Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Options
1…4344464849…102

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, you didn't answer my question. You dodged it.

    No I answered it and you posted a follow up question

    Now can you answer my question or are you coming up with another diverting tactic to dodge it ?


  • Options
    #1353
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No I answered it and you posted a follow up question
    Your answer was that it would experience resistance.
    My question is why would it experience resistance?

    You say that the supports were all removed all at once, so therefore it shouldn't have experienced resistance and should have experienced free fall immediately at the start.

    So if it wasn't experiencing resistance from the supports, what was it?

    This is kind of important as your entire objection to the report hinges on this.


  • Options
    #1354
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You believe it's plausible that he blew up his own building and admitted it on live TV. I don't need to mention how irrational this viewpoint is.

    For how much more money did he insure the buildings prior to the attacks ?
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You support skeptics and "debunkers" in 99% of other events and situations. Just not in this one. That tells everyone something. As I mentioned you possibly need to step back and take a long look at your beliefs.

    That is exactly what I did funnily enough .... years ago
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Translation, you find it plausible the buildings were blown up. With no evidence.

    I would have liked it if it were investigated properly yet we experienced the following
    Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9
    Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7
    Days until an investigation was ordered into the Challenger disaster: 7
    Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the sinking of the Titanic: 6
    Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the 9/11 attacks: 411


    Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
    Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
    Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
    Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million
    Amount of money allocated for the nist investigation $20 million

    Amount of money authorized by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan?s intelligence agency (ISI), to be sent to suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11: $100,000 USD
    Number of references in the Final Report to foreign governments providing funding for al-Qaeda operatives: 0 references


    Biggest terrorist attack in American history

    In the end a proper investigation was stalled and by the looks of it massively underfunded ... WHY ?


  • Options
    #1355
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Your answer was that it would experience resistance.
    My question is why would it experience resistance?

    I meant It took time to reach free fall acceleration ... there was no resistance .. So there was no freefall at the start and at the end of the collapse
    King Mob wrote: »
    You say that the supports were all removed all at once, so therefore it shouldn't have experienced resistance and should have experienced free fall immediately at the start.

    Removal of all support simultaneously is necessary to reach free fall acceleration correct ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if it wasn't experiencing resistance from the supports, what was it?

    The building wasn't experiencing resistance


  • Options
    #1356
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I meant It took time to reach free fall acceleration ... there was no resistance ..
    I'm sorry....
    Took time Reach free fall acceleration?

    That's not how that works weisses.

    When you drop a ball, it is already experiencing free fall acceleration as "free fall" acceleration is acceleration due to gravity, which is a constant.
    It does not "reach" an acceleration as it's experiencing a constant acceleration.

    I think that you don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    How can I reject something that was not presented

    This is engaging in a tactic of asking people to "prove" something to you that you'll never accept, it's a type of circular denial

    This is why I created a thread so that people can present their alt theories with credible evidence, so we can subject them to the same scrutiny as the main theory - nothing credible has been provided so far

    You even admit this and then fall back to your tactic of asking people to prove something to you you'll never accept

    Without a mod or an arbiter enforcing reasonabledebate then anyone can do this in literally any thread
    That is critical thinking !!

    No it's not, and if you refuse to see that then no one can help you in this


  • Options
    #1358
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    For how much more money did he insure the buildings prior to the attacks ?

    Appeal to motive

    How is the notion of Larry Silverstein blowing up his own building in the midst of 911, "admitting" it on national TV and no one noticing any different from Dr Judy Wood's theory

    There is no evidence for either. Being "able" to rationalise something in your head doesn't make something plausible or a fact

    This has nothing to do with your views on the NIST or any of that. It's to do with the fact that you can entertain incredibly flimsy theories with no evidence

    What's believable or unbelievable in your head is irrelevant to the event or global understanding of that event

    Likewise group validating with similar minded people on the internet doesn't add any validity to that type of faulty thinking


  • Options
    #1359
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The final investigation report. It's widely accepted, it's findings have been incorporated and hasn't been significantly challenged by any recognised group. There are no credible counter-theories

    The conspiracy theories are a footnote



    That's not critical thinking. That's conspiracy thinking. Basically conspiracy theorists decide something is a conspiracy and collect up all the things they find are "suspect", "fishy", "strange", etc to hint at some unspecified vague conspiracy they typically can't support with credible evidence

    False it not widely accepted even 9/11 Skeptics have distanced themselves from the NIST findings over the years.

    Arup Engineering and Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat have made public statements the walk-off at column 79 could not have happened. They are claiming the floors lost lateral restraint and support. They blame on it fire but have never produced a report or model to show that was even possible?


  • Options
    #1360
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There is no evidence for either. Being "able" to rationalise something in your head doesn't make something plausible or a fact
    At least Dr Judy Wood can rationalise her theory.


  • Options
    #1361
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry....
    Took time Reach free fall acceleration?

    That's not how that works weisses.

    When you drop a ball, it is already experiencing free fall acceleration as "free fall" acceleration is acceleration due to gravity, which is a constant.
    It does not "reach" an acceleration as it's experiencing a constant acceleration.

    I think that you don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration...

    Kingmob you don't understand. What a ball dropped from WTC7 showing? Freefall occurred inside building 7 roughly 100 feet.

    Outside WTC7 walls its just empty space and air?

    What David Chandler found is 8 to 10 stories came down and fell at freefall speeds. Meaning these floors were completely gone and fallen away. NIST only measured 18 stories the top part of the building you can see on video.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Appeal to motive

    How is the notion of Larry Silverstein blowing up his own building in the midst of 911, "admitting" it on national TV and no one noticing any different from Dr Judy Wood's theory

    There is no evidence for either. Being "able" to rationalise something in your head doesn't make something plausible or a fact

    This has nothing to do with your views on the NIST or any of that. It's to do with the fact that you can entertain incredibly flimsy theories with no evidence

    What's believable or unbelievable in your head is irrelevant to the event or global understanding of that event

    Likewise group validating with similar minded people on the internet doesn't add any validity to that type of faulty thinking

    Maybe Silverstein was not involved, but it obvious he was referring to the building pulled down. Maybe the fire chief and he discussed this on the phone and he did not think not more about it after that?

    To claim he wasn't thinking of controlled demolition the building is not true. We now know he was on the phone with insurance companies to see if they payout if they brought the building down by controlled demolition.

    What he knew will never be solved. Him claiming it was about firefighters pulled from the building is not true. That effort was stopped at 11 am a full 6 hours before the building collapsed.


  • Options
    #1363
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    At least Dr Judy Wood can rationalise her theory.

    And she's an expert, has a PhD. If she was siding with the "controlled demolition" theory she would be considered a valid irrefutable source here


  • Options
    #1364
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    it obvious he was referring to the building pulled down.

    Do you maintain that Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

    If no, then no more discussion needed

    If yes, then explain why he did it, how he did it, etc. No personal creative writing, just reasonable explanations and credible evidence


  • Options
    #1365
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Do you maintain that Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

    If no, then no more discussion needed

    If yes, then explain why he did it, how he did it, etc. No personal creative writing, just reasonable explanations and credible evidence

    I said he is lied about what he meant by pull it.

    He was talking about controlled demolition. I not sure why they later claimed it was about firefighters pulled from the building?

    What he knew and whatnot who can say for sure?


  • Options
    #1366
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry....
    Took time Reach free fall acceleration?

    That's not how that works weisses.

    When you drop a ball, it is already experiencing free fall acceleration as "free fall" acceleration is acceleration due to gravity, which is a constant.
    It does not "reach" an acceleration as it's experiencing a constant acceleration.

    I think that you don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration...

