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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I understand WTC7 corner side walls did not crush in on way down. NIST is claiming the building fell down looking like a crushed soda can. Its nonsense especially when you have a video of the real collapse.

Again, you clearly don't understand representations and you don't understand the point of the computer modeling

To you: "if simulation doesn't look exactly like the video, then simulation wrong"

Run a modern day simulation of the titantic hitting an iceberg and it'll likely to look NOTHING like the actual sinking - why? it's a simulation and representation of forces involved and reactions to those forces - what they are looking for is computer model producing a negative, not a Hollywood CGI of the event

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again, you clearly don't understand representations and you don't understand the point of the computer modeling

To you: "if simulation doesn't look exactly like the video, then simulation wrong"

Run a modern day simulation of the titantic hitting an iceberg and it'll likely to look NOTHING like the actual sinking - why? it's a simulation and representation of forces involved and reactions to those forces - what they are looking for is computer model producing a negative, not a Hollywood CGI of the event

The computer model does not have to look like actual collapse, really? You write good and put together nice sentences but your mind works in mysterious ways, that I never understand. You can't just wing it, man.

You cannot claim the building looked like a crushed soda can when people can see for themselves how it came down on video. This is observable evidence. You are so dogmatic the building fell due to fire you willing to just ignore this evidence.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The computer model does not have to look like actual collapse, really?

Correct

Here's a decent explanation for anyone else on the differences between the comp modelling and visual collapse

Quick answer, because simulating this kind of thing is incredibly difficult.

If you were to reassemble WTC 7 a hundred times, start exactly the same fires in it each time, and then wait for it to burn out, you would not get the same collapse each time.

Should be no surprise. Suppose you drop a bottle on the concrete. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just cracks, and sometimes it shatters completely. This is true even if you repeat the conditions as perfectly as you can. The collapse of a large, complex, damaged building is many millions of times more complicated.

This kind of system follows a science called deterministic chaos. Even very small changes in behavior, early on, can lead to visible and seemingly large changes later. Say a weld hangs on for half a second longer than it did last time. Suppose these four bolts don't all let go at the same time. Suppose a column fragment just happens to get wedged between two large pieces and absorbs energy as it flexes, instead of just spearing through the debris.

You can see this effect clearly in the Purdue study of WTC 1 and WTC 2. They ran their simulations dozens of times, making tiny variations in the impact damage, the failure strain of materials, and so on, and found there are quite a few differences between runs. Nobody has bothered to do the same for WTC 7 that I know of, but it certainly could be done. I'd recommend anyone interested contact Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue and start working on an NSF grant.

Now, having said that, the varying WTC 1 and WTC 2 results do have some features in common -- like the fact that virtually all of them do lead to a collapse. That's what these simulations are for. They aren't intended to make things look exactly right. They're intended to provide some insight into the mechanisms of failure, and to determine whether a given hypothesis is plausible.

And that's all NIST does with WTC 7. Their result did not depend on the exterior collapse simulation. Had this happened in the 1990's, the simulation itself would have been impossible! We wouldn't have simply thrown up our hands and said, "gee, we don't have a fast enough computer, guess we'll never know. Could have been fire, and could have been aliens." Indeed, you could remove that entire chapter of the WTC 7 report and lose almost nothing.

What they did, instead, was to set up two trials with different conditions, and see which one was a better fit to what actually happened. This was a quick way to estimate whether the impact damage had any effect on the collapse. And the answer is, yes, it does -- although they also found it's not likely the collapse would have happened any sooner as a result of that damage. But neither case is a perfect match, nor does it need to be.

Truthers whining about how it "looks different" are following the call to perfection logical fallacy. They arbitrarily decide how perfectly they want things to fit, and then complain when their threshold isn't met. You will note that there is no professional complaint about the fidelity of the WTC 7 simulations. Those who understand the report, and why the sim was run in the first place, also understand that a perfect visual match is not expected nor necessary.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211305

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct

Here's a decent explanation for anyone else on the differences between the comp modelling and visual collapse


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211305

A random poster on skeptic forum really? Of course, his rambling post makes sense to you.

Is this the same forum that got confronted and was challenged to debate a real scientist.

Lets post what happened.
Most of the JREF smear artists hide behind pseudonyms. Compare the short list of anonymous, un-credentialed mud-slingers at JREF to the long list of real people with real credentials using real names atPatriotsQuestion911.com­, and ask yourself: Why are so many people willing to risk their jobs and reputations for the truth, while so few will openly defend a lie at no real risk to themselves? The question, I suspect, answers itself. The key word is integrity.

JREF’s latest humiliation: Losing a $1,000 debate challenge from the Association for 9/11 Truth Awareness (ANETA). Last month Rick Shaddock and Michael Frishman of ANETA began posting the 9/11 Physics Debatechallenge on the JREF forum. At issue is whether or not the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics. Qualified physicists with a Hirsch Index of 50 or higher were invited to participate. (The Hirsch Index is a rating of scholarly stature.)

Dr. David Griscom, a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University, stepped forward to defend the proposition that yes, the official story of 9/11 does indeed violate the laws of physics, including Newton’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws. Dr. Griscom’s Hirsch Index is a very respectable 52.

ANETA posted the debate challenge on the JREF forum, hoping that an equally credentialed physicist would quickly step forward to defend mom, apple pie, and the official myth of 9/11. Unfortunately, it seems there are few real names at JREF, and even fewer people (if indeed the JREF entities are actual people) with scholarly credentials. Rather than respond to the challenge, the JREF moderators kept removing ANETA’s debate challenge posts.
But one of the few JREFers with a real name and a modicum of integrity – a certain Chris Mohr – took it upon himself to create his own thread: “9/11 Physics Debate – Any Takers?” The result was typical of JREF: Lots of insults, but no qualified people willing to defend the official story. The only person at JREF willing to debate Dr. Griscom was an entity labeled Frank3373″ who claimed to hold a BA in Liberal Arts with no science courses – and a Hirsch Index of zero!
Couldn’t the JREFers, who fancy themselves experts in everything pertaining to the defencse of the official myth of 9/11, find even ONE credentialed physicist willing to debate Dr. Griscom? At stake: $1,000 for the winner to donate to a charity of his or her choice.

When the date of the big debate arrived – Saturday, March 15th – there was a resounding silence from the official story side. Evidently no qualified physicist on earth could explain how the government’s version of the destruction of the World Trade Center can coexist with the basic laws of physics.

https://www.meetup.com/tr-TR/StLouis...hread/42714932

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe is going to have explain at a future date why Dr Hulsey computer simulation that matches the actual collapse is wrong. Watch the Skeptics get in a tizzy fit when this report comes out.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A random poster on skeptic forum really? Of course, his rambling post makes sense to you.

Makes perfect sense

Did Larry Silverstein have WTC 1 and WTC 2 secretly blown up also?

Who did he hire to blow up WTC 7? (were they like "men in black"?)

How much were they paid?

Do you have any of their names?

A little reminder on the level of insanity we are dealing with here

King Mob

just a remind Cheerful that after months of avoiding and weaseling away from a simple children's physics problem, when you finally attempt to answer it, you get it completely wrong.
You don't get to talk about the laws of physics when you have demonstrated a complete and utter ignorance of them.

Gravity does not "work differently" inside of buildings.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

just a remind Cheerful that after months of avoiding and weaseling away from a simple children's physics problem, when you finally attempt to answer it, you get it completely wrong.
You don't get to talk about the laws of physics when you have demonstrated a complete and utter ignorance of them.

Gravity does not "work differently" inside of buildings.

Still waiting for your answer what happened in stage 1 and 3 of WTC7 collapse. Kingmob are you going to reply?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still waiting for your answer what happened in stage 1 and 3 of WTC7 collapse. Kingmob are you going to reply?

Nobody has to reply to this garbage

This is a thread about what alternatively happened - and that part is completely void except for your cobbled together explanations that change depending on what day of the week it is

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nobody has to reply to this garbage

This is a thread about what alternatively happened - and that part is completely void except for your cobbled together explanations that change depending on what day of the week it is

You're a funny man. We should stop talking about what NIST says? How does that work when they are making the claim fire brought down the building? You have to review their evidence and check if it's true.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You're a funny man. We should stop talking about what NIST says?

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

Thread post: Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

Note the bolded part

If you have any alternative theories please provide them, with credible evidence. You haven't done that yet.

Dohnjoe

140 pages in, still waiting for one alternative theory that isn't sourced by pseudo-science, quacks or completely made up on the fly

What's most interesting is the striking similarites with Sandy Hook truthers and Moon landing hoaxers. Almost to a tee.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Thread post: Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

Note the bolded part

If you have any alternative theories please provide them, with credible evidence. You haven't done that yet.

Dr Hulsey a forensic engineer will show us scientifically why the building fell down.

Dr Hulsey will be realising his data to the public to be replicated. His work can actually be peer-reviewed scientifically. NIST refused to release their data for a peer review and claimed the could not due to public safety.

NIST wrote
FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

Dr Hulsey will release everything nothing will be kept back.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey a forensic engineer will show us scientifically why the building fell down.

