Re: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11
Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?
That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."
Show your work please.
That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."
Show your work please.
It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.
The proof or lack of your statements really is in the equations.
You not only refuse to provide the math but actively deny the need for it.
It's not credible to assert that I'm "playing intellectual" if I'm keeping the discussion at the 8th grade level.
LOL! He's got you there, TECSHARE.
He certainly isn't playing intellectual by keeping the discussion at 8th grade level. He has to get the discussion up to 8th grade level to keep it there.If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.