    What I mean is that the buidings collapse was accelarating

    wtc 7

    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)

    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

    since you seem to be the expert can you just answer my question ?

    how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

    I mean there was a building and not only gravity

    Freefall could only occur when
    The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

    If you disagree then explain with examples how free fall was possible with building 7


  • Options
    #1367
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is engaging in a tactic of asking people to "prove" something to you that you'll never accept, it's a type of circular denial

    No tactic ...Just holding you to the same standard you demand from others
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is why I created a thread so that people can present their alt theories with credible evidence, so we can subject them to the same scrutiny as the main theory - nothing credible has been provided so far

    You created this thread knowing there was no alternative theory presented to this date ... stop pretending otherwise
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You even admit this and then fall back to your tactic of asking people to prove something to you you'll never accept

    You cannot claim I will not accept it when you refusing ... or more likely are unable to answer these 3 simple questions
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Without a mod or an arbiter enforcing reasonabledebate then anyone can do this in literally any thread

    Is it unreasonable to accept the same standard from you as you are expecting from me ? ... If not report my posts and let a mod deal with it
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No it's not, and if you refuse to see that then no one can help you in this

    It kinda is ...And your blatant refusal to back up the crap you are believe to be valid says it all

    You had your little circle jerk making fun of people with alt theories ... But when challenged properly you are crying foul


  • Options
    #1368
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    What he knew and whatnot who can say for sure?

    You're stating as fact that 911 was an inside job.

    So according to you, did Silverstein blow up WTC 7?

    If no, we can drop that line


  • Options
    #1369
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    What I mean is that the buidings collapse was accelarating
    But that's not what you said. You have changed "what you meant" three times now.
    First you said:
    weisses wrote: »
    there is resistance at some point ... Usually at the start and end of a collapse
    Then when you realised how that contradicts your theory, you meant:
    weisses wrote: »
    I meant It took time to reach free fall acceleration ... there was no resistance .. So there was no freefall at the start and at the end of the collapse
    And now you realise that this betrays your lack of knowledge in physics it's
    "The building's collapse was accelerating"
    Is that your final answer? If so, could you actually explain what the **** that actually means.
    weisses wrote: »
    wtc 7

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)
    And again, why was the acceleration less than that of gravity?
    It can't be resistance as your claim hinges on it not encountering resistance at the start as you contend all the support was removed instantaneously.
    If that were the case, then it would be the same as gravity from the start.

    It also can't be that the acceleration "ramped up" or "increased over time" as you seem to think it did as that's not how gravity or physics work.

    It also can't be that you disagree with those numbers as you've clung to them as gospel truth.

    So you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner here.

    Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first phase of this collapse?
    Please be specific.
    weisses wrote: »
    since you seem to be the expert can you just answer my question ?

    how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?
    Again, as I said before and point out above, you don't understand what you are talking about as you have a poor grasp of physics.


  • Options
    #1370
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    No tactic ...Just holding you to the same standard you demand from others

    No you aren't at all.

    You require an enormous amount of evidence for one theory. But you'll entertain another with nothing.
    You created this thread knowing there was no alternative theory presented to this date ... stop pretending otherwise

    So why are you debating in here if you don't have any theory

    You cannot claim I will not accept it when you refusing ... or more likely are unable to answer these 3 simple questions

    Do those questions have to do with your personal understanding of the NIST?

    I can literally put those questions into several engineering forums and I guarantee you will reject the answer

    I know this for a fact because I've seen them answered so many times, in fact some engineering forums ban people for asking because these people have demonstrated they aren't interested in the answers

    Paste your questions here, I can do this right now and demonstrate it
    It kinda is ...And your blatant refusal to back up the crap you are believe to be valid says it all

    It's crap according to you personally. Your opinion (and that of a conspiracy group)
    You had your little circle jerk making fun of people with alt theories ... But when challenged properly you are crying foul

    If you are getting emotional over a real-world event perhaps you see any challenges to your (non) theories as a personal attack - it indicates that this is very much a faith based belief rather than anything based on logic


  • Options
    #1371
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You're stating as fact that 911 was an inside job.

    So according to you, did Silverstein blow up WTC 7?

    If no, we can drop that line

    I never stated Silverstein blew up WTC7.

    He lied about what he meant by pull it. Why he later denied this what he meant only he knows that I can't get inside his head and find this out.

    The Twin Towers when they collapsed produced huge dust plumes that exploded through the exterior walls and windows.

    That alone should be enough to convince people NIST WTC7 study is bogus. Where did the dust plumes from 47 floors collapsing go?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    NIST is claiming 47 interior floors have collapsed prior to the full building moving and collapsing. It doesn't make any sense.

    The amount of dust and debris would blow out windows across the width of the building.

