Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Free Fall thread

Options
1…89111314…19

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Lads ..gravitational acceleration occurred, but how ??


  • Options
    #303
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,792 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    All I am saying is that firefighter evidence seems only valid when it suits the narrative ...

    No. You've noted that some firefighters misidentified molten or hot metals as "molten steel" (many made this mistake, not just firefighters).

    You are doing that in order to try and discredit firefighters testimony that WTC 7 was heavily on fire because it contradicts your non-theory that "something else" happened

    If you genuinely want to know more about an event, what are you doing in a conspiracy forum?

    If someone came to me and said they wanted to know more about Sandy Hook, I wouldn't send them to a conspiracy forum, that would be completely absurd

    Why are you feigning objectivity here?


  • Options
    #304
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Lads ..gravitational acceleration occurred, but how ??

    This may come as a shock to you but gravity applies acceleration to all bodies.


  • Options
    #305
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I'm not much of an Engineer myself, but I do have an educational and professional background in Chemistry, and have studied some physics at a tertiary level.

    I can only interject to say that some of the, 'truthers' grasp on basic physics and chemistry are so appallingly bad that they wouldn't pass muster for a first year undergraduate. An awful lot of terminology is being used so horrendously out of context that it is immediately apparent that the person using it doesn't actually understand what it means.

    I suspect a great deal of the responses are parroted off, almost like a pre-learned script stolen from Conspiracy Theorists who at least have enough of a grasp of the fundamentals to use contextually appropriate terminology.

    I tend to lurk in a lot of the CT threads, because while I don't buy in to many, I at least find them interesting....but the 9/11 threads are an absolute trainwreck of pseudoscience and downright bad science.


  • Options
    #306
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Overheal wrote: »
    This may come as a shock to you but gravity applies acceleration to all bodies.

    To cut across you both, if we want to be precise -

    Gravity applies acceleration to all bodies certainly, but this isn't what is meant by the term, 'Gravitational Acceleration'.

    Nor did it occur to the debris falling from WTC7 - by definition, gravitational acceleration only occurs in a vacuum. The object must be free from drag, which the debris falling was self-evidently not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »

    Nor did it occur to the debris falling from WTC7 - by definition, gravitational acceleration only occurs in a vacuum. The object must be free from drag, which the debris falling was self-evidently not.

    You don't understand the topic. Read this blog made by a Physics teacher who thought the subject to students to know the issues.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e


  • Options
    #308
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You don't understand the topic. Read this blog made by a Physics teacher who thought the subject to students to know the issues.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    Yup, nothing in that article contradicts anything I've said, further evidencing that you don't actually know what you're talking about. As an aside, being a Physics teacher isn't much of an appeal to authority - I'm fully qualified to teach Physics myself, and my knowledge of the subject is far from perfect. Fortunately, what I'm talking about doesn't require a perfect knowledge of Physics, just the absolute fundamentals that any average secondary school student should know, combined with basic logic.

    To clarify, free fall is not the same thing as gravitational acceleration. Free fall is subject to the natural drag resistance anything experiences falling through air. Gravitational acceleration as a specific term refers to the falling exclusively through gravitational force, which can only occur in a vacuum.

    If I drop a rock, completely unimpeded from a height, and it falls without anything else influencing it, that rock will not experience full gravitational acceleration. The acceleration will be retarded as it experiences resistance from the air it is falling though.

    Like I said, a lot of parroted responses, but you really lack the very basic fundamentals of physics to understand the points you're desperately trying to make


  • Options
    #309
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Yup, nothing in that article contradicts anything I've said, further evidencing that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

    You best get into NIST then and inform them everybody wrong but you.
    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation


  • Options
    #310
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Cheerful you were warned about your abuse of the websites file attachment server.

    Don’t upload any attachment to this thread again.

    <snip: your attempts at martyrdom aren’t going to wash here. Stick to the topic and follow the mod instruction. - Over>


  • Options
    #311
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You best get into NIST then and inform them everybody wrong but you.



    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    I have nothing to do with NIST, I have no issue whatsoever with correcting their terminology too.

    Not everyone is wrong, the dictionary and rudimentary Physics textbooks are correct too.

    I suggest you actually look up a definition of Gravitational Acceleration before replying again.....or employ some basic logic and read the example I gave.

