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

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

“Scientists update their conclusions based on new data so it’s obviously a conspiracy”

I am not disputing they updated their conclusions

They updated when they were pointed to it by a physics teacher ....


Embarrassing

weisses

The Nal wrote: »

Raging fires in three buildings, all full to the brim with thermite that had secretly been placed there some time previously (timeframe TBC) and none of the thermite detonated until the smart conspirators decided to.

People actually believe this.

Sporadic office fires somehow resulting in instantaneously severing of at least all outer columns resulting in a near symmetrical collapse of a 47 story skyscraper


People actually believe this!

The Nal

weisses wrote: »

Is this answer a question with a question Tuesday ?

I can show you steel frame buildings who sustained much more damage then wtc7 and were still standing

Yup. And I can show you buildings that sustained much less damage and had fires burning for less time than WT7 and fell. Also buildings that sustained more damage than WT7 (botched demolitions) and didn't fall.

But they're not the same building. So what?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

I am not disputing they updated their conclusions

They updated when they were pointed to it by a physics teacher ....


Embarrassing

You mean during an open comment period they took on board a public comment and considered it based on its merits?

Shocking! Conspiracy!

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How did they do it then?

Nano-thermite cutting charges would have less sound. A demolition expert said it quick easy to hide sound if you want to. I read this years ago i trying to locate the article if I can.

You also don't have to load explosives on every floor demolitions don't work this way. With WTC7 all you need to do take out a third of the bottom floors (columns will break from the bottom floor to the top floor) and it will fall down. You even saw this is what happened on video, The west right side breaking of windows is a telling sign of demolition. The window breakage moved up from the bottom floor up to the top floor.

Debunkers don't do their research. Wireless detonators existed pre 9/11 and you don't need to wire the entire building.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Did NIST accounted for free fall acceleration in their initial report ? yes or no

I can't answer that as the question doesn't actually make any sense.
This is because you don't know what freefall is. You don't know what "accounting" for freefall means.
You do not understand what the NIST report does say when it mentions freefall.

You are again demanding an answer to the question all while dodging one that proves both your ignorance and your dishonesty.
You don't understand physics and you can't admit that.
It's hilarious.

weisses wrote: »

But its your belief that authorities could have allowed the attacks to happen

And I do care about your beliefs

Yes, in the same way that the authorities "could have" used a space laser to demolish the buildings.
You are once again childishly repeating a misinterpretation of my statements as if you're making a point.
Again you are just making a joke of yourself and conspiracy theorists.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite cutting charges would have less sound.

Space Lasers are also soundless and likewise do not exist.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite cutting charges would have less sound. A demolition expert said it quick easy to hide sound if you want to. I read this years ago i trying to locate the article if I can.

You also don't have to load explosives on every floor demolitions don't work this way. With WTC7 all you need to do take out a third of the bottom floors (columns will break from the bottom floor to the top floor) and it will fall down. You even saw this is what happened on video, The west right side breaking of windows is a telling sign of demolition. The window breakage moved up from the bottom floor up to the top floor.

Debunkers don't do their research. Wireless detonators existed pre 9/11 and you don't need to wire the entire building.

So you’re flip flopping from the pools of molten meltal that lasted for 100 days at ground zero, to nano-thermite micro-cutting charges. Right. So there were simultaneously pools of molten metal so hot they glowed on site, and also only just enough thermite used to make cuts in a small number of columns at the base of the building...

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite cutting charges would have less sound. A demolition expert said it quick easy to hide sound if you want to. I read this years ago i trying to locate the article if I can.

You also don't have to load explosives on every floor demolitions don't work this way. With WTC7 all you need to do take out a third of the bottom floors

So how much thermite would be needed to take out 17 floors? Taking your bottom third "theory"

Heres a video of a comparatively small thermite explosion.

Also how did they get the thermite into the building without anyone noticing?

WT7 - 17 floors
WTC1 - 33 floors
WTC2 - 27 floors

Thats 77 floors they had to fit with thermite. And no one noticed?!

lol

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite cutting charges would have less sound. A demolition expert said it quick easy to hide sound if you want to. I read this years ago i trying to locate the article if I can.

Which exsist in your head! How do you ensure no fire gets near these "charges" and sets them off prematurely?

You also don't have to load explosives on every floor demolitions don't work this way.

You do if you want it to work correctly, why don't you tell us (in your own expert opinion) how demolition works?

With WTC7 all you need to do take out a third of the bottom floors (columns will break from the bottom floor to the top floor) and it will fall down. You even saw this is what happened on video, The west right side breaking of windows is a telling sign of demolition. The window breakage moved up from the bottom floor up to the top floor.

