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
196979899101

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    So it’s an image effect you have no way to explain, when the glaringly obvious explanation is that is a worker using a metal cutting tool, which is sending sparks flying everywhere. We see similar in the video dohnjoe posted.

    It not and you see why not if you watched Dohnjoe video. He picked out one spot with sparks pouring down from a height. He did not show you the sparks on the ground ( do you know why they disappear its magic;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    But you just said they were droplets flowing down a slope not small pools.

    If they are small pools why are there no other images of this? Show me even a second photo that would support that these are dozens or more tiny little baby molten pools (which are magically staying molten, for no apparent reason) and not sparks in motion from a steel cutting tool.

    You said droplets, I said liquid.

    It's a real image it clear as day it is. I can't find every private image taken on 9/11 and especially images not uploaded to the web.

    It clear as day the anomalies are caused by the two firemen. If you put on your thinking cap you see this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You said droplets, I said liquid.

    It's a real image it clear as day it is. I can't find every private image taken on 9/11 and especially images not uploaded to the web.

    It clear as day the anomalies are caused by the two firemen. If you put on your thinking cap you see this?

    Oh I’ve put on my thinking cap. Hence why I am able to see that it’s a steel cutting tool.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It not and you see why not if you watched Dohnjoe video. He picked out one spot with sparks pouring down from a height. He did not show you the sparks on the ground ( do you know why they disappear its magic;)

    They disappear at rest for the same reason little baby pools of liquid would not exist at rest the way you describe: they cool down.

    Sparks do, however, bounce.





  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    If you put on your thinking cap you see this?

    All irrelevant unless you can offer a theory on how they planted explosives in the buildings.

    Lets try again.

    The people who planted the explosives.

    Who are they?

    How did they get in the buildings?

    What explosives did they use?

    What floors did they have access to? And what parts of those floors?

    Do these access points correlate to where they would've had to place explosives to bring the buildings down?

    You mentioned the lower third of WT7. Wheres the evidence that people were in there placing explosives?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    I can substantially prove an office fire occurred, whereas I have no evidence which can prove there was any thermite present.

    How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

    That was my question

    I see a pattern here of avoiding simple questions .... you want me to put them in bold next time ?

    King Mob isn't capable of explaining it ... reading your replies I think you don't grasp it either

    You can even use your cherished NIST report ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because the collapse started at the beginning of stage one. Throughout stage one the facade of the building was falling and experiencing resistance from the supports as they failed.
    Then, after those supports failed, there was no more resistance, so the building could fall at free fall acceleration, which is stage 2.

    And you blame others they don't understand Physics :D

    giphy.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

    That was my question

    I see a pattern here of avoiding simple questions .... you want me to put them in bold next time ?

    King Mob isn't capable of explaining it ... reading your replies I think you don't grasp it either

    You can even use your cherished NIST report ...

    A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

    Now speaking of avoiding questions, I believe Dohnjoe has posted several that you truthers on this thread adamantly refuse to answer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    You say that, but you don't substantiate that.

    Do you disagree that at least all the outer columns and supporting inner columns disappeared almost simultaneously ?

    If you do disagree can you explain how building 7 could reach free fall acceleration with certain columns still providing support ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

    Again ..avoiding the question

    Overheal wrote: »
    Now speaking of avoiding questions, I believe Dohnjoe has posted several that you truthers on this thread adamantly refuse to answer.

    I answered that .... maybe read back to catch up ? and maybe you can drop the truther remark while your at it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Do you disagree that at least all the outer columns and supporting inner columns disappeared almost simultaneously ?

    If you do disagree can you explain how building 7 could reach free fall acceleration with certain columns still providing support ?

    You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out. You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out.

    That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post
    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

    I don't believe I assumed that at all


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    They disappear at rest for the same reason little baby pools of liquid would not exist at rest the way you describe: they cool down.

    Sparks do, however, bounce.





    And Yet my picture showed the pool of red and yellow glowing liquid.

    Good videos and they support my viewpoint thank you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

    Not true the seven hours is a myth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out.

    That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post
    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

    I don't believe I assumed that at all


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post



    I don't believe I assumed that at all

    But you're ignoring that NIST reported that the interior of the structure began to fail before the collapse of the exterior. This would have essentially crushed the spandrels along the exterior as it went down. So why are we assuming the building fell in free fall?

    Like, can we go back to the basics for a second?

    s = -gt^2.

    s = 741 ft = 225.8 m
    g = -9.81 m/s^2

    So, t = sqrt((2*225.8)/g) = 6.78 seconds

    Huh. So for the building to have collapsed in free fall acceleration, the entire building - the roof, in particular, would have had to have hit the ground in 6.78 seconds.



    But that's not what we see in the footage. What isn't disputed here is that this footage shows the building disappear out of frame in 5.4 seconds. But, this is only 18 floors. The building (was) 47 god damn floors.

    So what are truthers really trying to say here, exactly?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out. You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

    NIST (their collapse model) image look closely>

    Notice how their collapse is not symmetrical? Their columns are still buckling and breaking on the way down? They even shut it off before reaching the end to hide the fact the building was crushing like a can

    475591.png

    The fact the building (real life) came down intact and there was no crushing like the NIST model is showing is proof of controlled demolition. You can't avoid crushing if the failure is slow, and take time. The only way to avoid crushing and get the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint is by taking out 84 columns.