    As an aside, based on your sentencing structure, I presume English isn't your first language? Is there a language we could speak that you could perhaps articulate yourself more accurately with?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Im all ears
    Well first, do you agree that there has to be another explanation since the ones provided by conspiracy theorists are inadequate?

    Again, we know that nanothermite can't produce a free fall collapse because it can't instantly cut things.
    And we know that it can't be explosives because we don't hear 650 detonations right before the collapse.
    And we know that it can't be a space laser because that's also silly.

    So, if you agree that the conspiracy theory explanations fail to explain the free fall, we can move on and discuss the actual explanation.


  • Options
    #313
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    All I am saying is that firefighter evidence seems only valid when it suits the narrative ...
    It's odd you say that when it seems the idea of molten metal seems to be only valid when it suits the conspiracy narrative.

    Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolitions.
    Explosives cannot form rivers and pools of molten metal.

    Yet, molten metal is used as evidence for both...?:confused:


  • Options
    #314
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    I have nothing to do with NIST, I have no issue whatsoever with correcting their terminology too.

    Not everyone is wrong, the dictionary and rudimentary Physics textbooks are correct too.

    I suggest you actually look up a definition of Gravitational Acceleration before replying again.....or employ some basic logic and read the example I gave.

    As an aside, based on your sentencing structure, I presume English isn't your first language? Is there a language we could speak that you could perhaps articulate yourself more accurately with?

    I read your post here and it's nonsense. I presume you lied about your qualifications to sound smart?
    In free fall, an object moves under the influence of gravitational force only. The only acceleration is the acceleration of gravity g. No other force, including air resistance, is acting on such an object.
    https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall


  • Options
    #315
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I read your post here and it's nonsense. I presume you lied about your qualifications to sound smart?


    https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall

    Are you genuinely disputing that an object falling outside a vacuum is impacted by air resistance!?

    Christ, you lunatics are tapped.


  • Options
    #316
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Are you genuinely disputing that an object falling outside a vacuum is impacted by air resistance!?

    Christ, you lunatics are tapped.

    Your post
    Free fall is subject to the natural drag resistance anything experiences falling through air. Gravitational acceleration as a specific term refers to the falling exclusively through gravitational force, which can only occur in a vacuum.

    Now read my quote. I will underline it for you.
    In free fall, an object moves under the influence of gravitational force only. The only acceleration is the acceleration of gravity g.

    No other force, including air resistance, is acting on such an object.
    An object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2


  • Options
    #317
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Your post


    Now read my quote. I will underline it for you.
    In free fall, an object moves under the influence of gravitational force only. The only acceleration is the acceleration of gravity g.

    Yea... It took you a over a month to answer a simple physics equation correctly.
    And even then you were unable to define velocity and acceleration.

    You don't really get to call other people's knowledge of physics and science into question.

    You also don't get to accuse others of lying about their qualifications, given your lack of knowledge about metals and your claims about being a welder.

    Also:
    An object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2
    That's not correct.


  • Options
    #318
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Are you genuinely disputing that an object falling outside a vacuum is impacted by air resistance!?

    Christ, you lunatics are tapped.

    not acceptable commentary.


  • Options
    #319
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Your post


    Now read my quote. I will underline it for you.
    In free fall, an object moves under the influence of gravitational force only. The only acceleration is the acceleration of gravity g.


    In the real world, an object experiencing free fall will encounter forces that are not just gravity - the aforementioned air resistance being one. The terms shouldn't be used interchangeably.

    It's the difference between your primary school physics that tell you any two objects weighing the same fall at the same rate...and understanding how parachutes work.


  • Options
    #320
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Overheal wrote: »
    not acceptable commentary.

    Fair enough, hands up on that one!


  • Options
    #321
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    In the real world, an object experiencing free fall will encounter forces that are not just gravity - the aforementioned air resistance being one. The terms shouldn't be used interchangeably.

    It's the difference between your primary school physics that tell you any two objects weighing the same fall at the same rate...and understanding how parachutes work.

    It would not be free fall when there air resistance.
    Free fall occurs for falling objects that are only under the influence of gravity. During free fall, other forces such as air resistance do not affect the object's movement. ... Air resistance slows acceleration to less than g. The net force on the falling object is now its weight minus air resistance.
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/air-resistance-and-free-fall.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It would not be free fall when there air resistance.


    https://study.com/academy/lesson/air-resistance-and-free-fall.html
    Wait... so now WTC 7 didn't freefall since it did experience air resistance?
    Or are you claiming WTC7 didn't experience air resistance?

