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

easy enough to confirm they collapsed..the visual record is there

YOU need to prove additional energy

 

however, did the WTC buildings fall with or without aid from an additional source of energy? That is the QUESTION!

The proof of the additional source of energy is in the fact that buildings simply do NOT "collapse" in the manner that was observed on 9/11/2001, the resistance of the structure taken into account, would cause the "collapse" event to progress much slower, and indeed in a decelerating manner so as to stop before total destruction was achieved, and this is fundamental applied physics. The upper mass would have to have NO resistance at all under it, and that can only be done by physically removing the structure.

I am just curious, who here slept through Science 101?
There are arts & letters educated people I have encountered over the years, that are barely qualified to change a light bulb, and I really wonder what differences there are in how people perceive the universe based on all sorts of factors, not limited to their education.

 

Yes,they fell without aid from an additional source of energy,However,if you think there was,feel free to prove it any time.

 

Well the pictures are nice but who and where did they come from and who are you, I mean that as...what is your qualifications to speak to the collapse as "just the way it is"?

 

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, some explosive force capable of quickly accomplishing the complete removal of all support has to be introduced to explain it.

Hey genericBob.... Can you believe this guy?

Anyway, nothing can be supported with any documentation from the NIST regarding explosives. When questioned about not having discovered any evidence of explosives, the NIST replied that they didn't actually test for explosives because they didn't expect to find any, hence.... they "found no evidence" of explosives!

Gravitational acceleration is the proof that there were explosives involved. No mode or combination of modes of progressive/natural structural failure (as empirically shown in post 45) can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to occur.

Right you are.... It's the NIST that claims this 47 story tall building completely collapsed due to the failure of a single column (79) that initiated a rapid progressive cascading structural "domino effect" failure over an area greater than a football field in just a few seconds leading to the upper part of the building descending at gravitational avcceleration. This is at odds with Newtonian Physical Principles, and as Carl Sagan onced said.... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Right, easy enough to confirm that WTC 7 collapsed at gravitational acceleration.... the visual record is unquestionably there.

Gravitational acceleration is the proof, and unless the NIST or the proponents of the official story can show another empirically verifiable mechanism consistent with physical principles capable of accomplishing the same outcome as that seen in the video resulting from an exclusively gravity driven structural failure.... explosives brought down the building.

 

May I replete my previous erzatz poll, in that I'm curious
to know who of all the individuals who post here actually
stayed awake during Science 101 class?
Even arts & letters majors had to have been exposed to science,
(what, unless you were sleeping with the Dean & got special dispensation) So, really now, who doesn't understand the fact
that if something is going to drop at free fall acceleration, it has
NO resistance under it? Dr. Sunder of the NIST has gone on record
saying that very thing, and of course David Chandler (etc..... ) gets it,
so what is the problem getting the concept that the acceleration is a function of the lack of resistance under the falling mass?

The PROOF that people keep demanding is in the fact that in order to achieve that free fall ( or even a fraction of free fall .... ) acceleration,
the resistance under the falling bit must have been removed.
and it must have been removed all the same time and by some other
means than the falling mass needing to crush or push anything because that would involve resistance and would slow down the falling bit.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why you feel the need to constantly besmirch our education.....We didn't just fall off the proverbial turnip truck,you know.

 

Oh Small Town Guy....Do you really think so? Really and truly? I'm just so awfully terribly glad you like them! You know, I just spent hours and hours going back and forth over the color scheme.... Do you really think everything matches? I'd just be mortified beyond description if you didn't think so! Do let me know.... Won't you?

The origin of the animations and who created them cannot impact the veracity of the conveyed information (they're either correct or they're not).... so this aspect of your post, at least from the vantage point of the scientific method, is rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration.

Who I am and what my qualifications are cannot impact the veracity of the conveyed information (it's either correct or it's not).... so this aspect of your post is also, at least from the vantage point of the scientific method, rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration.

 

Post 45 is empirically unassailable.... explosives brought down the building.

 

Like I said before, Post 45 is empirically unassailable.... explosives brought down the building. If anyone could have contradicted that they would have by now so I'm done with this thread.

 

This isn't a slam against anybodies education, there are people who have earned their PHD, but are barely qualified to change a light bulb, so be it, I'm just curious to know the educational background of the people who are producing the messages supportive of the suicidal hijackers story.

 

I thought your remark about Ph.D's not meaning much anymore was right on. If you want to see just how wrong they can go, check out the two month long exchange I had with one Dr. Alan Calverd, a forty year veteran Ph.D. research physicist over at TheNakedScientists.