    The video also shows the building went from a position of stength to complete failure in seconds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    NIST (their collapse model) image look closely>

    Notice how their collapse is not symmetrical? Their columns are still buckling and breaking on the way down? They even shut it off before reaching the end to hide the fact the building was crushing like a can

    475591.png

    The fact the building (real life) came down intact and there was no crushing like the NIST model is showing is proof of controlled demolition. You can't avoid crushing if the failure is slow, and take time. The only way to avoid crushing and get the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint is by taking out 84 columns.

    The video also shows the building went from a position of stength to complete failure in seconds.
    I really dont give a flying **** about how inaccurate you think the NIST model is. It still doesn't prove thermite.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The top 18 stories of the original WTC 7 would have approximately been 225.8 * (18/47) = 86.48 meters tall.

    by s = -gt^2 they would need to fall in 4.2 seconds to be free fall action.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    I really dont give a flying **** about how inaccurate you think the NIST model is. It still doesn't prove thermite.

    It's their progressive collapse model. All their failures were modelled and this is the way it fell for them.

    It proves the building came down by controlled demolition:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




    "Simulated with completely new developed software designed for structural simulation, this revision of the old WTC 7 simulation attempt serves as validation case for the BCB software.

    New in this simulation compared to the old one:
    - Multiple constraints per connection are used to represent individual degrees of freedom (DOF)
    - Breaking thresholds are computed from real world parameters
    - Correct steel thicknesses and beam dimensions are used
    - Plastic deformation is now simulated

    While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

    Having said that, I want to emphasize that this video is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories."



  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It's their progressive collapse model. All their failures were modelled and this is the way it fell for them.

    It proves the building came down by controlled demolition:)

    No, it does not. Controlled demolition theories have all been debunked. No thermite, no explosions, no explosive residue. No motive, either, for that matter, or clear statement of perpetrators.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »


    "Simulated with completely new developed software designed for structural simulation, this revision of the old WTC 7 simulation attempt serves as validation case for the BCB software.

    New in this simulation compared to the old one:
    - Multiple constraints per connection are used to represent individual degrees of freedom (DOF)
    - Breaking thresholds are computed from real world parameters
    - Correct steel thicknesses and beam dimensions are used
    - Plastic deformation is now simulated

    While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

    Having said that, I want to emphasize that this video is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories."


    The first video is a lot of crap. Where the paper on this. And building toppling on its side a joke.

    You must not have noticed the intact floors on the west side in the second video?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The first video is a lot of crap. Where the paper on this. And building toppling on its side a joke.

    You must not have noticed the intact floors on the west side in the second video?

    You’re still just proving you don’t know anything about engineering.

    They’re just computer models. A computer model will never get you to 1:1 fidelity. None of these models were able to accurately simulate thermal load - we lack the data. The building wasn’t rigged up with a mesh of thermocouples. We don’t know the floor loading conditions, we can only approximate how and were office furniture and other equipment were distributed through the building. There are tens of thousands of parameters that would all have an effect on a simulation like these.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,919 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not true the seven hours is a myth.

    You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re still just proving you don’t know anything about engineering.

    They’re just computer models. A computer model will never get you to 1:1 fidelity. None of these models were able to accurately simulate thermal load - we lack the data. The building wasn’t rigged up with a mesh of thermocouples. We don’t know the floor loading conditions, we can only approximate how and were office furniture and other equipment were distributed through the building. There are tens of thousands of parameters that would all have an effect on a simulation like these.

    Dr Hulsey computer model looks like actual collapse. He teaches engineering to students at a recognised university in Alaska. You going to be back peddling with his study is out. If you watched his video you realise how wrong you are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Overheal wrote: »
    You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.

    And yet he cannot provide any evidence for the huge hole in his "theory". The elephant in the room. How they actually got the explosives into the building in the first place.

    It would be like convicting someone of a shooting even though its was proven the murder weapon was never fired.

    The ignorance and stupidity is breathtaking. Its hilarious stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    And yet he cannot provide any evidence for the huge hole in his "theory". The elephant in the room. How they actually got the explosives into the building in the first place.

    It would be like convicting someone of a shooting even though its was proven the murder weapon was never fired.

    The ignorance and stupidity is breathtaking. Its hilarious stuff.

    They walked in the door and placed them there how else?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.

    I dispute it because NIST does not even make this claim. The first reported fires on the Northside was between 1 pm and 2 pm. I Posted another report about this a while back.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    They walked in the door and placed them there how else?

    Who did?

    How?

    What sort of explosives?

    Wheres the evidence? Sign in sheets, contracts with people masquerading as elevator maintenance companies etc.

    How many witnesses saw and heard suspicious activity?

    How many floors did they need to prepare?

    What floors did they access?

    Do these floors match the places they would've needed to prep to bring down the buildings?

    How did no one see or hear anything suspicious in one of the busiest and most well secured square miles on planet earth.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement