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 did fall with free fall acceleration due to office fires

Options
  • 16-03-2019 1:19pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭


    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




    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


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,929 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement