| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
IsaacNewton
Suspended
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 16
|
 Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 5:44 am Post subject: WTC7 - Laying Down the Law |
 |
|
Hi, nice to meet you all.... nothing really new here, just my own little journey of discovery.
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method
Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and
Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination.
____________ ____________
The conditions required for gravitational acceleration
to occur have been known for centuries....
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....
The control that appears on the right in many of the
animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also
signals the beginning of a comparison....
We can still know with certainty what conditions exist
beneath an object as it falls....
....even though we may not be able to see into the
space beneath it as it does....
Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one
at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go
from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll steadily
decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time....
The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive
structural failure), whether caused by heat....
....by overloading....
....or even by fracturing (another mode of natural progressive
structural failure)....
....absolutely cannot match or create the conditions required for
gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. There
is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration....
Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from
beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen
in the video. The claimed progressive collapse of the building
(NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....
....that essentially happens all at once....
....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically
know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time
consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure
involving one or a number of related structural components). It's
a physical impossibility for the lower part of the
asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core
columns and nine perimeter columns)....
....to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that
could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically
descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse
sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything
near gravitational acceleration for any period of time.
Any scenario like that playing out below resulting from natural
progressive structural failure is an absolute physical impossibility....
....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of
natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that
can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have
occurred at any point during it's descent....
The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility.
Just as there is no such thing as structural gravitational acceleration, nor
is there any failure mode known as natural progressive
structural gravitational acceleration....
There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven
collapse of any steel frame skyscraper where one could say....
"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns
and structural components that were supporting the building just a
moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field)
will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like
air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall
times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing natural
progressive structural failure (below right)"....
For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we
know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational
acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential
energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural
components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time (as
illustrated by this frangible impedance scenario)....
It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically
damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed
in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually
accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through
itself, through the path of maximum resistance (below right), and then,
driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so
nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very
careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....
Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must
be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25
second period of gravitational acceleration. For the 2.25 seconds that the
building literally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force
powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the
upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside
the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove
all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known
to have existed inside the building as an element or normal
function of it's infrastructure. For a load supported by a column to
descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly
removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked
out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized etc. Since no eight story tall
boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could
have quickly knocked out all support....
....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for
verinage another form of controlled demolition) the night before
that could have quickly pulled out all support....
....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at
it that could have quickly blown out all support....
....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being
tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....
....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from
beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a
normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....
....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that
must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent
at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some
time before the event, and unless someone can show how the
other force that must be introduced either during or just
before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside
the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as
a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really
leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.
Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period
of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported
inside the building some time before the event, it had
to be brought in. The explosion model is the only one....
....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to
create the conditions that we know must have existed....
....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building
during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational
acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....
The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree)
observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration....
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e.
slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall).
During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially (displaying all the
absolutely necessary, extremely important features) in free fall, indicating
negligible (so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering,
insignificant) support from the structure below.
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less
than that of gravity.
....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have
occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at
once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend
at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the
conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....
The empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by
explosives immediately shines a bright spotlight on literally the only
ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation
of this magnitude (all the events of that day).... the only ones who
had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly secured building (WTC7).... the
only ones who were in complete control of the security system for
the building.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity
and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones
who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic
materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central
Intelligence Agency could've done it. And just as one needn't be Isaac
Newton to see there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of
WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported
inside the building, one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no
other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building
was in perpetual lock down for many years as a highly secured
government facility.... it's elementary.
Last edited by IsaacNewton on Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great graphics, Isaac.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IsaacNewton
Suspended
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks scienceplease 2 (nice to meet you), as I recently mentioned elsewhere....
I actually put a lot of work into it, in fact.... I'd literally bet my life on it. I spent two full months discussing it with Dr. Alan Calverd, a forty-five year veteran Cambridge University educated Ph.D Research Physicist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website TheNakedScientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly soiling himself academically over the entire course of the exchange by continuing to argue against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body in open debate with an eighth grade dropout, was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the formatting of the animations. It's been over seven months now since I posted the analysis at the end of the thread What is Free Fall?
To date, not one member, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member at the TheNakedScientists or Cambridge University, particularly Dr. Calverd, has even managed to directly address it (NakedSilence?), let alone break it or point out any obvious error by simply copying and pasting one of the simple animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here's why....". And it's not hard to see why in hind sight really when one thinks about it, they (proponents of the official narrative) can't really confirm it or deny it without getting into trouble. In other words.... anyone who confirms the veracity of the analysis instantly falls into the "conspiracy theorist" category. This they absolutely will not do, so they don't confirm it, they just remain silent.... and anyone who denies the veracity of the analysis must point out some error. This they absolutely can not do, so they don't deny it either, again, they just remain silent.... they literally can not address it one way or the other!
This is also true of all the other Forums I've brought this up in over the last two years or so (only name calling, personal attacks, distraction, obfuscation, etc.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IsaacNewton
Suspended
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was reviewing my exchange with Dr. Calverd over at TheNakedScientists where we were still hammering out what free fall is and what it isn't and he said "Not sure what program you are using to generate the animations but if I wanted to show this in Powerpoint I'd...."
To which I responded "Hah! I'm flattered you thought I was using a program but.... I am the program. I produced all the individual images that went into each animation...."
Now looking back at the thread and completed analysis I suddenly feel like that computer WOPR in the movie WarGames with Matthew Broderick (one of my favorites back then). I couldn't resist....
"I am the Program"
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IsaacNewton wrote: | Thanks scienceplease 2 (nice to meet you), as I recently mentioned elsewhere....
I actually put a lot of work into it, in fact.... I'd literally bet my life on it. I spent two full months discussing it with Dr. Alan Calverd, a forty-five year veteran Cambridge University educated Ph.D Research Physicist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website TheNakedScientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly soiling himself academically over the entire course of the exchange by continuing to argue against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body in open debate with an eighth grade dropout, was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the formatting of the animations. It's been over seven months now since I posted the analysis at the end of the thread What is Free Fall?
To date, not one member, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member at the TheNakedScientists or Cambridge University, particularly Dr. Calverd, has even managed to directly address it (NakedSilence?), let alone break it or point out any obvious error by simply copying and pasting one of the simple animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here's why....". And it's not hard to see why in hind sight really when one thinks about it, they (proponents of the official narrative) can't really confirm it or deny it without getting into trouble. In other words.... anyone who confirms the veracity of the analysis instantly falls into the "conspiracy theorist" category. This they absolutely will not do, so they don't confirm it, they just remain silent.... and anyone who denies the veracity of the analysis must point out some error. This they absolutely can not do, so they don't deny it either, again, they just remain silent.... they literally can not address it one way or the other!
This is also true of all the other Forums I've brought this up in over the last two years or so (only name calling, personal attacks, distraction, obfuscation, etc.). |
Nice to meet you too. I raise the issue of WTC7 with just about everybody I meet and their are various levels of dismissiveness usually associated with the amount of planning involved to pull off the Inside Job. Even when I point out the relative ease it would be compared to amount of planning and dedication required for 19 suicide hijackers to have pulled it off, especially since it would have disturbed their beer drinking, drug-taking and sex parties.
I've sent emails to the University of Manchester... see
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm
Mentioning WTC7 (or rather why they don't mention WTC7) but received no reply.
The official story has no place in science, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I haven't. Might be worth a try... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IsaacNewton
Suspended
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi ian neal (nice to meet you)....
| scienceplease 2 wrote: |
No, I haven't. Might be worth a try... |
I don't think it would be worth it myself.... judging by the analysis I posted it turns out there can be no actual analyses of any collapse dynamics here as there can have been no actual collapse occurring during Stage 2 to analyse in the structural failure sense of the word. The previously well supported upper part of the building is simply seen suddenly and inexplicably going into free fall as if through air. As clearly shown by empirical analysis there are no collapse dynamics that can be analytically applied in this case to explain the empirically documented behaviour of the building since there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive gravity driven structural failure that can ever match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur (except for bridges and other structures that pass through air that can potentially go into free fall following failure because the required conditions for it to occur exist inherently as a structural feature). There is only one thing that can convinicingly explain the gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 (or any structurally supported object really) as seen in the video and that is the complete and sudden removal of all support from beneath it, either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, there is absolutely no other way. In other words.... the empirically established fact that there is no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive gravity driven structural failure that can explain the occurrence of free fall gravitational acceleration of the upper part of a steel frame building means that dynamic structural collapse analysis as a whole (the building design/engineering, materials science/engineering, heating, buckling, fracturing, overloading, load redistribution, torsional forces, lateral displacement, etc., etc.) may be omitted entirely from consideration as being able to explain it in any way since, as we empirically know, there is no natural progressive structural failure mode known as Natural Progressive Structural Gravitational Acceleration.... it just doesn't exist.
The official account and the top to bottom empirically verifiable analysis are incompatible and only one can be correct. In order to believe the official account of the buildings behaviour including an approximate 105 foot/2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration being due to natural progressive gravity driven structural failure in the form of heat induced buckling one would first have to successfully break or show to be incorrect some aspect of the empirical analysis I posted. This absolutely can not be done and so the official account must be false.
As clearly revealed by empirical analysis neither Stage 1 (the collapse dynamics involved with an initial stage of slower than free fall buckling of the columns preceeding the observed period of gravitational acceleration) nor Stage 3 (the collapse dynamics involved with a final stage of slower than free fall buckling of the columns following the observed period of gravitational acceleration) can explain Stage 2 (the empirically confirmed observation of a well defined intermediate stage of gravitational acceleration) so they are both empirically ruled out as being even remotely responsible for the observed period of gravitational acceleration or even being a contributing factor....
A natural progressive gravity driven collapse of the building including a period of gravitational acceleration like that described by the NIST (seen from the south with column 79 failing first on the right) is conclusively shown to be an absolute physical impossibility by irrefutable empirical analysis and when we model the entire sequence there is clearly no point at which the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur arise as the scenario plays out....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IsaacNewton
Suspended
Joined: 16 May 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | Isaac nice to meet you 2. You don't have to convince me of the scientific impossibility. |
Right, sorry about that. I was just explaining (as much to myself as anyone else) why I wouldn't follow the links you posted.... because looking to structural engineers (building design/engineering, materials science/engineering, heating, buckling, fracturing, overloading, load redistribution, torsional forces, lateral displacement, etc., etc.) to analyse or explain the occurrence of free fall (where no structure to analyse or explain can be present during occurrence) is, analytically, likely to be about as productive as trying to freeze a glass of water using a blowtorch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 3205
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ian
Your posts here, which I assume include the email Arup Fire sent you in error, are password protected.
Could you oblige us by copying the text and, if possible an image of their email.
Just to add. Here at Bristol University the entire structural engineering department were told verbally. On 9/11 itself. Not to give any quotes or interviews about the attacks.
Much long-premeditated covering of backsides was involved throughout the Western world's elite institutions.
Quite clearly the inside job of inside jobs.
People promoted to prestigious positions in this post Thatcher Reagan world are appointed because they are weak-minded pliable stooges. I'm thinking particularly of universities and the London media.
_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote: |
Just to add. Here at Bristol University the entire structural engineering department were told verbally. On 9/11 itself. Not to give any quotes or interviews about the attacks.
|
I'm astonished. (I'm always astonished). This one-liner requires its own thread: official announcements to stop the truth from being broadcast! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