But you said the penthouse goes 1st due to controlled explosion (you even posted a silly little gif 30 or 40 times) but now you say it was demolished from the bottom

Debunkers don't do their research. Wireless detonators existed pre 9/11 and you don't need to wire the entire building

yes you do if you want your demolition to work, I bet you can't understand why though.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Also how did they get the thermite into the building without anyone noticing?

WT7 - 17 floors
WTC1 - 33 floors
WTC2 - 27 floors

Thats 77 floors they had to fit with thermite. And no one noticed?!

lol

Remember, according to Cheerful, this could be done with 8 people over a weekend.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

So you’re flip flopping from the pools of molten meltal that lasted for 100 days at ground zero, to nano-thermite micro-cutting charges. Right. So there were simultaneously pools of molten metal so hot they glowed on site, and also only just enough thermite used to make cuts in a small number of columns at the base of the building...

FEMA confirmed in 2002 there was a liquid of molten Iron present. You can waffle on.

The fire temp required to get the steel to melt is 1500c.

Before 9/11 know steel beamed framed building had ever collapsed down to just fire.

NIST own model of collapse looks nothing like the real collapse.

WTC7 did not fall like this on 9/11 and crumble apart. Their computer simulation is a fraud and they even shut it off early because it started to resemble a crushed can. Their failures were showing this is what would happen further prove they lied.

NIST WTC7 images.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

You mean during an open comment period they took on board a public comment and considered it based on its merits?

Shocking! Conspiracy!

Now now now ... Listen to these experts

My point is the sloppy investigation and wrong methodology

Nicely deconstructed by Chandler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You are once again childishly repeating a misinterpretation of my statements as if you're making a point.
Again you are just making a joke of yourself and conspiracy theorists.

No its literally what you said ... spacelasers had nothing to do with your reply

Man up and own what you said .. its pathetic at this stage

weisses

The Nal wrote: »

Yup. And I can show you buildings that sustained much less damage and had fires burning for less time than WT7 and fell. Also buildings that sustained more damage than WT7 (botched demolitions) and didn't fall.

But they're not the same building. So what?

Okay so ... the Iran collapse is out as well .... good to know

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So how much thermite would be needed to take out 17 floors? Taking your bottom third "theory"

Heres a video of a comparatively small thermite explosion.

Also how did they get the thermite into the building without anyone noticing?

WT7 - 17 floors
WTC1 - 33 floors
WTC2 - 27 floors

Thats 77 floors they had to fit with thermite. And no one noticed?!

lol

I explained multiple times to you guys it not thermite it nano-thermite engineered to release more energy.

Jay Howard and Oystein two educated people debated it. You understand this topic better if you read the debate.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No its literally what you said ... spacelasers had nothing to do with your reply

Man up and own what you said .. its pathetic at this stage

And as I explained, you are misrepresenting what I said. You seem to think you have a point here. You don't.
I stated that the simplest theory isn't far fetched. I didn't say the simplest theory is true or likely.
You don't even believe the simple theory as you subscribe to the various silly notions around controlled demolition, though you are evasive on what you believe.

You are also again showing your abject hypocrisy by once again avoiding admitting what it obvious to all.
You don't know what freefall is.

Why have you popped up on this thread again to fire off embarrassing non points like the above?
You aren't helping your cause.
You aren't defending your silly conspiracy theory.
You don't even agree with the crap cheerful is spouting.

You'll post a few more times, then run off again.

Overheal

Dude - ALL computer simulations are ‘fraud.’ Especially very complex ones. They can only discretize so much. Their models also have to assume a *lot* - air pressure, wind speed, localized updrafts, temperature gradient of the structure, the fact that it just experienced 2 freaking earthquakes, was attacked by building debris, and was experiencing multiple fires, the condition of the bolts, the age of the structure, the fatigue life, - there are an infinite number of parameters to shove into a FINITE element analysis.

Remember how I was at GE last week - they metal 3D print production turbine parts. Their AM engineer estimates there are some 1200 parameters they have to control for that one process - argon gas flow, argon pressure, material quality, laser aperture, lens glass cleanliness, how many parts you print at once, how close they’re spaced apart, I could be here all day. When they print a build plate they have to go through something like 100 iterations to achieve the accuracy the need: localized warping, deviations etc. that need to be controlled. Each build gets scanned and quantified, then they tweak parameter X and hope it gets them closer and not farther to the right output.

