Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,432
- Reaction score
- 32,425
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Absolutely positive. Now pay attention. Read the words. Free fall, by definition, can be under the influence of gravity ONLY.
Absolutely positive. Now pay attention. Read the words. Free fall, by definition, can be under the influence of gravity ONLY.
And the outer walls were completely divorced from any other structural components?
To achieve free fall, an object can have no other force acting upon it other than gravity, therefore, and now pay attention, there can be no steel structure under it to resist it.
This was probably everyone's first lesson in high school physics.
So when Building 7 fell, it fell straight down, correct? No part of the structure deviated from a straight down path?
Are you saying an object can not achieve the same acceleration as free-fall (9.8 m/s at sea level) by any other means that dropping with zero resistance as opposed to zero net resistance?
To achieve free fall, an object can have no other force acting upon it other than gravity, therefore, and now pay attention, there can be no steel structure under it to resist it.
This was probably everyone's first lesson in high school physics.
Yours, "I have no idea. Which one do you think?
that sums up most of the CD supporters. No idea.:lamo
And the outer walls were completely divorced from any other structural components? Yes or no?
Probably, no. But definitely devorced from anything touching the ground and acting as resistance.
During the 2.25 seconds of free fall, as NIST stated, the only force acting on it was gravity, gravitational pull, gravamundo, gravalicious.
Dudes, these are not my opinions.
How do you know?
I know because the only way to achieve free fall is to have no form of resistance other than gravity itself.
I know because the only way to achieve free fall is to have no form of resistance other than gravity itself.
Brilliant!
Free fall is a measure of acceleration.
What does a measure of acceleration to do with whether or not there any other structural components still connected to the walls?
It's gravitational acceleration.
And nothing, unless those structural components are touching earth and acting as a force against gravitational acceleration.
Wow, you quote me as saying, "I have no idea", then immediately link as a CD supporter.
How does that work? What's up with that, Mike?
Did I call you a CD supporter?
I merely stated your quote sums up what many CD supporters position is.
Try comprehending what was written. Did you notice the sarcastic laugh? lol
So it would appear that rather than explain how something other than gravity caused the WTC collapse, the groupthink pantomime company would rather argue something else.
Even though I'm not a 9/11 teoofer, but get labelled as such....I think that fire caused all the steel in approximately 8 floors to give way all of it's interconnecting structural integrity at exactly the same time, because fires destroyed some buildings back at the beginning of the last century and beyond....lol
Its impossible for explosives to do this let alone the insect job theory doing the rounds. lol
I think this thread needs burning like the last one did.
I am asking a simple question - can an object achieve an acceleration of 9.8m/s by some other means other than falling straight down with no resistance?
Can an object achieve that acceleration even if it is not travelling straight down?
Did 7 WTC fall straight down or did it twist and lean to the south as it fell, thus creating 3D rather than 1D movement?
Not necessarily.If an object is moving in 3 dimensions are there not forces acting on it other than gravity?
yes
yes
It demonstrated more than one form of motion. "3D", in Mark F language.
Not necessarily.
Dude, what are you getting at? Just spit it out and ask me.
So it would appear that rather than explain how something other than gravity caused the WTC collapse, the groupthink pantomime company would rather argue something else.
Even though I'm not a 9/11 teoofer, but get labelled as such....I think that fire caused all the steel in approximately 8 floors to give way all of it's interconnecting structural integrity at exactly the same time, because fires destroyed some buildings back at the beginning of the last century and beyond....lol
Its impossible for explosives to do this let alone the insect job theory doing the rounds. lol
I think this thread needs burning like the last one did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?