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

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How did they plant all of the explosives? And why bother? A load of planes crashing into buildings in America is enough justification for war.

How do you explain Bin Laden discussing organising the attacks?

He did not that well-known manipulation by the US government.

On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast an analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be both inaccurate and manipulative stating "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."[7]

Cheerful Spring

buzzerxx wrote: »

I think it was cotrolled demolition.
I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.

Definitely for WTC7 that collapse could not occur due to just fire. NIST explanation is ridiculous 47 floors collapsed internally and there no evidence of that on video. Where did the enormous dust clouds from an internal collapse end up going, space, someone scooped it up, UFO dropped in and beamed the dust up into their mothership?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So when you say controlled demolition, what do you mean?
What method was used? And how do you know?

Based on historical precedent before and after 9/11.

Well no high steel framed building in modern Europe and North America has collapsed due to just fire alone. Many steel framed high rise buildings have caught fire worse then WTC7 and have survived and not collapsed.

What strange about WTC7 is collapsed in a way that not natural. It collapsed if was rigged to be demolition. If fire truly brought down that building down then the building would behave differently when came down.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm?
How long would it take a ball to drop from the same height as WTC7?

Have we not addressed this already in this thread. You fixated with a ball dropped from roof of WTC7 to the ground. In your own words explain why you think this important to know and how it explains Freefall occurring internally inside building 7? I still puzzled by this?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have we not addressed this already in this thread.

Nope. Not once. Only whining about it. You have never provided an answer to this.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I still puzzled by this?

I know. It's because you can't do a simple physics problem.
The fact you can't provide an answer shows that you don't know any physics or math and that you don't understand what free fall is.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Not once. Only whining about it. You have never provided an answer to this.

I know. It's because you can't do a simple physics problem.
The fact you can't provide an answer shows that you don't know any physics or math and that you don't understand what free fall is.

Your question is dumb in the first place. I still trying to understand what significance the ball dropped from the roof has?

Do you think the ball falling from the roof was falling at the same rate as WTC7?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your question is dumb in the first place. I still trying to understand what significance the ball dropped from the roof has?

You give me a number and the math you used to reach that number, then we'll talk.

Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.
The fact you can't answer a simple physics problem proves that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You give me a number and the math you used to reach that number, then we'll talk.

Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.
The fact you can't answer a simply physics problem proves that.

What number? There no force pushing back when freefall occurs. Which obviously would not be the case as told you before if a ball got dropped from WTC7 roof.

Your question is nonsense because nobody claiming WTC7 collapsed entirely in freefall from roof to the ground. You forming these ridiculous notions in your head thinking you know something when you don't.

What occurred in WTC7 was a collapse of supporting columns and core columns for 2.25 seconds at the speed of freefall. There was no force pushing backing underneath.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What number? .

How long it would take for a ball dropped from the same height as WTC7 to reach the ground.

Please give your answer in seconds.

Please show your work. Just like in school.

Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

How long it would take for a ball dropped from the same height as WTC7 to reach the ground.

Please give your answer in seconds.

Please show your work. Just like in school.

Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.

Whatever the height of WTC7 is from the roof to the ground. You then have to calculate then with 9.81 m/s^2 to get your answer in seconds.

Again what this got to do with the collapse of WTC7.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Whatever the height of WTC7 is from the roof to the ground. You then have to calculate then with 9.81 m/s^2 to get your answer in seconds.

OH! You're almost there!
You can do it!

Please work out how long it would take.
How do you calculate it?

Again what this got to do with the collapse of WTC7.

By not being able to answer the very simple question, it shows that you can't do basic math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.
Hence, your opinions about the physics of WTC7 are worthless. And your previous claim, that those who disagree with your insane conspiracy theories are ignorant of physics and engineering, is hilarious.

It's also really funny to watch you flounder around the fact you can't answer it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

OH! You're almost there!
You can do it!

Please work out how long it would take.
How do you calculate it?

By not being able to answer the very simple question, it shows that you can't do basic math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.
Hence, your opinions about the physics of WTC7 are worthless. And your previous claim, that those who disagree with your insane conspiracy theories are ignorant of physics and engineering, is hilarious.

