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

weisses

It seems you are down to your usual tack .. It includes telling others they dont understand the matter ...then claim you anwsered several times and finally refuses to engage

Same tactic every time when you cannot deal with factual questions

King Mob

But weisses I did answer your questions directly.
You just don't understand the report or what free fall is.
That's the issue you have with the real explanation.
That is my answer to your question.
This is evidenced by how you've painted yourself into a corner. And how your attempts at an explanation has exposed how you don't understand what free fall means or the difference between speed and acceleration. Your continued dodging of a very direct and simple question is a further demonstration of this.

So again, for the last time: why was the acceleration less than that of gravity in the first phase of the collapse?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

No notion who did it or carried it out or how or why

So what are the reasons it has to be a controlled demolition?

(as opposed to any other theory)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

WTC 7 was a progressive collapse over around 16 to 20 seconds. Basically the internals gave way

WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed differently from WTC 7 but similar to each other

WTC 5 (steel structure) had 4 stories collapse due to fire (partial collapse)

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

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

You don't provide any evidence of your theory (nothing credible). If you are going to assert there was a demolition of a building but can't provide any evidence of that or answer one single question on it then it can be completely dismissed

You can browbeat all you want about this, be dramatic, be snide, be incredulous - doesn't matter a jot

Provide evidence. If you can't, then your phantom implausible theory can be dismissed in the same way you dismiss Dr Judy Wood's implausible theory

Except that she actually attempts to provide a theory and provide evidence. You don't.

She's an "expert". You aren't.

You are a random person on the internet, it's your personal opinion against that of the 200-odd scientists, experts and investigators whose findings on the event are widely accepted

Your views represent a footnote of the event, part of a barrage of multiple vague conspiracy theories. Supported by certain individuals you dismiss as "loons", people who I might remind you use the same bizarre reasoning and "evidence" you do

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

The NIST. But you personally reject that. That's perfectly fine, you can have any opinion you want

However you try to state your opinion as fact instead of prefacing it as.. opinion

An opinion that is backed by and heavily borrowed from a group of conspiracy theorists who suggested after a month with no access to site or evidence that another building collapsed due to an inside job (which was completely contradicted by the final report from real investigators)

My opinion (on the NIST report) is backed by the two investigations.

Again it doesn't matter how emotional you get about this, how dramatic, how passionate you are, how much you try and browbeat things.

Your argument is weak

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 7 was a progressive collapse over around 16 to 20 seconds. Basically the internals gave way

WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed differently from WTC 7 but similar to each other

WTC 5 (steel structure) had 4 stories collapse due to fire (partial collapse)

You still have not answered my question.

NIST claims during progressive collapse 47 floors collapsed inside the building. Where did this dust, debris and smoke go? It did not escape through walls or windows, you can see that visually.

You think 47 floors of steel and concrete and building equipment collapsing would not break windows or cause deformations of the north side face of WTC7 really?

The progressive collapse doesn't make any sense. You can see the errors even in their own computer simulation. WTC7 started to fall down 5 to 6 seconds after the Full Penthouse left the roofline. In the NIST sim, it took 20 seconds for this to occur.

Dohnjoe

Simple explainer here

3 mins 30

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Simple explainer here

3 mins 30

That not a simple explainer.

There two stages of collapse in the NIST report.

Stage 1} 47 floors falling away internally inside the building ( progressive collapse)

Stage 2 is the full building collapsing then outside the exterior.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST claims during progressive collapse 47 floors collapsed inside the building. Where did this dust, debris and smoke go? It did not escape through walls or windows, you can see that visually.

Dunno. Possibly it was sucked downwards

I also don't know why people think WTC 7 looks like a demolition. It looks far neater than most demolitions I've watched
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blR6yf60HoA

The progressive collapse doesn't make any sense.

To you.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That not a simple explainer.

According to you

There two stages of collapse in the NIST report.

Stage 1} 47 floors falling away internally inside the building ( progressive collapse)

Stage 2 is the full building collapsing then outside the exterior.

It collapses internally, then the shell collapses

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Dunno. Possibly it was sucked downwards

I also don't know why people think WTC 7 looks like a demolition. It looks far neater than most demolitions I've watched
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blR6yf60HoA



To you.

That not what happens in a building collapse. Dust and debris moves forward and out. Floors are connected to the exterior walls of WTC7. Falling of floors would cause severe deformations of the side walls.