    The only time dust plumes escaped is when the full building came down.


  • Options
    #1373
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I never stated Silverstein blew up WTC7.

    You stated WTC 7 was definitely blown up (and WTC 1 and WTC 2)

    So who blew it up and how did they do it?

    If you aren't sure, that's fine, just say so.


  • Options
    #1374
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You stated WTC 7 was definitely blown up (and WTC 1 and WTC 2)

    So who blew it up and how did they do it?

    If you aren't sure, that's fine, just say so.

    Who planted the demolitions I don't know.

    But does it make sense you 47 floors collapsing internally would cause no damage to the face of WTC7?

    NIST never talked about where the debris and dust plumes and smoke went? Think about it the internal structure falls away and nothing no damage to the exterior face on the north side?


  • Options
    #1375
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,974 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Who planted the demolitions I don't know.

    Fine. Now, how about why, why was WTC 7 blown up? definitive answer (I know you have some maybes and speculations, but I mean certainties)


  • Options
    #1376
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Fine. Now, how about why, why was WTC 7 blown up? definitive answer (I know you have some maybes and speculations, but I mean certainties)

    I have no clue you have to ask the people who did it.


  • Options
    #1377
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, as I said before and point out above, you don't understand what you are talking about as you have a poor grasp of physics.


    how is free fall acceleration possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

    You do agree that according to NIST the wtc7 collapse was a progressive one ?

    Stop dodging the question


  • Options
    #1378
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    how is free fall acceleration possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

    You do agree that according to NIST the wtc7 collapse was a progressive one ?

    Stop dodging the question
    I have not dodged the question I've answered it directly several times.
    You do not understand what is meant by freefall as you have a poor grasp of physics.

    You have dodged my question:
    Why was the building accelerating less than gravity in the first phase of the collapse?

    Your entire theory and doubt hinges on this. You have been contending that the building's supports were removed instantly. So it should have been accelerating under gravity from that moment.
    However the numbers you provided yourself show that this didn't happen. Something was making it accelerate less than it would if it were free falling.
    So what was it?


  • Options
    #1379
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe You skipped past my question.

    When the Twin Towers collapsed internally the smoke and dust burst through the exterior walls and windows. You saw that.

    Explain why WTC7 was different? NIST claims 47 floors filled with stuff collapsed internally prior to the full building exterior coming down.

    Did 47 floors of stuff just magically disappear to the twilight zone mars where?


  • Options
    #1380
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No you aren't at all.

    You require an enormous amount of evidence for one theory. But you'll entertain another with nothing.

    Nope ... the same kind of evidence you require
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    So why are you debating in here if you don't have any theory

    You are looking for a theory with solid evidence ... your official explanation of the wtc7 collapse is missing what you require from other theories

    Just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Do those questions have to do with your personal understanding of the NIST?

    Does questions are the ones asked by people who studied the matter ..its in the public domain ..
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I can literally put those questions into several engineering forums and I guarantee you will reject the answer

    Why not just start by at least make an attempt to answer them honestly
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I know this for a fact because I've seen them answered so many times, in fact some engineering forums ban people for asking because these people have demonstrated they aren't interested in the answers

    Then by all means post them here

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's crap according to you personally. Your opinion (and that of a conspiracy group)

    My opinion is (and so far I am correct) is that you cannot provide any solid evidence that backups your opinion on how building 7 fell
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you are getting emotional over a real-world event perhaps you see any challenges to your (non) theories as a personal attack - it indicates that this is very much a faith based belief rather than anything based on logic

    Not emotional ... most I do is chuckle a bit at the pathetic attempts to ridicule others

    So far its only theories Im posting ..nothing more ... without the evidence to support it you are backing another theory ... Nothing wrong with it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I have not dodged the question I've answered it directly several times.
    You do not understand what is meant by freefall as you have a poor grasp of physics.

    Stop dodging and just answer the simple question .. .you seem to be knowledgeable ...maybe i can learn a thing or two

    Your explanation can put me right in my place ..... or not

    how is free fall acceleration possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

    You do agree that according to NIST the wtc7 collapse was a progressive one ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement