
You however say you did so to the time. This has a very different meaning.
But you don't know that because you don't understand physics.

I'm not deflecting. I'm addressing you directly and clearly. You have not addressed any of my previous points. Particularly you have not explained why your latest correct answer is so different from your previous answers.
You also have not explained what you meant by "complex symbols" or why you need a graph.

Dohnjoe

Still waiting for an answer

1. If Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, did he also blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?

2. Did he plant the explosives himself by hand or did he get someone to do it for him? (and how do you know which one of those is correct)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes Cheerful, you apply negative to the displacement or to the velocity or acceleration.
You however say you did so to the time. This has a very different meaning.
But you don't know that because you don't understand physics.

I'm not deflecting. I'm addressing you directly and clearly. You have not addressed any of my previous points. Particularly you have not explained why your latest correct answer is so different from your previous answers.
You also have not explained what you meant by "complex symbols" or why you need a graph.

Kingmob does not know Physics or math. You even said in your post it should be a positive value at the end lol

Know you looking for Time over Distance at the end. You exposed yourself saying this.

T= 6.2 seconds is the final result. The reason I have D in the equation at the start.

You just googled stuff on online and have no clue what even means

negative/ time is the time before t=0 the time you start. Your position starts from 0 You then work the equation to find your answer the distance travelled.

Your ball is moving towards the ground so I used the negative to symbolise this.

Does Google solve Kinematic equations? No Google gives you the answer it does not give you the calculations. If you believe otherwise prove it show a website online that does it if for you?

There a longer way to do it but to save time I shorted the equation.

I knew from the beginning you did know how to do it, nobody but your supporters believe you.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Small office fires"

Can you not see the first picture I posted? Its dust plumes and smoke in front of WTC7. You forget WTC5 and WTC6 are on fire right beside WTC7 and WTC1 and WTC2 also collapsed.

Take a close look at it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob does know Physics or math. You even said in your post it should be a positive value at the end lol

Know you looking for Time over Distance at the end. You exposed yourself saying this.

No cheerful, you were looking for time.
The question was "How long would it take?"

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

T= 6.2 seconds is the final result. The reason I have D in the equation at the start.

Yes, +6.2 seconds. Not -6.2 seconds.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just googled stuff on online and have no clue what even means

negative/ time is the time before t=0 the time you start. Your position starts from 0 You then work the equation to find your answer the distance travelled.

Your ball is moving towards the ground so I used the negative to symbolise this.

Lol, amazing.
You know the distance traveled. It's the height of the building. You don't work the equation to find the distance traveled. You use the equation to find the time it took.
You use the negative to show the ball is moving downwards on the distance.
You however said "negative/ time". On top of not being a proper term, indicates that you are making the time value negative.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Does Google solve Kinematic equations? No Google gives you the answer it does not give you the calculations. If you believe otherwise prove it show a website online that does it if for you?

Yes, google can solve the equation. You know that, don't pretend.
This is literally the most pathetic lie you've told.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There a longer way to do it but to save time I shorted the equation.

Lol, what are you talking about?
Please explain what this longer way is?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I knew from the beginning you did know how to do it, nobody but your supporters believe you.

So, only you then. Pretty sure I said that.

I genuinely thought you couldn't get any more pathetic cheerful, but here you go...
It's getting a little bit too sad to be funny...

Dohnjoe

Still waiting for an answer

1. If Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, did he also blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?

2. Did he plant the explosives himself by hand or did he get someone to do it for him? (and how do you know which one of those is correct)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No cheerful, you were looking for time.
The question was "How long would it take?"


Yes, +6.2 seconds. Not -6.2 seconds.

Lol, amazing.
You know the distance traveled. It's the height of the building. You don't work the equation to find the distance traveled. You use the equation to find the time it took.
You use the negative to show the ball is moving downwards on the distance.
You however said "negative/ time". On top of not being a proper term, indicates that you are making the time value negative.



Yes, google can solve the equation. You know that, don't pretend.
This is literally the most pathetic lie you've told.