You saw what happened to the Twin Towers when internal structures inside the building gave away and collapsed. The dust plumes burst out through the windows and perimeter walls.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you



It collapses internally, then the shell collapses

I watched it before unlike you I watch videos from both sides of the debate. He made a few false claims. He claims the towers collapsing caused fires on the east side. That not true the first reported fire on the eastside occurred around 12.30pm or 1 pm in the day. A couple of hours after the collapse of the towers.

Cheerful Spring

When WTC7 is the first time a steel framed reinforced building falls due to just fire in history and all these errors are there in the NIST report. The controlled demolition theory explains the features and observations seen during the collapse.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When WTC7 is the first time a steel framed reinforced building falls due to just fire in history and all these errors are there in the NIST report. The controlled demolition theory explains the features and observations seen during the collapse.

Other steel framed structures have collapsed and partially collapsed

Most engineers I've seen responding to questions online about 911 have pointed to the NIST

Never come across a "controlled demolition theory", some individuals just speculate it but have next-to-zero details on it and no evidence

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You don't provide any evidence of your theory (nothing credible). If you are going to assert there was a demolition of a building but can't provide any evidence of that or answer one single question on it then it can be completely dismissed

I already said numerous times there is no solid evidence for controlled demolition ...

Same as there is no solid evidence for office fires caused the wtc7 collapse.
otherwise you would have posted the evidence to my 3 simple questions

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are a random person on the internet, it's your personal opinion against that of the 200-odd scientists, experts and investigators whose findings on the event are widely accepted

No it is not my personal opinion ...I agree with the 2800 experts who are debunking and have debunked the NIST hypothesis

I cannot help it If you cannot be arsed to apply critical thinking ... I can only point you to the flaws in the NIST report

So stop with the claim its personal ... Its silly at this stage

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

You can put them in any engineering forum ... no objection to it

Can you copy paste these answers here then so we can discuss them ?

Or do I need to ask 5 more times .... ?

Funny that you yourself have absolutely no clue how to address my 3 simple questions/ observations based on the NIST report

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 7 was a progressive collapse over around 16 to 20 seconds. Basically the internals gave way

Same question to you that King Mob didn't had the answer for ...He claimed he did so you could copy paste his answer ...If you can find it

How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse sequence ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ?

See ... another simple question that should be easy to find in the report you put up here as evidence

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I already said numerous times there is no solid evidence for controlled demolition ...

Same as there is no solid evidence for office fires caused the wtc7 collapse.
otherwise you would have posted the evidence to my 3 simple questions

Well this is completely false (and dishonest on an incredible level)

There is no "controlled demolition theory" - it doesn't exist in any fleshed out form

There is the widely accepted theory the building fell due to fire

Open up any encyclopedia. I don't know what else to say.

No it is not my personal opinion ...I agree with the 2800 experts who are debunking and have debunked the NIST hypothesis

Again, a weak response. There are an estimated 1.6 million engineers in the US alone.

I cannot help it If you cannot be arsed to apply critical thinking ... I can only point you to the flaws in the NIST report

So stop with the claim its personal ... Its silly at this stage

There's no other explanation I can think of why after 17 years you maintain this bizarre belief that there was some sort of unspecified controlled demolition as part of some unspecified massive secret inside job on 911

Funny that you yourself have absolutely no clue how to address my 3 simple questions/ observations based on the NIST report

Nope, it's a tactic I've witnessed many times over the decade (you'll just reject the answers)

So we'll put them to engineers

List the 3 questions. I've already checked multiple responses to similar Q's from engineering sites, but I'd like your specific questions

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Same question to you that King Mob didn't had the answer for ...He claimed he did so you could copy paste his answer ...If you can find it

Again, my answer is that you don't understand the report. You don't understand what free fall is.
I've been very clear on that.

You haven't even acknowledged the pressing question you've stumbled into and disproves your objections and shows how little you understand:
Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well this is completely false (and dishonest on an incredible level)

There is no "controlled demolition theory" - it doesn't exist in any fleshed out form

There is the widely accepted theory the building fell due to fire

Open up any encyclopedia. I don't know what else to say.



Again, a weak response. There are an estimated 1.6 million engineers in the US alone.



There's no other explanation I can think of why after 17 years you maintain this bizarre belief that there was some sort of unspecified controlled demolition as part of some unspecified massive secret inside job on 911




Nope, it's a tactic I've witnessed many times over the decade (you'll just reject the answers)

So we'll put them to engineers

List the 3 questions. I've already checked multiple responses to similar Q's from engineering sites, but I'd like your specific questions

Okay ... Can you do me a favor and read page 24 of the piece in the link in regards to wtc 7 "the case of wtc7"

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

My questions to you are from that piece ... If you find it to be a CT ers crackpot analysis then that is fine, I will no longer push you to answer any of the points raised.

