Re: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11
Physics is a pretty established science. Tell me what is wrong with the idea that something can not fall at free fall speeds unless it has no resistance.
Amazing how quickly you guys jump to topic slide when you are presented with a question you can't logically answer.
Or people ignored an assertion that was non sensical.
There's nothing wrong with your "Tell me what is wrong..." except that you can't even prove that the collection of disassembled objects previously know as WTT, then falling from one of the World Trade Towers were or were not falling at "free fall speed."
Given the huge clouds of dust, you'd have to rely on radar or acoustic signatures. Then given the settling of the debris, you'd at best have an envelope of uncertainty around your imaginary concept of "free fall speed."
Next you'd have to conjecture that the resistance of the collapse somehow was outside of the bounds of that envelope of uncertainty. Being Tecshare, you'd like to determine that by PROCLAMATION BY TECSHARE.
It doesn't work that way. Show the math and the numbers if you want to be taken seriously.
Actually, you don't have to prove the math and numbers for any demolition or free-fall. All you have to do is show that the official story is way off. Let the engineers and demolition experts handle the numbers.
Oh, that's right. The did it already. One little place is right here - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html.
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.