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

Cheerful Spring

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?

NIST progressive collapse 3 stages are based on what took place when the building descended 18 floors on the north side. It based on a three-stage calculation of 5.4 seconds.

The first stage according to NIST is when the roofline descended and moved downwards a few floors roughly took 1.75 seconds. According to NIST, there was slight resistance at this point so it can't be freefall

The second stage was 2.25 seconds, Roughly a collapse of 100 feet 8 floors. The building descended at freefall speeds.

Many are not aware of this NIST released a draft report of the final report in August 2008 and report made no mention of freefall or these stages. It was only when David Chandler questioned the science in a news conference NIST held and only later in Nov 2008 NIST released a new update with these stages and now included freefall.

So for all this time, NIST did not even know WTC7 had descended at freefall speeds. How they miss it if they are supposedly the experts?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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/





As well as the piece containing debunked information

They released because they thought it was scientific even if their speculation involved. The editors have to say this to avoid controversy there very strong opinions on the other side and they do this to avoid backlash.

Cheerful Spring

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?

NIST version of freefall doesn't hold up. 82 columns would have to be missing for 8 floors to descend at freefall speeds.

Their own model does even show how freefall occurred, not that i can see. They have blue sections ( they are floors and columns) still intact in the middle section and west section.

Freefall can only occur when columns across the width of the building on every floor are gone.

You see in this video more clearly.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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/





As well as the piece containing debunked information

Uhh the article starts with

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
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.

Maybe before posting try at least read what you are talking about


You didn't read the article so ?

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

Ahhh Timbeerrr

Any more dead reddit links to share ?

Or sites that contradicts the actual point you are trying to make ?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

It's fact it not in dispute no steel framed high rise building has collapsed due to just fire alone before 9/11 or after. The building in Iran did not even collapse just to fire.. The firefighters suspected gas explosions brought the building down.

Depends what part of the building partially collapsed. Be more specific show examples of this.

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

Uhh the article starts with




Maybe before posting try at least read what you are talking about


You didn't read the article so ?

Snopes ignored this part.
sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers

Timberrrrrrrr

weisses wrote: »

Ahhh Timbeerrr

Any more dead reddit links to share ?

Or sites that contradicts the actual point you are trying to make ?

Ahhhh more deflection

Are you ever going to answer the question that has been asked of you?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Ahhh Timbeerrr

Any more dead reddit links to share ?

Or sites that contradicts the actual point you are trying to make ?

Why was the acceleration less than acceleration due to gravity in the first stage of the collapse?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Uhh the article starts with




Maybe before posting try at least read what you are talking about


You didn't read the article so ?

I have read it before (it was on Metabunk)

What are your 3 questions?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The building in Iran did not even collapse just to fire.. The firefighters suspected gas explosions brought the building down.

It was concluded that fire brought down Plasco

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was concluded that fire brought down Plasco

Concluded by the government? The firefighters reported gas explosions when putting out the fires. I believe the Iranian firefighters personally.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Concluded by the government?

Concluded by the official investigation by the Iranians into the collapse and it's causes

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Concluded by the official investigation by the Iranians into the collapse and it's causes

By the Iranian government. Who do you trust the firefighters or a government who has agenda to cover up? You should know by now governments lie all the time. You saw that with Russian Salisbury case. Putin calls agents of the GRU civilians. Do you think governments are truthful? Do you think the Americans were truthful about the Iraq war?

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ahhhh more deflection

Are you ever going to answer the question that has been asked of you?

NIST using that time to account for the bucling of the columns ... Its common knowledge NIST asserts that

KM knows that ... He knows that I know that ... he just likes to play mind games

Timberrrrrrrr

weisses wrote: »

NIST using that time to account for the bucling of the columns ... Its common knowledge NIST asserts that

KM knows that ... He knows that I know that ... he just likes to play mind games

And again you dodge, why not answer the question instead of avoiding it?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

NIST using that time to account for the bucling of the columns ... Its common knowledge NIST asserts that

KM knows that ... He knows that I know that ... he just likes to play mind games

Yup, I do know that's the real explanation.
But you don't accept the real explanation.

So if it wasn't the buckling of the columns, what was it?

Why was the acceleration less than that of gravity in the first stage of collapse?

Cheerful Spring

NIST progressive collapse makes no sense anyhow. How can 47 floors collapsing not produce dust plumes? Where did that dust and debris disappear to?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

By the Iranian government. Who do you trust the firefighters or a government who has agenda to cover up? You should know by now governments lie all the time. You saw that with Russian Salisbury case. Putin calls agents of the GRU civilians. Do you think governments are truthful? Do you think the Americans were truthful about the Iraq war?

What would the Iranians be covering it up? a building went on fire. The building owners were found to have ignored multiple warnings about the building safety.

It was investigated because many people died

Why should I trust an internet conspiracy theorist (no offence) who watches youtube and makes up things in their head over the official investigation which had no reason to lie and had access to the site and all the evidence?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I have read it before (it was on Metabunk)

What are your 3 questions?

So your rambling above doesnt make any sense in regards to the article ... Thanks for clearing that up

1

NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible

Correct assertion yes or no ?

I leave it at 1 question

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would the Iranians be covering it up? a building went on fire. The building owners were found to have ignored multiple warnings about the building safety.

It was investigated because many people died

Why should I trust an internet conspiracy theorist (no offence) who watches youtube and makes up things in their head over the official investigation which had no reason to lie and had access to the site and all the evidence?

Insurance reasons, public harmony. Firefighters got killed by gas canisters stored in the building (the reason the building came down). I not sure what the laws are in Iran, and can people be prosecuted for this? Iranian government could be protecting the owner of the building?

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And again you dodge, why not answer the question instead of avoiding it?

Uhhh I was asked

King Mob wrote: »

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

Because of the buckling of the columns I answered (NIST its conclusion) ...What am I dodging ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Correct assertion yes or no ?

I leave it at 1 question

Fine, I'll put that to several engineering forums when I have some time (to sign up, create accounts, etc)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Because of the buckling of the columns I answered (NIST its conclusion) ...What am I dodging ?

So hang on now...
Are you saying that the times that you provided and said you believed aren't actually accurate?
That is some pathetic back tracking on your part.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, I do know that's the real explanation.
But you don't accept the real explanation.

So if it wasn't the buckling of the columns, what was it?

Why was the acceleration less than that of gravity in the first stage of collapse?

Wasn't there a discrepancy about how NIST could exactly time it to the 5.4 seconds ...Something with the roofline ...

The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed.

NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

SO when NIST says its the buckling of the columns how do they explain all outer columns disappearing simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So hang on now...
Are you saying that the times that you provided and said you believed aren't actually accurate?

Please elaborate

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Insurance reasons, public harmony. Firefighters got killed by gas canisters stored in the building (the reason the building came down). I not sure what the laws are in Iran, and can people be prosecuted for this? Iranian government could be protecting the owner of the building?

The Iranian government blamed the owners of the building

Do you genuinely believe you know more about the collapse of the building than the investigation?

This is relevant
https://www.psypost.org/2018/08/people-with-a-conspiracy-mentality-show-less-of-a-bias-in-favor-of-historical-experts-study-finds-52070
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Please elaborate

Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?:

weisses wrote: »

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

If not, what are the accurate numbers?

Remember, that you said:

weisses wrote: »

I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds

Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct.
If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

Dohnjoe

Apt quote from Alberto Brandolini

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?:


If not, what are the accurate numbers?

Remember, that you said:

Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct.
If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

deleted