Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 463329 Views
*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1290 on: February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM »
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1291 on: February 27, 2017, 06:10:35 PM »
Show us your answers and working, then.

I didn't  and I don't intend to,  I'm just refuting that BHS said it wasn't possible with the data provided,  I disagree,   I describe the method,  you get 4 linear equations with 4 unknowns.   Balance torque in two orthogonal directions. 
Solving simultaneous linear equations is just matrix inversion.    In this case it's inverting a 4x4 matrix.  But just algebraic manipulation will get you there as well.

I'm interested to see if that's the method ME uses,  beyond that.  He was challenging BHS and you to solve it not me.   




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1292 on: February 27, 2017, 06:10:54 PM »
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

I refuse to believe you are Aussie

« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 06:13:17 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1293 on: February 27, 2017, 06:23:32 PM »
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

I refuse to believe you are Aussie



Another attempted insult.   That's your substitute for rational thought is it?
 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1294 on: February 27, 2017, 06:26:28 PM »
This is my rational thought.

Our physics will not, and are unable to model building 7s collapse using the official story.

Truth.



Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

My insults and memes are the dankest, with the exception of maybe Totes.

Also, this.

Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 06:28:34 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1295 on: February 27, 2017, 06:31:17 PM »
I made multiple models throughout the years, my first one was at UNT. I addressed your fire claim and all of your other issues...You had no rebuttals besides "well look at NIST"..Piss..Why did I say that? I couldn't tell you, I just thought of your conversation and that came to mind.

Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1296 on: February 27, 2017, 06:32:16 PM »
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

Begone.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1297 on: February 27, 2017, 07:13:04 PM »
Did ya'll notice you switched debating partners a few pages back like a goddamn square dance?  Yee haw!
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1298 on: February 27, 2017, 07:15:38 PM »
Did ya'll notice you switched debating partners a few pages back like a goddamn square dance?  Yee haw!

Yeah, I noticed.

Your powers of observation continue to serve you well.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 07:18:14 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1299 on: February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM »
 
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.

I have been really trying to decide what to say to this... Still not sure. I suppose I will start by I am in shock you had even an ounce of nerve to criticize me for asking serious questions ANY real structural engineer would ask. To have the nerve to criticize me, implying I don't know the answer to the question because I pointed out your question was fundamentally flawed. After the nerve to do that, you post this...

An answer, which the first part is barely middle school (lol divide 100 by 4?? Right, since this is reality smdh), the second part is barely highschool (and wrong).

I am trying to be nice here as much as I humanly can with as much nonsense as you spoke...So I will just say shame on you.

I will let your divide by 4 simple arithmetic go for the moment. We shall go to your second answer. I am going to attempt to make this as short as possible so I will be only hitting a few points, there are a plethora more to address.

One... you addressed the problem completely incorrect..You are using a measurement of mass instead a measurement of weight. Any actual presentation would be presented in form such as psf...

Two..Your starting figure of 25 kg per bolt is impossible in the real world, thus why I asked you so many follow up questions. Please don't ever design a building!..But I am leaving that alone..As a simple arithmetic it works.

Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

I could continue, there are 6 other things that come to mind off the top of my head, but would require way too much typing I am not in the mood for.

I will say this, despite all the reasons I have stated in this post and many before on why this question is bogus...I will state one more, and will actually get an actually moderately close answer (though not exact and would never fly in an actual presentation).

There is a reason I asked you every single question I did, which obviously you didn't understand so you yelled instead. We will use the structure size and frame size of the floor for the mating surfaces. We will hypothetically assume an 1 and 1/4 quarter inch wide for both, and 6 inch long for the floor mating surface. ( I am also ignoring reality just for this, as no flooring would ever pass code, or even pre design unless it has spandrels or channel plates, but again ignore reality for sake of argument)

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

C2 = 1.43(F/Fy)-0.93~ 0.643 for 1.05 < FjFy < 1.35

Just for kicks, if you really wanted to figure your load levels you would use..

Net=(1-0.9r+3.0rd/s) Fu<fu

Along with the equation I provided my last post about this
Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)
(though I apologize I don't know how to post the equations 100 percent correct here, but should be close enough)...Though this is still only 20 percent of the info you would need to build a real world answer.


Edit I am also leaving alone the fact the actual theoretical floor is impossible (at least with material I know)..Something that can span 31 feet diameter, 830 ish sq feet, only weight 220 pounds  yet support 220 pounds plus.....But that is another unimportant issue with an already bogus question.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 09:29:07 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1300 on: February 27, 2017, 09:00:43 PM »
Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.

You proved nothing... You stated incorrect variables and impossibilities..Then you yelled NIST...

So...Uh yeah..

Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1301 on: February 27, 2017, 09:03:31 PM »
So uh, you guys gonna apologize for that disgusting "fraud" comment.