It starts out innocently enough as we continue to agree, point by point, on the fundamental physical principles involved with gravitational acceleration and the prevailing conditions that must accompany it's occurrance, or as he put it.... The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration.

Shortly after the thread was started, all but Dr. Alan Calverd had dropped out of the conversation. Later, when he became aware of what the real objective of the exercise was, he completely reverses himself and begins doggedly arguing for progressive structural failure at gravitational acceleration as being not only possible but perfectly natural. Then, when I asked him at one point to provide some empirically verifiable repeatable data or precedent setting example to support his position he essentially just said.... No, there's no need. We just know that's how these things work.

As we continued to discuss it and I continued to point out why his current model was at odds with fundamental physical principles, he continued to add more features to it in an effort to make it workable, eventually ending up with....

The first few feet of the piston-like descent of the West Pentouse resulted in a catastrophic aerostatic blowout that caused a frame shattering shockwave to reverberate throughout the building at the speed of sound, and also, when the roof moved, a novel new structural failure mode that causes spontaneous disintegration of structural steel occurred.

The Catastrophic Aerostatic Blowout/Speed of Sound Frame Shattering Stress Propagation Shockwave/Roof Motion Induced Spontaneous Disintegration of Structural Steel theory has to be one of the most imaginative attempts to explain away the obvious I've ever seen!

And wait till you get to Post 113 by some character called "Bored chemist" (it's a riot!)....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.0 ​

 

RE:

Great! so good to know that there are actual scientific forums
that will engage in 9/11 physics discussions.
The last time (several years ago) I registered at a physics forum
and at the first mention of 9/11 they banned me.... oops!

anyhow, there are a number of people who upon seeing the
news reporting on 9/11/2001 and the video of the towers "collapsing"
+ WTC7 "collapsing" at the very least thought to themselves, that is so VERY WRONG! These buildings did not just up&collapse in response to an airliner crash, they were blown up!

and the lame excuses and shifting sands of the various explanations offered up ..... really .... give me a break!
early on in the news reporting shortly after the event, the explanation was offered up that there were power transformers in the building that were built into sealed cans and when the building was on fire, the transformers exploded and that is what people heard, however modern power transformers ( that is anything built within the last 50 years ) have built in over pressure release valves that prevent catastrophic failure ( that is explosion ). Now the official argument seems to be to attempt to negate any mention of an explosion, and attribute the noise to the sound of the building "collapsing". what a crock!

 

Why are you being sarcastic, Here Bob and you want casual observers to take your theory seriously and when asked about the pictures you respond with sarcasm. Does it matter if I know who made these picture...after all you are calling them truthful evidence, let me in on the creator.

Well I disagree as a causal observer wanting to learn the truth. How do I learn if they are truthful or not if I don't get to see the source and science backing them up? As far as I know in the scientific world....your scientists included a statement like this (is rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration) does not make things a foregone conclusion. Why are you being so obstinate when you should be happy to prove your point?

You use that "is rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration" point alot don't you. You seem embarrassed to provide my requested information. I'm just a casual observer wanting something more than "Because I said so". Would it help to say pretty please?

 

The pictures in the previous explanation are based on the original event.
that is the "collapse" of WTC7. The building experienced a period of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and the only way to do that ( sans black magic ) is to remove all of the support out from under the falling bit and all at the same time. The physics of the event are quite clear, the interpretation of why things happened as they did is only in question because the official story must include a "collapse" event that is not instigated by explosives. ( or black magic if you so desire )
The serious problem here is that there is NO failure mode of the steel structure that would create a result as observed that is the north & west walls keeping their shape and descending at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec. without help from explosives ( or black magic, pick one... ) This is not rocket science level engineering, this is Science 101 sort of stuff.

 

"The pictures are nice....". What....Are we at an art show now or something? It just seems like such a weird response to Post 45.

I said the origin of the animations or who created them cannot impact the veracity of the conveyed information (they're either correct or they're not).... that's a fact. I said that aspect of your post, at least from the vantage point of the scientific method, is rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration because.... There's no provision in the steps making up the scientific method that allows for consideration of the origin of diagrams to be seen as being any kind of contributing factor in the evaluation of the information conveyed by diagrams.... that's also a fact. The information conveyed by the diagrams/animations is either consistent with fundamental physical principles or it's not, and that will be the case whether they're anonymous diagrams found in a mayonaise jar buried in the back yard or from beneath the very hand of Isaac Newton himself. Thinking that knowing where the diagrams/animations come from can somehow help you to understand the information they convey just sounds screwy to me.... a bit like saying that knowing where a diagram/animation of a bicycle came from will help you to better understand how a bicycle works.