It's also really funny to watch you flounder around the fact you can't answer it.

This not a math class. 226m (WTC7) off the top of my head 8 to 9 seconds it would take.

Am I wrong teacher?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This not a math class. 226m (WTC7) off the top of my head 8 to 9 seconds it would take.

You tell me. How did you work it out? Show your math and the equations you used.
You do understand math and physics, right? So why is it so difficult for you?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You tell me. How did you work it out? Show your math and the equations you used.
You do understand math and physics, right? So why is it so difficult for you?

You telling me you claim I don't what talking about. What figure did you get? I had to know how to do to get that figure I can't waffle about it and nobody in the 9/11 conspiracy is calculating balls falling from the roof of WTC7, anyhow

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What figure did you get?

Not 8-9 seconds.

Again, you're the one who has to prove they can do simple math.
But you keep avoiding it.

Try again. Please show the equations you use to reach your answer.

Or you can be brave and honest like a big boy and admit that you can't do the math.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Not 8-9 seconds.

Again, you're the one who has to prove they can do simple math.
But you keep avoiding it.

Try again. Please show the equations you use to reach your answer.

Or you can be brave and admit that you can't do the math.

Show how you arrived it was not 8 and 9 seconds. I asking math from you now:) I want to see if you even know yourself before I go any further on this.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Show how you arrived it was not 8 and 9 seconds. I asking math from you now:) I want to see if you even know yourself before I go any further on this.

Lol. :rolleyes:
So again, you can't do math.
You don't understand physics.
You don't know what free fall is.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. :rolleyes:
So again, you can't do math.
You don't understand physics.
You don't know what free fall is.

I want to see your calculation. You asked the question and I gave your answer in seconds.

You said is wrong the answer I gave.

Now show everyone how you provided me wrong, please and thank you.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I want to see your calculation. You asked the question and I gave your answer in seconds.

You said is wrong the answer I gave.

Now show everyone how you provided me wrong, please and thank you.

Lol. Ok.
Anyone can quickly use Wolfram Alpha to check his answer.
8-9 seconds, on top of being woefully imprecise is also very wrong.
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Ok.
Anyone can quickly use Wolfram Alpha to check his answer.
8-9 seconds, on top of being woefully imprecise is also very wrong.
:rolleyes:

Why you asking other people to checks answers for you. It's your question?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which begs the elementary questions

1. Who ordered that WTC 7 be blown up? what was the chain of command?
2. Who carried out the preparation of the building for demolition? names, details, etc
3. Why did they blow up WTC 7? motive?
4. If an answer is given for 3. why didn't they carry that out when they were preparing the entire building for demolition? alternatively why didn't they let fire do the job?
5. What was the added value of taking a risk to "blow up" a 47 story building in the middle of NY under the gaze of the world's media, governments, foreign intelligence agencies during the most significant event of the 21st century/
6. How was it coordinated with the rest of the attacks that day? what if the planes missed the towers, how would they explain this building in NY entirely rigged to explode?
7. There are constantly leaks from the White House, CIA, FBI, the NSA, why are there no leaks about this after 17 years?
8. Why are there no witnesses, no whistle-blowers, no deathbed confessions?

This is basic stuff. Motives, suspects, witnesses, credible evidence. Evidence has to corroborate other evidence. Any tribunal for reinvestigation would need this.

Here are some things that don't wash. Making personal claims like "it looks like a demolition to me so it has to be" isn't evidence. Personal acts of incredulity: "I can't believe a building fell down due to fire, that's impossible, therefore it must have been secretly blown up with silent explosives". Appeal to experts or authority is pointless if they only represent a highly isolated view. Likewise declaring that an inside job exists because "no one can prove the official story to me personally" - that's literally how flat-earthers validate their theory. And last but not least, calling people idiots for not accepting a very obviously far-fetched theory - unsurprisingly 911 is banned or harshly moderated on many engineering forums due to that kind of thinking

The only question you should ask yourself is ..could office fires bring down a building in symmetrical free fall ....


And the answer is NO

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

The only question you should ask yourself is ..could office fires bring down a building in symmetrical free fall ....


And the answer is NO

It goes without saying, personal beliefs have zero bearing on an event. The fact that someone is incredulous about something also doesn't mean anything. "I can't believe that men landed on the moon, with that 60's technology, no way!".. means absolutely nothing.

Even more bizarre is maintaining a view that a building collapsing due to fire is completely implausible, while at the same time maintaining a view that a secret plot to silently blow it up is entirely plausible

Event happens.
"No amount of evidence or consensus for theory X will ever convince me it happened"
"I accept theory Y with little or no evidence"

Words cannot describe how utterly ridiculous that is. Also it's not like it's some unobtainable truth or mystery, you could literally go to the engineering department of any university, go to any (recognised) organisation of engineers or architects, write to any recognised publication and they'll literally give you the answer.

There is no logic or critical thinking to these types of views, it's a dogmatic blindspot. Or worse; faulty thinking.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It goes without saying, personal beliefs have zero bearing on an event. The fact that someone is incredulous about something also doesn't mean anything. "I can't believe that men landed on the moon, with that 60's technology, no way!".. means absolutely nothing.

Even more bizarre is maintaining a view that a building collapsing due to fire is completely implausible, while at the same time maintaining a view that a secret plot to silently blow it up is entirely plausible

Event happens.
"No amount of evidence or consensus for theory X will ever convince me it happened"
"I accept theory Y with little or no evidence"

Words cannot describe how utterly ridiculous that is. Also it's not like it's some unobtainable truth or mystery, you could literally go to the engineering department of any university, go to any (recognised) organisation of engineers or architects, write to any recognised publication and they'll literally give you the answer.

There is no logic or critical thinking to these types of views, it's a dogmatic blindspot. Or worse; faulty thinking.

It is implausible as NIST claims the collapse started on floor 12-13, column 79 and this caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors inside the building. Groups not with the conspiracy movement have debunked this explanation. I provided you prove of that. Where we at then?

Again the other groups explantation is just as stupid, because how do floors just fall down from fires that are protected by shear studs and fasteners and web plates. Fires were collapsing steel high rise buildings there be no issue, but the skeptics claim its possible because a building made of some steel collapsed in Iran. Even though we know the building in Iran was suspect and was in bad nick an if gas explosions went off, would be an issue.

The fact the found steel melted in WTC7 wreckage is why i maintain fires did not bring down that building. Its scientifically impossible for a low temp fire to melt steel through, can't happen. If fires were at 1200c in WTC7 yes it possible, but we know fires were only 400c in the afternoon

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is implausible as NIST claims the collapse started on floor 12-13, column 79 and this caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors inside the building. Groups not with the conspiracy movement have debunked this explanation. I provided you prove of that. Where we at then?

Again the other groups explantation is just as stupid, because how do floors just fall down from fires that are protected by shear studs and fasteners and web plates. Fires were collapsing steel high rise buildings there be no issue, but the skeptics claim its possible because a building made of some steel collapsed in Iran. Even though we know the building in Iran was suspect and was in bad nick an if gas explosions went off, would be an issue.

The fact the found steel melted in WTC7 wreckage is why i maintain fires did not bring down that building. Its scientifically impossible for a low temp fire to melt steel through, can't happen. If fires were at 1200c in WTC7 yes it possible, but we know fires were only 400c in the afternoon

Translation "I can't believe the building fell due to fire so it didn't"

Cool, but it means nothing. Feel free to present your unique version

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Translation "I can't believe the building fell due to fire so it didn't"

Cool, but it means nothing. Feel free to present your unique version

The fire explantation, not a good explanation for why the Steel melted. If normal office fires can do this why do we not see evidence elsewhere of this occurring? Find evidence of this online. Steel Buildings catch fire all the time and I never saw steel melt at a low temp?