Lol, what are you talking about?
Please explain what this longer way is?


So, only you then. Pretty sure I said that.

I genuinely thought you couldn't get any more pathetic cheerful, but here you go...
It's getting a little bit too sad to be funny...

The only person who has embarrassed himself is you. Your post is there for everyone to see. You said you have to find a positive value at the end. You looking for time at the end- over distance. Finding Positive is meaningless. Now you trying to change your position, sorry too late Kingmob does not know math and physics

When did I say it was - 6.2 that only you saying it Where do have - 6.2 at the end of my equation? I said time was 6.2 seconds to be exact.

You looking to find the speed the ball travelled. Time and Distance matter. Look up the equation as you don't know math and physics.

This my lost post about this nonsense. Not going to feed this troll anymore.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

No cheerful, you were looking for time.
The question was "How long would it take?"

Is it just me or as the dishonesty increases, the grammar gets worse

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only person who has embarrassed himself is you. Your post is there for everyone to see. You said you have to find a positive value at the end. You looking for time at the end- over distance. Finding Positive is meaningless.

No... you were looking for time at the end.
You were not looking for time over distance at the end.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When did I say it was - 6.2 that only you saying it Where do have - 6.2 at the end of my equation? I said time was 6.2 seconds to be exact.

When you said "negative/time" which on top of being nonsense term that no one uses, seems to imply that you are making the time value negative.
It can't possibly mean anything else.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You looking to find the speed the ball travelled. Time and Distance matter. Look up the equation as you don't know math and physics.

Again, no. You aren't looking for the speed. Your equation didn't even use the speed of the ball.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This my lost post about this nonsense. Not going to feed this troll anymore.

Lol, it won't be.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is it just me or as the dishonesty increases, the grammar gets worse

Well the deeper we probe, the less he can rely on crap he can copy paste.
The less he has to copy paste, the more he has to think for himself and type stuff out.
The more he does that, the less coherent his arguments and grammar get.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer

1. If Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, did he also blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?

2. Did he plant the explosives himself by hand or did he get someone to do it for him? (and how do you know which one of those is correct)

All we know for certain is WTC7 did not collapse due to fire. Now we can speculation who did it.

Larry Silverstein is a suspect. There is a list of conspirators, his just one of them.

The problem is you believe NIST is correct in their analysis of how the building collapsed. You have your own opinion the building was not set to blow up pre 9/11. For you, this mission was too complex and could not be done in secret.

Yet you happily accept 19 hijackers on 9/11 pulled off a terrorist attack on 9/11 and nobody knew about to stop it.

You also ignore the Joints Chiefs of Staff in the 60s prepared a plan in secret to carry out false flags in American cities. Bombs would blow up civilian targets in American cities, decoy planes will be used, American citizens would be shot on the streets, patsies will be blamed. The plan end goal was to blame Castro and attack Cuba. This was signed off by all in the Pentagon. Kennedy was handed this secret plan and he said they must have lost their minds and he said no we will not be carrying this out.

So be real conspiracies are a fact of life. And people in power especially the military will carry out heinous acts against its own people

You only have to listen to the passenger phones calls on board the planes to notice how different the official story is from there accounts.

Flight 11, for example, Betty Ong.
She said business class they could not breathe ( pepper spray or mace used) how did this get through airport security?

The official account is just boxcutters

She mentions 2 hijackers on board, just a couple of people stabbed.

This very strange because who was watching the passengers and managing the situation on board the flight? There supposedly 4 to 5 Muslim men on board with box cutters, so you going to see them.

She then says we can't get up to the cockpit., we can't get inside, the cockpit not answering the phone.

It sounds like nobody actually guarding them and whoever in the cockpit is flying the plane.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All we know for certain is WTC7 did not collapse due to fire. Now we can speculation who did it.

Larry Silverstein is a suspect. There is a list of conspirators, his just one of them.

...Copy pasted gibberish...