    Oh and just a reminder:
    You claimed that the building would have fallen 2-4 seconds slower due to the fact the air was dusty.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109446491&postcount=2094


  • Options
    #323
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,509 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It would not be free fall when there air resistance.


    https://study.com/academy/lesson/air-resistance-and-free-fall.html

    So WTC7 fell in a vacuum?
    Every object falling on earth, that is not in a vacuum.
    Is subject to air resistance and drag.

    Are you seriously claiming that WTC7 didn't?

    Also Cheerful, how come RobVer's claim to be a structural engineer were accepted immediately by you?

    But when Fionn openly disagreed with you, his claimed qualifications are immediately questioned?


  • Options
    #324
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,515 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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.

    OK, tell us how they did it. Or at least propose a theory with evidence. Any evidence.


  • Options
    #325
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,390 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It would not be free fall when there air resistance.


    https://study.com/academy/lesson/air-resistance-and-free-fall.html

    As I suspected, you're great at quoting things you don't actually understand.

    If it isn't free fall when there is air resistance, then WTC7 WTC7 didn't experience free fall, as it did experience air resistance.

    Which is it then? You can just reply with A, B or C

    A) WTC 7 fell at free fall, as it fell, it experienced air resistance, so the rate of free fall is not necessarily equal to the rate of gravitational acceleration.

    B) WTC 7 experienced air resistance as it fell, so it can not have fallen at free fall, and you've been incorrectly using the term free-fall throughout your posts on the topic

    C) WTC7 did not experience any air resistance as it fell, it fell at gravitational acceleration, experiencing free fall as if it was in a vacuum.


  • Options
    #326
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    As I suspected, you're great at quoting things you don't actually understand.

    If it isn't free fall when there is air resistance, then WTC7 WTC7 didn't experience free fall, as it did experience air resistance.

    Which is it then? You can just reply with A, B or C

    A) WTC 7 fell at free fall, as it fell, it experienced air resistance, so the rate of free fall is not necessarily equal to the rate of gravitational acceleration.

    B) WTC 7 experienced air resistance as it fell, so it can not have fallen at free fall, and you've been incorrectly using the term free-fall throughout your posts on the topic

    C) WTC7 did not experience any air resistance as it fell, it fell at gravitational acceleration, experiencing free fall as if it was in a vacuum.

    Did you go to the same school as Kingmob? You write in a similar way to him.

    Time of fall with air resistance would depend on the mass, size and shape of the object. Small items like a golf ball and football would be subject to air resistance. Minor affects.

    A building is so massive it not really affected by air resistance when it falls.

    You bascially disagreeeing with the official studies when you claim no freefall accorded here.

    What happened is the steel provided no resistance over 100 feet of the fall. The building had full support than went to zero support in a fraction of a second underneath- inside the building not outside.


  • Options
    #327
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    What happened is the steel provided no resistance over 100 feet of the fall. The building had full support than went to zero support in a fraction of a second underneath- inside the building not outside.
    If this is the case, then you have to accept that the thermite theory is false.
    You can't hold onto this notion at the same time as your nanothermite theory.

    So which is it?
    You can't expect people to argue with you when you're flipping between two different contradictory positions.
    It's dishonest.


  • Options
    #328
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    OK, tell us how they did it. Or at least propose a theory with evidence. Any evidence.

    Do we have the security camera tapes for the building? That's your answer. I bet right now we would see the demolition crew on camera arriving and leaving before the attacks took place on 9/11.


  • Options
    #329
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Do we have the security camera tapes for the building? That's your answer. I bet right now we would see the demolition crew on camera arriving and leaving before the attacks took place on 9/11.
    So then no evidence.


  • Options
    #330
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,792 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I bet right now we would see the demolition crew on camera arriving and leaving before the attacks took place on 9/11.

    On camera?

    "Uh Sir there's a camera right there.."

    "Meh, ignore it, people come in and out all the time, no one will notice us bringing in hundreds of tons of explosives and demolition equipment"

    You imagine they have the power to rig 3 massive skyscrapers in complete secret, why not just imagine up that they have the power to scrub video tapes of them doing so..

    Jesus christ..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,515 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then no evidence.

    Zero. Not one person seen where they shouldn't be, not one wire, one detonator, one knocked wall, one exposed beam, one single person who saw anything. Zero, nothing, nada.

    Theres your answer.


Advertisement