To those who believe WTC 7 did fall with free fall acceleration due to office fires

weisses

taking it further from last thread where instead of answering a simple question locking the thread seemed more convenient I will try again with a dedicated thread


To quote Overheal

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.

I am not ignoring the fact that at least part of the interior collapsed (as my comments on the collums clearly shows)

The building fell with freefall acceleration (fact)

NIST changed the point of collapse to fit its 5.4 seconds collapse as is showed here

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

How can a building undergoing a progressive collapse experience a symmetrical collapse of at least the outer shell reaching free fall acceleration all due to office fires ?

Much emphasis was also given on the the fact it was a draft report and that after the blatant flaws where pointed out to NIST they changed/updated it.

Fact is however they never updated their collapse calculation/animation to allow for free fall acceleration to happen ... which in itself is shoddy work

So my simple question still stands

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

I am not looking for an alternative theory ...Just the proper science showing how the building could fall the way it did, including the explanation of all still supporting columns giving away almost simultaneously

And I did my homework and cannot find anything in the official story that clearly and combined with supporting evidence explains it

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So my simple question still stands

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

The supporting columns did not fail simultaneously.
The NIST does not claim that and no evidence exists that they did fail simultaneously.

The idea of it stems from your lack of understanding of what freefall is among other technical issues. You are using your own interpretation to decide that the NIST says that all the supports failed at once. But again, this is because your interpretation is based off poor and/or deliberately poor understanding of technical terms, papers and reports.

The NIST in fact states that the supports of the facade failed over a period of a few seconds (Stage 1) before the last of them failed and the facade was able to fall at freefall acceleration. (Stage 2) It then again experienced less acceleration as it began to pancake into itself. (Stage 3)

Nothing in this is excluded by the NIST's model.
You and other conspiracy theorists are either deliberately misinterpreting their statements or you are simply unable to understand them.

If the building fell as described by the controlled demolition theory, and it fell after all the supports were removed simultaneously, then there would be no period where the acceleration was less than free fall. It would fall at free fall acceleration from the moment the collapse began.
If the building fell at freefall acceleration, it would have collapsed in around 6-7 seconds. (As per the simple physics equation you were unable to do.)
It didn't however. It took significantly longer to fall completely.

This is in fact what the NIST is referring to when they say "there was no free fall acceleration" as it was (and is) a common claim by conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theorists, including ones here previously claimed that the building collapsed in around 6-7 seconds. This is evidenced by the claim in Loose Change, one of the most popular videos on the subject at the time.
They were simply responding to that.
Most conspiracy theorists now avoid making this claim as it very easily debunked.

Also you again claim that it fell symmetrically, which is also not the case.
If all the supports failed at once, then the penthouse would not have collapsed inwards before the rest of the building collapsed. The facade would not have buckled in the center and then leaned back as it fell.

You have been asked before several times to explain how there being a period of free fall invalidates the real explanation or validates the silly conspiracy explanations.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have been asked several times to explain why they building took significantly longer to fall than it would have taken if it was undergoing free fall acceleration along.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have been asked several times to explain why the acceleration was less than that of gravity in the first stage of collapse. (Or whether or not you believe that is an accurate description of the collapse.)
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have also been asked many times why the NIST would apparently contradict itself in such a way to expose that they are part of a conspiracy.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

The supporting columns did not fail simultaneously.
The NIST does not claim that and no evidence exists that they did fail simultaneously.

The idea of it stems from your lack of understanding of what freefall is among other technical issues. You are using your own interpretation to decide that the NIST says that all the supports failed at once. But again, this is because your interpretation is based off poor and/or deliberately poor understanding of technical terms, papers and reports.

The NIST in fact states that the supports of the facade failed over a period of a few seconds (Stage 1) before the last of them failed and the facade was able to fall at freefall acceleration. (Stage 2) It then again experienced less acceleration as it began to pancake into itself. (Stage 3)

Nothing in this is excluded by the NIST's model.
You and other conspiracy theorists are either deliberately misinterpreting their statements or you are simply unable to understand them.

If the building fell as described by the controlled demolition theory, and it fell after all the supports were removed simultaneously, then there would be no period where the acceleration was less than free fall. It would fall at free fall acceleration from the moment the collapse began.
If the building fell at freefall acceleration, it would have collapsed in around 6-7 seconds. (As per the simple physics equation you were unable to do.)
It didn't however. It took significantly longer to fall completely.

This is in fact what the NIST is referring to when they say "there was no free fall acceleration" as it was (and is) a common claim by conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theorists, including ones here previously claimed that the building collapsed in around 6-7 seconds. This is evidenced by the claim in Loose Change, one of the most popular videos on the subject at the time.
They were simply responding to that.
Most conspiracy theorists now avoid making this claim as it very easily debunked.

Also you again claim that it fell symmetrically, which is also not the case.
If all the supports failed at once, then the penthouse would not have collapsed inwards before the rest of the building collapsed. The facade would not have buckled in the center and then leaned back as it fell.

You have been asked before several times to explain how there being a period of free fall invalidates the real explanation or validates the silly conspiracy explanations.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have been asked several times to explain why they building took significantly longer to fall than it would have taken if it was undergoing free fall acceleration along.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have been asked several times to explain why the acceleration was less than that of gravity in the first stage of collapse. (Or whether or not you believe that is an accurate description of the collapse.)
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

You have also been asked many times why the NIST would apparently contradict itself in such a way to expose that they are part of a conspiracy.
You have failed to do so every time because you cannot explain this.

lol, good post but it doesn't matter how much sense you make. Using reason to try to convince someone who hasn't reasoned themselves into a position in the first place is never going to work

You could write to a hundred or a thousand structural engineers with PhD's, they could back up everything, doesn't make a lick of difference

We're on a conspiracies forum, I, or anyone could easily troll or discard everything you just wrote

If I reach any sticking point, then I can use simply waffle, deflection, pseudo-scientific claims, post conspiracy videos, use conspiracy sources, demand your explanations (which I'll automatically reject), use circular arguments etc, all the classic hallmarks, tricks and techniques of denying stuff

This is how loony conspiracies and denials live and breathe on the internet, the same common denominators

Individuals who state as alternative science or history as fact, but can't back it up with any credible evidence, always use this method. The safety of the deniers position, proving negatives. They can create bull**** faster than you can refute it

They can "not get" stuff no matter how well you can explain it

Look at any history or science or medical denial thread here or anywhere for a perfect demonstration of all these same techniques in action

TLDR; the deniers response to this will be: "If it's sound science and true then I should be able to understand and get it, but I don't, in fact it's all wrong to me, therefore conspiracy"

oh and "Just answer my simple questions, only in a matter that's acceptable to me, failure to do so = conspiracy"

good luck

Charles Ingles

Jessie Ventura a former navy seal (udt) said the building was brought down by internal controlled explosion.
That's good enough for me

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol, good post but it doesn't matter how much sense you make.

Well just wanted to highlight the difference between your thread where it was over 200 pages and not once was your op addressed.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

taking it further from last thread where instead of answering a simple question locking the thread seemed more convenient I will try again with a dedicated thread

Banned for a week.