Am very interested in this report and equally skeptical

Hulsey's report is nearly 2 years late (was due to be completed April 2017)
He is one expert (no consensus)
His early results have been shown to be flawed
He is attempting to prove a negative (unscientific)
He is entirely funded by a conspiracy theorist pseudo-scientific group and regularly meets with them
He initially claimed the report would show the building didn't fall due to fire, which is highly unscientific (it's supposed to be in the results), this was removed very quickly

It does stink of quackery from start to finish

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey will be realising his data to the public to be replicated. His work can actually be peer-reviewed scientifically. NIST refused to release their data for a peer review and claimed the could not due to public safety.

The NIST report was peer reviewed however.
You invented an arm of the conspiracy to dismiss that fact.
It was very embarrassing on your part, but hilarious to watch.

Dohnjoe

Christ I keep getting side-tracked, the deflection actually works

I'll bold this so I don't forget

1. CS you state as fact that Larry Silverstein "blew up" up WTC 7, did he also blow up the WTC 1 and 2? (this is literally the 7th or 8th time I've asked this)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Am very interested in this report and equally skeptical

Hulsey's report is nearly 2 years late (was due to be completed April 2017)
He is one expert (no consensus)
His early results have been shown to be flawed
He is attempting to prove a negative (unscientific)
He is entirely funded by a conspiracy theorist pseudo-scientific group and regularly meets with them
He initially claimed the report would show the building didn't fall due to fire, which is highly unscientific (it's supposed to be in the results), this was removed very quickly

It does stink of quackery from start to finish

NIST took 6 years with plenty of help and better funding. Dr Hulsey teaches at Universty so he can't use all his time on this. He had two PhD students helping him. He not going to rush a study that he plans to have peer-reviewed.

The early results flawed says who the JREF forum? None of them is qualified to judge. They are just die-hard debunkers on this forum. We have to wait and see if qualified engineers and architects think about it when the time comes.

JREF forum has got confronted numerous times to debate 9/11 and they backed off.

Not true. Hulsey has to show how he reached his conclusions with hard data. Testable conditions and replication are how one solves problems and proves a scientific theory.

Skeptics were not going to fund this study. That not proof of anything or the study at the beginning was flawed. It shows the truth movement is not all mouth they are willing to spend hard cash to show the truth.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true. Hulsey has to show how he reached his conclusions with hard data. Testable conditions and replication are how one solves problems and proves a scientific theory.

Skeptics were not going to fund this study. That not proof of anything or the study at the beginning was flawed. It shows the truth movement is not all mouth they are willing to spend hard cash to show the truth.

And another reminder:
After dozens of pages avoiding a child's physics problem, you answered it hilariously wrong.
When asked to produce your math, you said that you just guessed.
You are a complete joke.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And another reminder:
After dozens of pages avoiding a child's physics problem, you answered it hilariously wrong.
When asked to produce your math, you said that you just guessed.
You are a complete joke.

Says the guy who not answer a basic question? What happened to WTC7 in stage 1 and 3 of progressive collapse?

Refuses to answer you are a joke.

I already gave you the math on how to solve it.

Your question was nonsense anyhow because inside the building is not empty space. You are questions are borne from ignorance.

The math was solved 6+ seconds with no air resistance and about 8 seconds with air resistance. You have to know the conditions of the air in 2001 to truly calculate it accurately. Newton physics only gives you a rough estimate of how fast the ball travels from the roofline to the ground.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your question was nonsense anyhow because inside the building is not empty space. You are questions are borne from ignorance.

The math was solved 6+ seconds with no air resistance and about 8 seconds with air resistance. You have to know the conditions of the air in 2001 to truly calculate it accurately. Newton physics only gives you a rough estimate of how fast the ball travels from the roofline to the ground.

All of this is abject nonsense.
You did not give the math you used to solve it as you don't know the math.
This is because you know nothing about physics.

You previously said "8-9 seconds" you are now trying to rewrite history again as you've been show up as the utter joke you are.

Also like how you use "Newton physics" to try and sound smart. It's precious.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Says the guy who not answer a basic question? What happened to WTC7 in stage 1 and 3 of progressive collapse?

Refuses to answer you are a joke.

I already gave you the math on how to solve it.

Your question was nonsense anyhow because inside the building is not empty space. You are questions are borne from ignorance.

The math was solved 6+ seconds with no air resistance and about 8 seconds with air resistance. You have to know the conditions of the air in 2001 to truly calculate it accurately. Newton physics only gives you a rough estimate of how fast the ball travels from the roofline to the ground.

I've just spat coffee everywhere and laughed for 3 minutes solid after reading that. You really are the gift that keeps on giving :pac:

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to know the conditions of the air in 2001 to truly calculate it accurately. Newton physics only gives you a rough estimate of how fast the ball travels from the roofline to the ground.