You're missing the point! There's no provision in the scientific method for the kind of questions you're asking to be considered as a factor in the evaluation of the information conveyed by the diagrams/animations. My signature on them can't make them any more true or false than Albert Einstein's.... They're either consistent with fundamental physical principles or they're not!

I just can't fathom how you see me telling everyone who I am along with all my background information as helping me to make a point. Telling everyone who I am, what my qualifications are and how/where the diagrams/animations were produced cannot add to or subtract from the veracity of the information conveyed by Post 45, the information conveyed will remain the same, and so will the conclusion.... that explosives brought down the building.

Yeah, sure pal, so embarrassed I just posted a link to another forum thread over at TheNakedScientists that includes alot of that information. And it's true I use that point alot. That's because I keep running into people that want to try and inject a bunch of subjective, arbitrary ambiguous nonsense into the scientific method that can't produce any empirically verifiable repeatable data.... it's really irritating!

Actually, I'm not saying "Because I said so".... I'm saying "Because Isaac Newton said so".... I've said nothing new or original here that needs to be proven.

No.

 

Where is the concrete proof that explosives brought down the building?

AnyRDX residue,or igniter tubes?

Anything?

 

​

 

Nope koko,still not proof......wasn't the first time you posted it,won't be this time..

 

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

 

Then why does Verniage work?
Also - straight down is not the 'path of greatest resistance'.

You are arguing on a flawed premise. Try again.

 

More sarcasm??

Let me show you how silly that sounds....the pictures of your post, at least from the vantage point of the scientific method, is rendered a wholly irrelevant consideration because.... There are provision in the steps making up the scientific method that don't allow for consideration of the origin of diagrams to be seen as being any kind of contributing factor in the evaluation of the information conveyed by diagrams.... that's also a fact.

Here is another silly little fact, You are missing the point! There's are provision in the scientific method for the kind of questions I am asking to be considered as a factor in the evaluation of the information conveyed by the diagrams/animations. your signature on them can make them as false as any other unfounded claim by any other poster.... They're either consistent with fundamental physical principles or they're not! so who's diagrams are they, what is the science behind them? Do tell!

Well like anything else in this world who and what you know and your education goes to your credibility. Look it's not that hard, why are you afraid? I see information conveyed....I just don't know if it is credible information or how the conclusion was reached.

What would I conclude other than embarrassed, you are being elusive and I don't know why. I could conclude that you are injecting a bunch of subjective, arbitrary ambiguous nonsense into the scientific method that can't produce any empirically verifiable repeatable data because I see no actual evidence/science/proof. It should irritate you because your theory is being called into question. Just try answering my questions, we'll get along fine....OK Pal?

No you are saying..."The way you see it, Isaac Newton said so" but you won't give me a chance to see how you're credible enough to make those statements so I can't, as a casual observer make an informed decision.

Pretty Pretty please then?

 

Yes.

All you've shown me there is that you can mangle the content of an otherwise sensibly composed paragraph.

There's no such provision.... post a link to it.

No, my signature can't make anything true or false.

I told you, that information is all on display over at TheNakedScientists where I had a two month long exchange with Dr. Alan Calverd (a forty year veteran Ph.D. research physicist) devoted exclusively to this topic....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.0;nowap ​

If you're so concerned with confirming the veracity of the information conveyed in the diagrams/text, you can review the fundamental concepts as agreed upon by Dr. Calverd and I over at TheNakedScientists.... click the link.

Hah! Somehow I doubt we'll be getting along.

I've explained it as clearly as I can.

Click the link for verification of diagram/text content with respect to free fall....

"The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration.... I think we have agreed on the definition of free fall."- Dr. Alan Calverd, Ph.D.

 

Relevance?

Got a link or an explanation of some sort that supports that fantasy? For a naturally collapsing structure like this, the path of greatest resistance is straight down through itself.... on the way down to the ground, it (the descending upper part of the building) must crush the intervening mass that once supported it.

No I'm not, I'm arguing from the vantage point of the scientific method using the analog target system of analysis.... What vantage point are you arguing from?

 

These two things absolutely cannot be the same....

​

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

​