Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time. Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges. Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Rob outlines again for you guys.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Avoid the topic like the plague.
Dohnjoe wrote: » We're doing nothing but discussing the topic. You not understanding something doesn't automatically mean that a) it didn't happen and b) something else entirely happened That's the common denominator to all your "arguments" on the subject..
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Explain the science geniuses. Avoid the topic like the plague.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » There no hope for debunkers they see no freefall happened in the NIST model and yet still believe magic occurred here
The Nal wrote: » Cart before the horse. There is no science to be explained unless you can explain how they rigged the buildings. You can't. You can't even begin to. Because it completely impossible. The real magic would be you explaining above. Please explain it to us.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You don't how free fall works, that obvious because you still deflecting.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Robver outlined the Newton's laws in his post
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » why a building can not undergo freefall by natural forces caused by a fire.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » They had years and months to do it- not difficult. We know how they did because 8 floors collapsed at freefall!!!
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You don't how free fall works
The Nal wrote: » What about WTC1 and 2?
King Mob wrote: » Huh weird. He's changed his theory again. Last time he claimed that those 15 guys set up the demolition over a weekend...
Dohnjoe wrote: » Stop telling others what they know and don't know based on your own ignorance I've witnessed posters painstaking explain these basic concepts to you about how the building fell and you simply don't understand them A person on the internet not understanding something is not proof of a conspiracy theory Likewise, I suspect many truthers simply don't want to understand because maintaining their faulty belief is more comforting than facing the terrifying fact they've been wrong for years, or worse they know it's all bull**** to start with and engage out of pure and utter belligerence
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Again freefall impossibility when the whole right in blue is still there and has not collapsed.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Truthers only have to shown it happened at building seven to wake people up to the fact a covert team placed devices inside the building before 9/11.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Nanothermite
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Harrit and team
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Repeated nonsense in every post you mean.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Lol, by definition it's not nonsense. Structural engineers wouldn't accept it if it were patently untrue, how do you explain all the investigations coming up with the same conclusions, all these massive engineering and expert groups supporting those conclusions.. Oh that's right, you've insinuated they are in on your conspiracy, you've literally claimed that NIST professionals are part of this vague theory you can't detail..
NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » These structural engineers are not independent.
It's a politically motivated agency and funded by the groups truthers accuse of covering up the attack.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Except for a whacky group on the internet, who just so all happen to think it's some type of inside job..
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's just amazing You are actually insinuating any engineer who doesn't think it's some whacky inside job is somehow compromised.. It's absolutely amazing And again! FEMA, NIST, Weidlinger, thousands of lawsuits, every recognised group of related experts in the world.. all compromised.. Except for a whacky group on the internet, who all happen to think it's some type of inside job..
Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » This is a denial 8 floors collapsed due to freefall. Truthers are right to hold them accountable and others in the mainstream ignore it and probably too afraid to rock the boat and lose funding and lose their careers over this.[/I]
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Truthers are right to hold them accountable
King Mob wrote: » Again, the only way to have the building drop at free fall for those 8 floors is to instantaneously remove the supports on all 8 of those floors all at once. The only way to do that is to use high explosives on every support on all of those floors. Thermite, nano- or otherwise, is not able to do the same kinda of instant cutting. That's 81 supports for 8 floors. So in all that's at least 648 explosive charges for the vertical components. We don't hear any of these 648 explosions on any video. So we know there was no high explosive demolition charges. And since those demolition charges were the only way a controlled demolition leading to free fall could happen, we can exclude that as a possibility.So there must be another explanation.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Some poster came in and made one post and now it's gospel to you - I'd say that's incredible, but it's par for the course I am pretty sure one of us could create another name on boards, make up some technical sounding crap, post it in one of these threads and you would take it up as gospel, maybe it's already happened
Dohnjoe wrote: » Sure, if you had genuine intent here, but, from past experience you've demonstrated that clearly isn't the case It's a snide challenge dressed up as a "simple question". One loaded with feigned objectivity asking others to explain something to you that you'll "not get", act incredulous about and dump 15 years of pseudo-scientific AE911 muck on .. to put it very mildly Of course, perhaps you've turned a corner, in which case, cool, I'd be more than glad to provide links and sources that explain what happened to WTC 7 in great detail, I'm sure others can to And yes, I am well aware in response you will keep repeating that you are just asking a simple question and want straightforward information..
Dohnjoe wrote: » There are no debunkers in the equation. From their testimony many firefighters witnessed and described how serious the fires were in building 7 were and how close it was to collapse in the end. However since that threatens your conspiracy beliefs, you're attempting to discredit all that testimony by drawing attention to the fact that a handful of firefighters were mistaken in identifying hot/molten metals Why stoop to such a level when you are trying to portray yourself as objective?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
