Building 7 Collapsed Due to Fire on 9/11 - Syham Sunder, NIST

Sundar like all OCTA'S obviously ditched junior high school science classes ignoring how the laws of physics were violated that day as well as key witness testimonys and what demolitions experts say.Sundar would be laughed out of a science class room by every junior high school kid in that science class after the students in that class not only pointed out to him how he ignored the laws of physics they learn at that age,but after the students heard what the key witnesses said,demolitions experts said as well,just like all OCTA'S always do at message boards,he would get humilated and embarrassed in that classroom after getting his ass handed to him on a platter from them when they gave him a lesson on the laws of physics that were violated that day.hee hee.

thats what cracks me up when OCTA'S make things up that they have been a scientist for over 30 years or what not,so obviously b.s in the fact a friend of mine,his son back then knew after seeing bld 7 collapsed that it was brought down by explosives because of the laws of physics he had been learning about in junior high at that time.He told his father those buildings could not have physically come down like that due to fire because of how the laws of physics he had just been learning about in class from his teacher,were violated that day. lol.

I bet sunder actually believes the official line of the OCTA'S as well that what caused the steel girders weighing 10 tons or so was thrown 600 feet in the air landing in other buildings because of the air pressure from the buildings collapse caused it.

Sundar has obviously been smoking not only this but crack cocaine as well.

 

In your opinion, what did cause the girders to be ejected from the building?

 

Straight down is exactly the way gravity pulls; the path of least resistance. Greater resistance would be sideways or even up. Other forces would have to be in play for the building to fall sideways.

Hence: it fell down.

 

You never explained the relevance of verinage controlled demolition. You must have been thinking something.... Why bring it up?

It depends on whether or not there's intervening mass! Just because gravity pulls straight down, it doesn't automatically mean straight down is always the path of least resistance....

​

Preposterous. Any school child knows a falling object encountering resistance will, if it's not simply brought to a halt, seek another less resistive path (rolling, toppling, etc.) to ground....

​

]

What other forces? There are no other forces that can come into play in this scenario if the building underwent natural progressive structural failure. The only energy available to a falling object to do anything (in this case the descending upper part of the building) is potential energy resulting from it's mass.... and the only way any mass can fall at gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2, 32.17405 ft/s2) is if all it's potential energy is converted into motion as it falls. If there's any resistance at all, it absolutely cannot fall at gravitational accelertion, that's the law....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif
​

The only thing falling down here is your absurdly unscientific so called "argument".

 

Post 45 is solidly founded on and completely consistent with Newtonian Physical Principles. As the building was standing one moment and dropping like a stone the next (below left), some explosive force (below right) capable of quickly accomplishing the complete removal of all support (either all at once or incrementally in advance of it's descent) has to be introduced to explain it....

​

In order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2, 32.17405 ft/s2), there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

​

Post 45 remains empirically unassailed.... explosives brought down the building.

 

Verniage works on exactly the principles you are arguing against.

None of the buildings were built as a wedge, so your diagram is pointless.

None of the buildings fell at gravitational acceleration, so your example is pointless.

There remains zero evidence of any kind of controlled demolition on 9/11.

 

Once again,koko,there is ZERO proof of that,and there was no explosion witnessed that would do what your cutesy cartoons indicate.

 

Two things, has any verniage demolished building dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration?
and - - - Given that its Verniage, its a controlled demolition, therefore comparison to WTC7 is saying that WTC7 exhibited the characteristics of a controlled demolition.

 

So you would now like to argue that WTC7 (which never fell at free fall acceleration) was felled by Verniage demolition? If so ... please show your evidence.

 

I'm not the one claiming "verniage" you brought that one up in an attempt to justify the claim that it was not controlled demolition.
also not my fault if you can't see the fact of the 2.25 sec of free fall in the "collapse" event. its there and your denial can't make it go away.