Note how you didn't answer Dohnjoe's question.
You are deflecting by tossing out more random crap to distract from how utterly ignorant and laughable you and your theory are.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Note how you didn't answer Dohnjoe's question.
You are deflecting by tossing out more random crap to distract from how utterly ignorant and laughable you and your theory are.

Yes, I did answer. He is a suspect.

We already know building 7 did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to controlled demolition.

You believe the fairy tale small fires brought the building down. When you believe this to be true then you never will look beyond this and look at the likely suspects and who benefitted.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, I did answer. He is a suspect.

We already know building 7 did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to controlled demolition.

You believe the fairy tale small fires brought the building down. When you believe this to be true then you never will look beyond this and look at the likely suspects and who benefitted.

No no no no no!


This is your opinion please stop stating it as fact!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, I did answer. He is a suspect.
.

But that's not what dohnjoe asked you.
Along with math, you seem to have issues with reading and writing.

Again, not sure why you think people would or should take you seriously...

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob. I bet you don't find suspicious George Bush said he saw the first plane hit on 9/11? Good boy George claims and laughs about he must be a terrible pilot? Where did he see the first plane hit the building?

Bush statements don't make sense as Flight 11 and Flight 175 were hijacked just after 8.15am. 40 minutes before the first plane hit the first tower. The military was notified around this time.

His administration did not tell him two planes had got hijacked and if they did not tell him why not? Why did he just sit in the classroom reading a book?, when it obvious the military and FAA are aware of hijackings taking place?

The 9/11 commission also lied that they could not track the planes when they turned off the transponders. This a lie and in my mind prove of a conspiracy. Norad does lose not track of flying targets even when commercial airliners turn off the transponder. Military radar can track it all the time,, its the transponder which identifies it as friendly, when turned off it's a UFO and jets are send up to investigate immediately

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob. I bet you ....
Blah blah waffle

But you see cheerful, you still haven't answered a very simple question.
I don't think it would be worth engaging or considering any of your points as:
1. you are ignorant of basic maths and physics.
2. you have issues with reading comprehension.
3. you are incredibly dishonest.
4. you believe very silly and obviously untrue things.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No no no no no!


This is your opinion please stop stating it as fact!

It a fact not an opinion.

We know it happened this way because NIST manipulated the facts to reach a conclusion fire caused the collapse.

They lied about what the firemen and clean up workers saw on 9/11.
They lied and claimed there was no shear studs, web plate, and girder fasteners on the girder at column 79. A Lie the truth movement has Frankel construction drawings for WTC7
They lied about the heat on floor 13 and 14 in the afternoon.
They lied about how the building fell down. There was no crushing or deformation of external walls on the way down.
They claimed Freefall never took place after 6 years of work.
They claimed no explosion noise heard on any videos above 130db. A lie and we have a video that contradicts this bizarre claim.
They claim no steel melted. Again a lie FEMA 2002 report states they found WTC7 steel that had evaporated and melted.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you see cheerful, you still haven't answered a very simple question.
I don't think it would be worth engaging or considering any of your points as:
1. you are ignorant of basic maths and physics.
2. you have issues with reading comprehension.
3. you are incredibly dishonest.
4. you believe very silly and obviously untrue things.

You believe in fairy tales, and don't know math and physics, so and have to point out the error of your ways. By the way, Andrew Airforce base is just a few miles away from Pentagon. If they truly wanted to stop the plane they could have long before it hit the Pentagon. There was a stand down order not to intercept the plane heading to the Pentagon.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Larry Silverstein is a suspect.

You claimed as fact he was the perpetrator, now you are backtracking and claiming he's a "suspect". Similar to when you claimed as fact that all 3 buildings were blown up, but backtracked when pushed to explain that. Likewise claiming a missile, then a military jet hit the Pentagon

Lies and backtracking covered up with copious amounts of waffle

A smart conspiracy theorist (aka bull**** merchant) sits on the fence. They do this so they don't have to commit to a theory, which means they don't have to support it (because they know they can't)