Thanks senpai.

Rayzor.

Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1302 on: February 27, 2017, 09:27:07 PM »
Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.

You proved nothing... You stated incorrect variables and impossibilities..Then you yelled NIST...

So...Uh yeah..

Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.

Let's focus on just one issue,  you choose the one which is the strongest of your claimed "thousands of smoking guns"  evidence.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1303 on: February 27, 2017, 09:43:04 PM »
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You ended this a failed mess of insults and logic.

I called it.



I expect you to apologize to Bhs for the fraud comment, but it's your choice, I can really hold a grudge tho, just ask Aisantaros...
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1304 on: February 27, 2017, 09:47:51 PM »
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You ended this a failed mess of insults and logic.

I called it.



I expect you to apologize to Bhs for the fraud comment, but it's your choice, I can really hold a grudge tho, just ask Aisantaros...

 Free fall of WTC7 does not conclusively prove controlled demolition,   we've been over this before.  But by all means keep flogging that dead horse. 

If Insults and threats are just about all you've got left at this stage,   you should give up.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1305 on: February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM »
Rayzor we won the debate. Everyone can see it.

Now, apologise.

No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

Official story officially btfo eternally.

@Bhs



;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 09:54:43 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1306 on: February 27, 2017, 10:02:40 PM »
Rayzor we won the debate. Everyone can see it.

Now, apologise.

There's that reality disconnect again,  none of your claims of conspiracy have stood up,  in fact they have been stupidly easy to debunk.

If you disagree,  show me an example of just ONE of your claims of conspiracy that you feel you have proven conclusively.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1307 on: February 27, 2017, 10:04:00 PM »


;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1308 on: February 27, 2017, 10:05:51 PM »


;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!

Is that your best argument,  because I'm about  to call it. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1309 on: February 27, 2017, 10:10:55 PM »
I think you should call it mate.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 truthers fail completely, left with nothing but insults and threats
« Reply #1310 on: February 27, 2017, 10:12:42 PM »
I think you should call it mate.

Done.

And I didn't even have to debunk the thermite bullshit.   That's an easy win.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 10:18:35 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1311 on: February 27, 2017, 10:20:14 PM »


;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!

Is that your best argument,  because I'm about  to call it.

This has as much substance as any of your posts so far lol... So what are you yelling about?

Have you presented an argument yet? Besides look at NIST, which their testimony is invalid until they release inputs, the barred 1000s of testimonials, hundreds of pages of blocked information etc etc..

So where is your argument? Since "look at NIST" (which is an obvious fabrication, anyone IN THE BUSINESS or with the NECESSARY prerequisites sees and laughs at. Wonder how "more jet fuel " got started about 8 years ago as a play on "more cowbell" from Saturday night live with people in the field?) Is not a valid argument.

There are even plenty of things to argue on the last few pages.

Though, since you haven't presented an argument in the last 40 + pages, I suppose you won't start now...

So maybe it is...

I think you should call it mate.

Stage left
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1312 on: February 27, 2017, 10:34:42 PM »
I think you should call it mate.

Done.

And I didn't even have to debunk the thermite bullshit.   That's an easy win.

See-ya.

If this is winning I'd hate to see you lose...

Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Toodle pip.

If anyone else wants to jump in I'm not going anywhere soon.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1313 on: February 27, 2017, 10:58:45 PM »
Lmao nice poll Rayzor.

Shill harder mate.

I'll say it, you are paid opinion control, it couldn't be more obvious man, you messed up haven't they sacked you yet?

I'll ask again, was it worth your soul?

Edit, I said I'd hate to see you lose, well, I was right, it's fucking ugly.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1314 on: February 27, 2017, 11:00:16 PM »
Lmao nice poll Rayzor.

Shill harder mate.

I'll say it, you are a paid opinion control, it couldn't be more obvious man, you messed up haven't they sacked you yet?

I'll ask again, was it worth your soul?

And, that's exactly what the flat earthers say when they lose an argument.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1315 on: February 27, 2017, 11:01:14 PM »
Read the thread where I destroyed you.

LOL.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1316 on: February 27, 2017, 11:03:32 PM »
Read the thread where I destroyed you.

LOL.

There's your reality disconnect again.   You should seek treatment for that.   


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1317 on: February 27, 2017, 11:04:24 PM »
Stop I can't handle all this winning ;D

Use AR for cheap shots after the fact.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1318 on: February 27, 2017, 11:07:22 PM »
Stop I can't handle all this winning ;D

Use AR for cheap shots after the fact.

I guess it was you that voted "something else",  tell me what option you would like added,  and I'll edit the poll.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1319 on: February 27, 2017, 11:09:16 PM »
This will suffice.



Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160