• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC7, The 2.25 seconds, what caused it?

That's why, free fall = gravitational acceleration. .The only force acting upon it is gravity.
 
Absolutely positive. Now pay attention. Read the words. Free fall, by definition, can be under the influence of gravity ONLY.

So when Building 7 fell, it fell straight down, correct? No part of the structure deviated from a straight down path?
 
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.
 
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.

Free fall is essentially just a measure of acceleration, yes? 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?
 
So when Building 7 fell, it fell straight down, correct? No part of the structure deviated from a straight down path?


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.
 
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?


No, perhaps there was a humungous giant pushing the building, WTC 7, downward.
 
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.

And the outer walls were completely divorced from any other structural components? Yes or no?
 
Yours, "I have no idea. Which one do you think?

that sums up most of the CD supporters. No idea.:lamo


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?
 
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.

Did they?

No matter. Doesn't matter what NIST did or didn't say. 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?

If an object is moving in 3 dimensions are there not forces acting on it other than gravity?
 
I know because the only way to achieve free fall is to have no form of resistance other than gravity itself.

So what you are saying is an object moving any direction other than straight down and only under the influence of gravity can not average 9.8 m/s over a period of 2.25 seconds?
 
I know because the only way to achieve free fall is to have no form of resistance other than gravity itself.

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?
 
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.
 
It's gravitational acceleration.

And nothing, unless those structural components are touching earth and acting as a force against gravitational acceleration.

It is STILL a MEASURE.

You apparently believe MEASUREMENTS affect structures.

You are so wrapped up in the MEASUREMENT that you cannot think beyond that.
 
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
 
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

If only someone would ask him what his thoughts were on HOW the 57 columns were compromised....

Oh, wait.
 
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.
 
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.

With the lack of evidence proving CD, it is done. Put a fork in it. lol
 
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?

yes

Can an object achieve that acceleration even if it is not travelling straight down?

yes

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?

It demonstrated more than one form of motion. "3D", in Mark F language.

If an object is moving in 3 dimensions are there not forces acting on it other than gravity?
Not necessarily.

Dude, what are you getting at? Just spit it out and ask me.
 
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.

More to the point, what are you getting at? A CD?
 
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.


:fueltofir
 
Back
Top Bottom