Cheerful Spring wrote: » Able to do it sure mate? You still waffling and still have not posted the math you have worked out for your question. How do you know it's wrong, show your own math? Otherwise, you don't know basic maths or physics?
King Mob wrote: » But Cheerful, I asked you first, dozens of times in very clear terms. You are reverting to your typical playground tactics. They don't work. They only serve to make you look even more of a joke than you already are. You are already a laughing stock. But if you just simply man up for a change and admit you don't know how to do the math, I will supply the answer, the math and explain it to you. Then we can move on to address your other misunderstandings. Otherwise, you can simply do and show the math yourself like you claimed to be able to do. Or, what will most likely happen, you'd deflect and whinge like a child, but you will still be admitting to your lack of knowledge.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Post the math you have done then I told you already this discussion is nonsense. If you can't then it shows you don't know basic math or physics.
King Mob wrote: » Sure. I will the moment you admit that you can't do the math. You are again deflecting with childish tactics that only serve to make you look extremely foolish if you are older than 10.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I know your full of ****. If I went away and worked this out for you be still deflecting and tell lies in this thread. I want to see if you even know the answer to your own stupid question right now. Show people your knowledge of basic physics and math and there will be no doubt your question was honest one?
King Mob wrote: » And more playground deflection. Simply admit that you are unable to do the math and I will show you how to calculate the correct answer. It's simple. Your goading isn't effective as no one believes you or your claims and no one particularly pays attention to what you claim to believe. You could always simply ignore it, but I will continue to point out your lack of knowledge and your dishonesty whenever you go on about physics you very clearly don't understand.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » My Point proved:eek: He just waffling and has no math or has even looked to see if it can be done. Read his own post he said he able to answer right now
Cheerful Spring wrote: » How you did the calculation, graphs provide them, please.
King Mob wrote: » I told you. Simply admit the truth: that you can't do the math. Then I will post the equation, the answer and the proof to back it up. It's trivial. It doesn't require graphs at all.:rolleyes:
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I can do the same math. We make an agreement. You post the math for WTC7 and then I will do the math for any building of your choice. I will take the time and even provide graphs for you to show the calculations.
banie01 wrote: » It does require complex symbols though Must be to account for the resistance offered by dusty air! It's basic maths, 1st year secondary level physics.
King Mob wrote: » Nope, no negotiations cheerful. I've been asking you the very same simply high school level question for months and you've done nothing but dodge and duck it. You can't do the math. That's obvious to everyone. You aren't fooling anyone. So your choices are either to post the math you can say you can do. (It doesn't require graphs or "complex symbols". It can be posted in simple text format.) Or admit that you can't do it. Or you can keep deflecting like a child and make yourself a joke.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why not the Freefall calculations are not going to be the same? It easy basic physics and math a child could do it remember:)Your math please then I will provide evidence I know how to do it.
jeremyj1968 wrote: » Can I preface this by saying this is a genuine question (as it may be considered sarcastic or smart ar$e) Can somebody show me any steel structured building that collapsed in the same manner as building 7 after suffering a fire?
Dohnjoe wrote: » WTC 7 (and other WTC buildings) were pretty unique in that they were (significantly) damaged by debris from nearby buildings collapsing, as far as I know that hasn't happened in history before For something that's similar, in 2017 a steel-framed 17 story building collapsed in Tehran due to fire
King Mob wrote: » Cheerful, why should anyone take your opinion of complex subjects like structural engineering in any way seriously when you are unable to do simple math and show utter ignorance of basic physics?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » If you say so, Mr Mob. I made an agreement you backed off and would not do it. Anyway we discussing important issues here you are only a troll.
Cheerful Spring wrote: »
Untrue. Nobody claims the debris caused the collapse at WTC7. To claim otherwise is not knowing the facts.
Tehran building collapsed for numerous reasons, not just fire.
King Mob wrote: » No, you seem to be having trouble with remembering what happened on the last few pages. You refused to answer my question. You offered no argument other than you childish, embarrassing deflections. I did not "back off". I've just been reiterating the same question without allowing you to wiggle away from it like you do with everything. You are not discussing anything. You are copy pasting crap you don't read and can't understand, then everyone else is either ignoring you, or laughing at you. This is illustrated by the fact you can't do simple math. And the fact you can't just man up and admit you can't.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » h = 1/2 g t^2 what does this mean?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Which site did you copy that basic equation from?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Copied it from nowhere it all in my head. Just seeing if Kingmob can explain.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Stop telling lies lolhttps://www.quora.com/What-is-h-1-2gt-2http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/free_fall_formulas/65/
Dohnjoe wrote: » Compare the photo the conspiracy theorist shows above with the photos they typically don't showhttp://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html Both investigations found it fell due to fire. The findings of the NIST investigation have been incorporated in building codes and safety. There are no recognised group of engineers, architects or the experts that challenge the findings That's not what I wrote, read again The official investigation found it fell due to fire. You decided to fell due to "gas explosions" because you saw a youtube video with a firefighter recalling explosions The casual dishonesty and manipulation is staggering
Dohnjoe wrote: » The official investigation found it fell due to fire. You decided to fell due to "gas explosions" because you saw a youtube video with a firefighter recalling explosions The casual dishonesty and manipulation is staggering
Cheerful Spring wrote: » To save everyone time and for Kingmob to stop pestering me and acting like a troll. I did a quick calculation on paper. They should be posted with graphs to explain it better though. t = sqrt(2h/g) WTC7=266 metres. We go this way - negative/ Time= 2d - g = 2x 266 the height= 532/ 9.8 m/s^2? (gravity) divide= 54. I rounded this off to 54 to save time. We have to get the square root (9.8 m/s^2)of 54= 7 seconds So the time it took for the ball to fall from roof to ground was 7 seconds. 7.3 to be exact.
The building was 610 feet (190 m) tall.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