You obviously don’t know how difficult it is to model something that even engineers think they understand very well, much less a building that wasn’t likely in a CAD system prior to them modeling it, nor did they have any definitive way to be sure that they had modeled the damage to the building correctly at all. Clearly they made assumptions, and depending on what parameters change can cause a dramatic change in the output (ie. The way the collapse model looks). Couple that with garbage software that is 20 years older than what is available today, and hardware that is - according to Moore’s law, assuming 2005 - 0.2% of the computing power available today.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And as I explained, you are misrepresenting what I said. You seem to think you have a point here. You don't.
I stated that the simplest theory isn't far fetched. I didn't say the simplest theory is true or likely.

you said

King Mob wrote: »

I've said a few times that the basic premise of the conspiracy theory isn't far fetched.
It's entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings.

now stop weaseling your way out of your own posts

I am NOT misrepresenting when i say that you find it entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Dude - ALL computer simulations are ‘fraud.’ Especially very complex ones. They can only discretize so much. Their models also have to assume a *lot* - air pressure, wind speed, localized updrafts, temperature gradient of the structure, the fact that it just experienced 2 freaking earthquakes, was attacked by building debris, and was experiencing multiple fires, the condition of the bolts, the age of the structure, the fatigue life, - there are an infinite number of parameters to shove into a FINITE element analysis.

More reason so to have it properly peer reviewed and not be taken apart by a high school physics teacher

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Now now now ... Listen to these experts

My point is the sloppy investigation and wrong methodology

Nicely deconstructed by Chandler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

NIST addresses that on their website. They aren’t shy about the fact that the draft report that was open for public comment underwent revision. That’s why it was a draft.

You aren’t someone with a science background by your own admission so I don’t expect you to grasp that.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

you said

now stop weaseling your way out of your own posts

I am NOT misrepresenting when i say that you find it entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings

Yes, and I've explained that several times.
Possible does not mean true.
The space laser theory is also "possible".

Do you understand what "possible" means? Is English your second language?

The simple theory is more likely to be true than the space laser theory.
The simple theory is more likely to be true than the version of the conspiracy theory you believe.

But I don't believe the simple theory is true.
YOU don't believe the simple theory is true.

And again, you are talking about weaseling out of points while again you dodge and duck.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

More reason so to have it properly peer reviewed and not be taken apart by a high school physics teacher

The NIST report was peer reviewed. You are now directly lying again.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Dude - ALL computer simulations are ‘fraud.’ Especially very complex ones. They can only discretize so much. Their models also have to assume a *lot* - air pressure, wind speed, localized updrafts, temperature gradient of the structure, the fact that it just experienced 2 freaking earthquakes, was attacked by building debris, and was experiencing multiple fires, the condition of the bolts, the age of the structure, the fatigue life, - there are an infinite number of parameters to shove into a FINITE element analysis.

Remember how I was at GE last week - they metal 3D print production turbine parts. Their AM engineer estimates there are some 1200 parameters they have to control for that one process - argon gas flow, argon pressure, material quality, laser aperture, lens glass cleanliness, how many parts you print at once, how close they’re spaced apart, I could be here all day. When they print a build plate they have to go through something like 100 iterations to achieve the accuracy the need: localized warping, deviations etc. that need to be controlled. Each build gets scanned and quantified, then they tweak parameter X and hope it gets them closer and not farther to the right output.

You obviously don’t know how difficult it is to model something that even engineers think they understand very well, much less a building that wasn’t likely in a CAD system prior to them modeling it, nor did they have any definitive way to be sure that they had modeled the damage to the building correctly at all. Clearly they made assumptions, and depending on what parameters change can cause a dramatic change in the output (ie. The way the collapse model looks). Couple that with garbage software that is 20 years older than what is available today, and hardware that is - according to Moore’s law, assuming 2005 - 0.2% of the computing power available today.

Do you know why this is false? Dr Hulsey has done a finite element analysis of the collapse and his computer model looks like the actual collapse on 9/11. Dr Hulsey is not doing a half-arsed study.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and I've explained that several times.
Possible does not mean true..

Correct ...you find it entirely possible ....And so do I

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The NIST report was peer reviewed. You are now directly lying again.

I said ...properly peer reviewed

Wasn't it reviewed by people connected to NIST ?

weisses

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you know why this is false? Dr Hulsey has done a finite element analysis of the collapse and his computer model looks like the actual collapse on 9/11. Dr Hulsey is not doing a half-arsed study.

I think his fraud claim points to the NIST model

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Correct ...you find it entirely possible ....And so do I

Yes, and again the part you leave out because you think it proves some kind of point:
I don't believe it is true.

You don't believe it is true, unless you are now admitting all the crap about controlled demolition is nonsense and not worth considering.

You also again dodge the fact you can't admit to being ignorant of physics.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

NIST addresses that on their website. They aren’t shy about the fact that the draft report that was open for public comment underwent revision. That’s why it was a draft.

You aren’t someone with a science background by your own admission so I don’t expect you to grasp that.

You clearly did not watch the videos

At least make an effort man

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I said ...properly peer reviewed

Wasn't it reviewed by people connected to NIST ?

It was properly peer reviewed.
You don't understand what peer review even is.