Actually, I'm curious...
What air conditions do you need to know exactly?
Please be specific. And don't worry about being too technical...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is abject nonsense.
You did not give the math you used to solve it as you don't know the math.
This is because you know nothing about physics.

You previously said "8-9 seconds" you are now trying to rewrite history again as you've been show up as the utter joke you are.

9/11 there was dust in the air the environmental conditions were not clean. You have to know exactly the quality of air on 9/11.

226metres is the size of WTC7 it takes about 6+ seconds for the ball to reach the ground from that height. The problem is the air resistance on 9/11, you have to factor this in.

Anyway, what relevance has the ball dropped from the roof got?

You do not even answer a basic question about the NIST claims about the progressive collapse?

What took place in Stage 1 and 3. You claim I got it wrong when I said motion of gravity acted differently inside WTC7.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I've just spat coffee everywhere and laughed for 3 minutes solid after reading that. You really are the gift that keeps on giving :pac:

Kingmob claims I don't know how gravity works inside a building?

I asked him to explain the NIST collapse model specifically stage 1 and 3. See how he refuses to answer a basic question?

Since it you, i asking too much;)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is abject nonsense.
You did not give the math you used to solve it as you don't know the math.
This is because you know nothing about physics.

You previously said "8-9 seconds" you are now trying to rewrite history again as you've been show up as the utter joke you are.

Also like how you use "Newton physics" to try and sound smart. It's precious.

The only joke is you. Refusing to answer a question and then ramble on as if it does not matter.

If you going to take the position fire collapsed building 7 then you should by right know every detail. You don't understand this, that's the problem with debunkers like you.

You go to the easy targets. Who planted the devices, who did it and continue to ignore the engineering problems.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST took 6 years with plenty of help and better funding. Dr Hulsey teaches at Universty so he can't use all his time on this. He had two PhD students helping him. He not going to rush a study that he plans to have peer-reviewed.

You aren't his "spokesman" so don't pretend to start making excuses for this, if he comes out in 6 months and claims that WTC 7 did actually fall due to fire, you'll drop him like everything else, claim he was bought or some bull**** (watch this space)

The NIST was an actual investigation, involving the evidence, multiple opinions (not just one)

Again, you aren't interested in proper investigations, proper science, proper consensus, all you want is the conspiracy, at any cost

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to know the conditions of the air in 2001 to truly calculate it accurately. Newton physics only gives you a rough estimate of how fast the ball travels from the roofline to the ground.

Haha, jesus christ, everything is just made up on the fly

By the way, still waiting for an answer, going to bold it again

1. CS you state as fact that Larry Silverstein "blew up" up WTC 7, did he also blow up the WTC 1 and 2?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You aren't his "spokesman" so don't pretend to start making excuses for this, if he comes out in 6 months and claims that WTC 7 did actually fall due to fire, you'll drop him like everything else, claim he was bought or some bull**** (watch this space)

The NIST was an actual investigation, involving the evidence, multiple opinions (not just one)

Again, you aren't interested in proper investigations, proper science, proper consensus, all you want is the conspiracy, at any cost

The study is completed is not like it not coming out very soon. This is serious stuff it can't be rushed and be incomplete. This study is going to be compared to the NIST study so there can't be any omissions, or errors and problems.

I would not if Dr Hulsey said the fires was the cause and explained why I accept it.

You believe NIST even though we can prove categorically they made false statements.

When NIST spokesperson claim they know of nobody who saw Molten steel in the rubble, I knew right there and then this was a cover-up. It was reported by the mainstream press newspapers and eyewitnesses, the cleanup crews and firefighters on video their own words, saw the steel melted in the rubble. It took over 100 days to put out hot fires.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The study is completed is not like it not coming out very soon. This is serious stuff it can't be rushed and be incomplete. This study is going to be compared to the NIST study so there can't be any omissions, or errors and problems.

It's not going to be compared to the NIST, because it's nothing like the NIST. It's a bizarre concept, proving a negative, it's the equivalent of an investigator approaching a case with the intent of "proving" it wasn't the culprit and then walking away from the case without explaining who it was. Or an aircraft investigation case that intends to prove a plane crash wasn't the result of a bird strike, and then walking away from producing an actual result

And this isn't an investigation team, it's one man. Paid by conspiracy theorists to have one conclusion.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob claims I don't know how gravity works inside a building?

I asked him to explain the NIST collapse model specifically stage 1 and 3. See how he refuses to answer a basic question?

Since it you, i asking too much;)

You honestly believe gravity works differently inside a building?