Fires are known to burn things inside buildings, not collapse buildings. We be in serious trouble if fires were able to topple buildings to dust.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The fire explantation, not a good explanation for why the Steel melted. If normal office fires can do this why do we not see evidence elsewhere of this occurring? Find evidence of this online. Steel Buildings catch fire all the time and I never saw steel melt at a low temp?

Fires are known to burn things inside buildings, not collapse buildings. We be in serious trouble if fires were able to topple buildings to dust.

So how's that math coming? Still can't do it?

If not, then your opinion about what is and is not possible and what did or did not happen is not really worth taking seriously.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The fire explantation, not a good explanation for why the Steel melted. If normal office fires can do this why do we not see evidence elsewhere of this occurring? Find evidence of this online. Steel Buildings catch fire all the time and I never saw steel melt at a low temp?

Fires are known to burn things inside buildings, not collapse buildings. We be in serious trouble if fires were able to topple buildings to dust.

"Melting" steel is not what caused the building to fall.

Many steel framed structures are recorded as collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire. WTC 5, a steel framed building, partially collapsed

Sorry you were busy explaining how WTC 7 being "blown up" was part of a giant secret plot that only you know about, you were giving details, go on.. I have many questions about this

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Melting" steel is not what caused the building to fall.

Many steel framed structures are recorded as collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire. WTC 5, a steel framed building, partially collapsed

Sorry you were busy explaining how WTC 7 being "blown up" was part of a giant secret plot that only you know about, you were giving details, go on.. I have many questions about this

It was was documented by FEMA in 2002, they found steel pieces that melted and left holes that you see right through. How does an office fire melt steel when there not enough combustibles? You just can't dismiss this and ignore it. If you believe it occurred in the aftermath of collapse, studies need to be done to show how it was achieved.

Why not a plot occurred on 9/11 and men boarded planes and attacked buildings. Would you have envisioned a crazy scenario like this pre 9/11 would you have thought it was possible. This was the stuff of hollywood pre 9/11. What do you really know about hijackers, like the history of how the ended up in America is not well documented. Who recruited them, what were they doing pre 2000. You have taken it for granted you have been told everything.

Partial collapse it just an area of the building losing structural stability. It not the same as an entire building coming down. If the building floors and roof are collapsing before the big event of full collapse then we should see evidence of this across the width of the building. I don't see dust from 47 floors collapsing coming through windows.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was was documented by FEMA in 2002

"Melting steel" was not the reason that WTC 7 fell. That might be your interpretation but it's not the findings

Why not a plot occurred on 9/11 and men boarded planes and attacked buildings. Would you have envisioned a crazy scenario like this pre 9/11 would you have thought it was possible. This was the stuff of hollywood pre 9/11. What do you really know about hijackers, like the history of how the ended up in America is not well documented. Who recruited them, what were they doing pre 2000. You have taken it for granted you have been told everything.

Which is precisely the same fallacy that individuals use to justify their theories of energy weapons and "mini-nukes"

Partial collapse it just an area of the building losing structural stability.

And what caused the partial collapse of the building? Think before you write

Cheerful Spring

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................0

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Melting steel" was not the reason that WTC 7 fell. That might be your interpretation but it's not the findings



Which is precisely the same fallacy that individuals use to justify their theories of energy weapons and "mini-nukes"



And what caused the partial collapse of the building? Think before you write

What caused the steel to melt then? Do you believe in scientific principles? Go ahead and show me one video or experiment showing steel melting in a fire that is in the range of 400c to 600c. If you can i walk away now.

They believe in wild theories that not supported by evidence. If Nukes went off, why was there no nuclear fallout? The Energy weapons was used is stupid because how do you cover up something like this happening on live TV? And Dr Judy theory does not make lot of sense. The interview she had done about her theory was enlighting. She could not address basic questions about her theory.

What building you referring to? You have to look at every case of collapse individually. Some buildings collapse due to inadequate floor design or bad construction.

What caused a 47 floor building to come crashing down on 9/11. NIST explantation for this has been proven to be false over time. We also know they manipulated information and introduced false facts about the construction of the building. I don't trust NIST when they started omitting construction elements from steel girders and beams. Why you doing that when these items were placed on girders by construction workers?