A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

yeh its how the heat get from the fire to the frying pan LOL

I had to throw it away because I had the frying pan on the right burner and the left burner wide open. thermal conductivity jumped right across and melted my cast iron frying pan. whoah is me.

too bad it does not apply to make your floor sag, not that you know why.

I have to laugh you people keep posting all this impossible crap and have to continually make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to try and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) your way through. thats what happens when you get your info from debunker sites. they are never right about anything.

 

I have copies of both the draft and final report. I cannot find this alleged correction. You have a link or two for us?

 

I dont know if its part 1,2 or 3

[video=youtube;nOnxAWFZyHk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOnxAWFZyHk[/video]

wait till you see how deceitful those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s are.

 

It was dishonest of you to cut my quote short. You expended effort to distort my direct quote which is unethical. That is what 9/11 liars stoop to. Lying, distorting, and obfuscating the truth because you guys want to perpetuate the lie.

As far as Newton's third law of motion... he meant exactly what he said.

which for those of us who do understand physics means that the WTC tower core columns were destroyed because the collapse was accelerated not decelerated. Those of you who defend the official NIST report prove your ignorance of Newton's laws of physics.

 

its funny how Truthers think the towers were like cardboard boxes.

 

What is really, really, really funny is how Mod Edit/Stop with the frequent insulting use of "liar". don't understand the basic level of physics demonstrated by the most elementary level of physics. Richard Gage took physics to the lowest level, with cardboard boxes, in order that even kindergarten kids can understand and you don't even understand kindergarten level physics. What is even funnier than that is that you don't understand how silly you look by not understanding kindergarten level physics.

 

Gage was trying to simplify it,and he ended up disconnecting his brain.

Kindergarten is right

 

Richard Gage did not disconnect his brain. He tried to stoop to your level of understand of physics, and you can't even understand kindergarten level physics. Pretty sad there Texan.

 

he TRIED to dumb something down that didn't need it,
And YOU need to stop telling me what I 'understand',because you haven't a clue

 

Oh you mean like, showimg one image an then claiming because YOU can't see something where YOU think it should be, means it didn't happen??? Out of touch with reality much?

You're really not that smart, are you?

 

yeh if you claim there is a dead body and there was a murder there is no body in the pic I will demand the dead body, same thing.

 

Not an actual argument anywhere in that post.

 

That doesn't help me. Please cite for me exactly the change between the draft and final NIST reports for which Chandler was responsible.

 

Gage failed. In his effort to "dumb it down" he succeeded only in accomplishing the dumb part. Completely oblivious to the material effects of scale, his demonstration is not compelling to anybody with a clue.

 

I am too lazy to dig that up, however it has to do with them admitting freefall and replacing the old bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with the new bull(*)(*)(*)(*) 3 stage chart

chandler takes emails if you want to email him I am sure he will be happy to give you the facts.

 

it was not meant to be compelling to anyone with a clue.

anyone with a clue would not be hugging the official story in the first place.

 

the engineers and architects who accept the official story ate lightyears smarter than you and I, on the subject matter.

I trust the experts, and the experts say 9-11 Truth is crap.

 

Richard Gage's demonstration is indeed important at demonstrating Newton's third law of motion. If there is no resistance under the box, then the box will go into freefall until it meets the resistance at the ground. If there is sufficient resistance then freefall cannot be obtained.

Your claim that that the dynamic mass of the upper stories being sufficient to overwhelm the static load below is a scenario I simply don't buy into. I understand what you are claiming. For example, if a car was dropped on my head, I would not supply enough resistance to decelerate the car. It would continue its freefall descent. But where I see that failing is that I was not designed to hold the car up in the first place. The buildings were designed to hold the mass above them. Even in the dynamic failure we witness in the video the lower portion of the building should have decelerated the collapse.

 

yes, the static force.

not the dynamic force falling more than 10 feet.

this is where you FAIL

 

Your lazyness has always been a given here. So has your studied inability to actually support your bald (and often bizarre) assertions.

I must simply chalk this up to more of the same.

When he comes here to this forum, I will be happy to ask him questions. Sadly... all I've got is you.

- - - Updated - - -

And in that, it succeeded in not being compelling to anyone with a clue.

 

Actually, no. It's not. It's a demonstration of what happens when you drop cardboard boxes. As a demonstration of either Newton's Third Law or what happened to the WTC towers it is completely misleading... whether through design or ignorance I do not know.

Too bad cardboard boxes cannot make that demonstration in any way that is relevant to the circumstances of 9/11.

Nobody cares what you "buy into" since you are not qualified to offer an opinion one way or the other. You have been presented with the mathematical and physical proof that this is exactly what happened. You have never even tried to challenge it. You apparently do not have either the math skills nor the fundamental understanding of physics necessary to do so.

They did decelerate the collapse. That is why the towers did not fall (contrary to truther claims) at freefall speed. But they could not decelerate the collapse enough to account for even a fraction of the acceleration caused by gravity. This has been demonstrated in detail.

You have offered no substantive counter.

 

You really think so? You're much less intelligent than I gave you credit for.

 

The 9-11 towers did not fall at free-fall speed.

This proves that the lower sections of the towers decelerated the fall, in compliance with Newton's 3rd Law of motion.

 

the nice thing about trusting experts is they can lie to you and you wuld never know the difference would you.

that and you really dont know who an expert is and who is not, you have no compass to guide you what so ever unless you can do the work youself.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet you say that to everyone who hands you your ass.

- - - Updated - - -

all the towers are classified as freefall, do you know why they would be classified as freefall?

 

What a dumb assertion. Who (pray tell) is the official authority for "classifying" a building collapse as freefall? It is a simple and objective fact that none of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed in anywhere close to the period required by free fall.

If you're going to blow smoke, you really should blow less stupid smoke.