 

The claim was made that the smaller portion of a building could not destroy the larger bottom portion without explosives. Verniage demolition works on just those principles.

Just as there's no evidence of explosives, there's no evidence for Verniage demolition, either. It's simply the physics that I was pointing out.

Also: as has been proven to you numerous times, WTC7 had no period of FFA. That you embrace this falsehood does not make it true.

 

By what standard of measurement do you allege that WTC7 did not have a period of FFA? It has been measured and found to be so, what other measurement do you have?

also, where is the Verniage evidence that a smaller upper part of a building can destroy the whole skyscraper?

You say no evidence of explosives, however this alleged testing for explosives that was supposed to have been done, where is the documentation?
and also, what accounts for the total removal of all of the resistance out from under the falling part of WTC7 and all at the same time?

 

http://nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

On Verinage:

[video=youtube_share;NwFHEoiUZ7o]http://youtu.be/NwFHEoiUZ7o[/video]

 

Quoted straight out of the link you provided.

 

Ditto.

 

This should read "free fall, indicating NO support from the structure below."
any support at all would have rendered the descent NOT FREE FALL.

 

Verinage is a form of meticulously planned and precisely executed intentional demolition that quickly removes structural support. To hold up one method of meticulously planned and precisely executed intentional controlled demolition that quickly removes structural support, verinage, in place of another form of meticulously planned and precisely executed intentional controlled demolition that quickly removes support, explosives, to show why no meticulously planned or precisely executed intentional demolition that quickly removes support was needed for WTC 7 to come down the way it did is irrational.

No, along with that animation I mentioned that a falling object encountering resistance will, if it's not simply brought to a halt, seek another less resistive path (rolling, toppling, etc.) to ground.... that's a fact. The animation, despite your inability to understand it, works fine for it's intended illustrative purpose.

WTC 7 verifiably fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds (8 stories, or approximately 105 feet), your denial doesn't change that, it just makes your "argument" look even more foolish than it already did.

Gravitational acceleration itself and the conditions required for it to occur is solid evidence. No natural mechanism of progressive structural failure can empirically be shown to be capable of creating the conditions required for free fall to occur at any time during the descent of the literally falling upper part of the building, leaving only meticulously planned and precisely executed intentional controlled demolition that quickly removes structural support to explain it. As no giant cables were seen tugging on the building that day indicative of verinage demolition being carried out.... it is explosives that must have brought down the building down.

 

You're wrong...the trusses sagging with the weight of the floors pulled the perimiter walls in,sloppy,but still verniage

 

No, the claim wasn't made that only explosives could have caused the upper part of the building to descend the way it did, what I said was that "an explosion or some other force, capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building, must be introduced to explain the way it came down. That's not a claim.... it's an empirically verifiable fact.

Well, since the NIST never tested for explosives.... Where are you getting that from?

Well the "physics" you pointed out is about as relevant as the phase of the moon on 9/11.

Just continuing to talk doesn't constitute any sort of refutation.

 

No, even the NIST abandoned that idea.... it's well known that fires burning conventional office contents in the building could not have generated the kind of temperatures that could cause anything to sag, so the idea of some sort of "spontaneous internal verinage" mechanism falls flat.

Nothing you guys have come up with has changed a thing....

In order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2, 32.17405 ft/s2), there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.


​

Post 45 remains empirically unassailed.... explosives brought down the building.

 

Nothing you've come up with has explained it any better,we know that the perimiter walls were pulled in before the collapse,what caused this?

Verniage trumps post 45

 

Nope. Just a portion of the north face.

 

You forgot the west face also, and exactly what "portion" are you referring to?

 

and for the result observed to be truly the product of what you claim, the trusses would all have to sag in a uniform manner. That is for any given level of the tower, ALL of the trusses would have to deform in the same way and at the same time to create the effect as observed.
and this from chaotic fires...... right ......

 

The upper northern corner, as described.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorrect. You are speculating ... unless you have math to back this up, it's nonsense.