Myself however find it an intriguing insight into the apparent lack of scientific thinking from NIST's part, and the lack of incorporating new found evidence in its computer model

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, my answer is that you don't understand the report. You don't understand what free fall is.
I've been very clear on that.

You haven't even acknowledged the pressing question you've stumbled into and disproves your objections and shows how little you understand:
Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

Bla bla bla

You said you answered the question re progressive collapse ... point to the relevant post or stop wasting my time

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Bla bla bla

You said you answered the question re progressive collapse ... point to the relevant post or stop wasting my time

Lol, again, you don't understand the report. Your question doesn't make sense as it relies on a misunderstanding of the report. I can't explain this to you as you do not understand basic physics, particularly you do not know what free fall is. This is evidenced by your earlier claims about how "it takes time to reach free fall". And by how you are unable to do a child's physics problem.

The second part of my answer comes with the question you are dodging in the most pathetic and obvious way.
Now, answer the question:
Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

Answer that directly and honestly, then I'll answer whatever questions you demand.

You won't though, and everyone knows why. So why bother pretending?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, again, you don't understand the report. Your question doesn't make sense as it relies on a misunderstanding of the report. I can't explain this to you as you do not understand basic physics, particularly you do not know what free fall is. This is evidenced by your earlier claims about how "it takes time to reach free fall".

The second part of my answer comes with the question you are dodging in the most pathetic and obvious way.
Now, answer the question:
Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

Answer that directly and honestly, then I'll answer whatever questions you demand.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Answer my question ... My knowledge of psychics is irrelevant ... Its the NIST theory re free fall I ask you to anwser

How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse sequence ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ?

You can ether try to answer it or engage in more deflecting tactics ... up to you

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Stop embarrassing yourself

Answer my question ... My knowledge of psychics is irrelevant ... Its the NIST theory re free fall I ask you to anwser

How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse sequence ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ?

You can ether try to answer it or engage in more deflecting tactics ... up to you

Lol. Ok. you got me. The NIST doesn't allow for free fall in it's model. :rolleyes:

So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Ok. you got me. The NIST doesn't allow for free fall in it's model. :rolleyes:

And that doesn't bother you ?

Maybe read the piece I asked DJ to read so you might get a grasp of it

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

And that doesn't bother you ?

Maybe read the piece I asked DJ to read so you might get a grasp of it

Sure does. So convince me of your version.

So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Sure does. So convince me of your version.

I don't have a version

Im arguing against the NIST/your version

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I don't have a version

Im arguing against the NIST/your version

Ok.
So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?
You said that the supports all vanished at the same time.
So why wouldn't the acceleration be the same as gravity from the start?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Okay ... Can you do me a favor and read page 24 of the piece in the link in regards to wtc 7 "the case of wtc7"

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

My questions to you are from that piece ... If you find it to be a CT ers crackpot analysis then that is fine, I will no longer push you to answer any of the points raised.

So these aren't your own questions - they are borrowed from AE911, fine.

Please list your 3 questions, or just link the post link on this thread where you ask them

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?
You said that the supports all vanished at the same time.
So why wouldn't the acceleration be the same as gravity from the start?

If he hasn't answered by now i doubt he ever will, constantly ignores the question or defkects away from it, then berates others claiming they wont answer questions.

Dohnjoe

For anyone reading this

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...n2016-47-4.pdf


As well as addressing this earlier in the thread (it was a non-peer reviewed speculative article submitted to a magazine) - Snopes has given the below overview of it

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

Unfortunately, that truly scientific and impartial study is not this paper. EPN, which is run by the European Physics Agency and owned by EDP Sciences (a company unrelated to the the entity that owns the European Scientific Journal), even put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was “somewhat different” from its “purely scientific articles” in that it includes “some” speculation:

"This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."

These caveats in place, a variety of websites — notably the website Anon HQ — published the claim that this news feature was a scientific article published in the European Scientific Journal, suggesting that because it was peer-reviewed it was a stronger validation than than previously published conspiracy theories. In response, the publishers of the European Scientific Journal issued a statement clarifying that they had nothing to do with the article:

"Regarding the recent developments on social media, we would like to inform the public that neither the European Scientific Journal, ESJ, nor the European Scientific Institute, ESI have published content on 9/11 attacks."

As well as the piece containing debunked information

Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressively promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings. The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash).
Puffs of smoke exploding from below the collapsing towers suggests controlled demolition. (This claim does little to address the simplerexplanation that air pressure from the collapse of one of the largest buildings ever built would have forced air and debris through windows).
The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition. (Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.)