nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dohnjoe

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cheerful Spring

cuppa wrote: »

Well i agree with NIST , You cant tell how its collapsing by looking at the outer structure when it internal steel has already given way.

You can even see on your first vid on post 2 as it gets lower the outer shell on the left is beginning to twist onto the cavity left open from the steel that had all ready comedown, That slight bang you hear just before the penthouse falls would be part of the internal structure given way under the penthouse and then the penthouse falls into the void.

Cuppa a test for you please do it.

When the Pentahouse falls from the roof completely count how long it took for right wall to move.

Just count that and tell me time you got?

Video here.

cuppa

Walls?
I ain't no expert but why would the be modelling the outer face of the building whats that going to tell them , they would be modelling the inner steel structure to discover what gave way to cause it to comedown.

And that right bend looks like where the windows break on the right on video in post #2

Cheerful Spring

Cuppa this might help?

Do you see what happens to right corner wall?

This is the same wall on 9/11. Building 7 has dropped here it's falling down.

cuppa

Well i agree with NIST , You cant tell how its collapsing by looking at the outer structure when it internal steel has already given way.

You can even see on your first vid on post 2 as it gets lower the outer shell on the left is beginning to twist onto the cavity left open from the steel that had all ready comedown, That slight bang you hear just before the penthouse falls would be part of the internal structure given way under the penthouse and then the penthouse falls into the void.

Cheerful Spring

cuppa wrote: »

No not from the gif , from the video in post number 2

NIST video?

Do you understand what the issue is though?

NIST is claiming that's what the building looked like when it fell? That not symmetrical

That not reality though the gif shows you how the building fell on 9/11. Do you not the difference between the two?

NIST has the roofline crushing in and side walls are being pulled in as it comes down

The gif show the roofline was straight and the right wall not crushed or twisted. The wall is coming down in a straight line from top to bottom.

cuppa

No not from the gif , from the video in post number 2

archer22

Don't know about the conspiracy theories ....but there was a lot of strange behaviour during and after 9/11.

The Dancing Israeli's...they seemed to know it was going to happen.

The rush to attack Iraq...who had phuck all to do with it.

The recent attempts to suggest Iran was involved...when its obvious that like Iraq they had phuck all to do with it either.

And then America and Israel giving help to Al Qaeda in the Syrian war..the organisation that is believed to have carried out the 9/11 attacks!

It's certainly pretty strange carry on no matter what way you look at it.

Cheerful Spring

cuppa wrote: »

Looks fine to me from the first vid you posted , post #2.

I see penthouse fall , i then see the windows on left smash and windows on the right smash as the internal structure is falling and twisting , i can even see the left side of the outer structure begin to twist as it gets lower.

On the gif, you see that? You see the roofline crushing and right wall crushing in and twisting?

Where I don't see that here?

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img]

via Imgflip GIF Maker

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You couldn't understand how an aircraft could fly into the Pentagon. Therefore you declared it was impossible.

You were provided with detailed links and sources describing how an aircraft of that type could reach those speeds. You rejected it all because you couldn't understand it.

In more than a few cases you can't seem to process information you can't understand. That's fine. But no one here "make you" understand. It's even more impossible if someone develops a dogmatic belief that trumps reason. Psychologists have repeatedly shown that people with extreme beliefs often become more belligerent in their faulty views when presented with solid facts and information

None of these replies are for your benefit. Only for people who might be reading this thread.

You posting false information. Read the thread again from the beginning

I believed at the time the plane was seen coming from Southwest only. Where did the wings go if came in from that side? Did I speculate maybe it was a smaller plane?

If a plane hit i do more research to see where eyewitnesses saw the plane. Discovered then multiple Pentagon eyewitnesses accounts of seeing a commercial airliner coming in from the Northeast side. That's interesting so I followed the position of the plane all the way to the Pentagon from this side.

9/11 commission is wrong the plane came in from the Northeast side, that's why conspiracy theorists are wrong saying no plane hit. They go by the official account. The damage at the Pentagon matches up if the plane came straight in levelled out.

cuppa

Looks fine to me from the first vid you posted , post #2.

I see penthouse fall , i then see the windows on left smash and windows on the right smash as the internal structure is falling and twisting , i can even see the left side of the outer structure begin to twist as it gets lower.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Now watch the NIST computer simulation of this same event and you see the problem!

You couldn't understand how an aircraft could fly into the Pentagon. Therefore you declared it was impossible.

You were provided with detailed links and sources describing how an aircraft of that type could reach those speeds. You rejected it all because you couldn't understand it.

In more than a few cases you can't seem to process information you can't understand. That's fine. But no one here "make you" understand. It's even more impossible if someone develops a dogmatic belief that trumps reason. Psychologists have repeatedly shown that people with extreme beliefs often become more belligerent in their faulty views when presented with solid facts and information

None of these replies are for your benefit. Only for people who might be reading this thread.

Cheerful Spring

cuppa wrote: »

Cheerful spring that gif you keep showing of the collapse is misleading , Its missing about 3 seconds of the start of it happening, which would more than likely explain the bang you heard.

If you look at that video Tipsy McSwagger posted on page 18 (for me) post #267 , Go to 3:02 on the video , the gif you keep posting starts at 3:07

I know that.

Do you see the way the building falls down in the gif

Does the building look symmetrical when it falls? Do you see any crushing of the horizontal roofline? Do you see side walls been pulled in this video of the actual collapse?

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img]

via Imgflip GIF Maker

Now watch the NIST computer simulation of this same event and you see the problem!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe Not sure why you always complaining about conspiracy sites.

Jesus christ..

The Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists look for one thing: the conspiracy. The Boston bombing conspiracy theorists do the same thing.

In fact, any time there is a large terrorist event on Western soil or a significant shooting - a large chunk of the conspiracy community immediately goes to work trying to discredit the facts and information in order to suggest some sort of "inside job" by whatever authorities they deem to be responsible for the act from the moment it happens

Next time there is a significant event like this I'll show you live (I have followed dozens: Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Charlie Hebdo, the Vegas Shooting to name very few over the past 10 years)

They do real research and catalogue this stuff.

I'm guessing you are new to all this. They don't. They will take any measures to make the information fit their agenda/narrative; crop photos, use pseudo-science, jam youtube with incredulous videos, distort information, take information out of context, create things like "crisis actors", harass victims of the events

Skeptics go to forums debating this research.

A skeptic is someone who questions everything within reason

A "conspiracy theorist" is typically someone who believe something is a conspiracy (or a "false flag") from the outset and retroactively works backwards from there to "prove it" by discrediting information and engaging in questionable thinking/reasoning

Conspiracies, collusion and corruption happens all the time. Those types of events don't appear on these types of forums.

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

and anything that contains a probability figure, or is difficult to explain is considered as a "chink" in the NIST by conspiracy theorists, ergo it's "wrong" ergo it was all an inside job

You can see this same logic at work when creationists seize upon some perceived flaw with regard to evolution, and declare that it proves that creationism is correct.

cuppa

Cheerful spring that gif you keep showing of the collapse is misleading , Its missing about 3 seconds of the start of it happening, which would more than likely explain the bang you heard.

If you look at that video Tipsy McSwagger posted on page 18 (for me) post #267 , Go to 3:02 on the video , the gif you keep posting starts at 3:07

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.

The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.

The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

More inside.
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-14/structural-engineering-council-ctbuh-casts-doubt-nists-wtc-7-report

More professional groups were not happy and they were listed on a website I read before, but I have to search that out.

This is a beautiful example of how Truthers use confirmation bias. What is concerning the CTBUH is the identification of the failure of shear studs as a factor and the surprisingly low temperature at which they failed. This is hardly surprising as the CTBUH's area of interest is the design and construction of tall buildings. An unexpected failure of construction components could have implications for future designs, so it's only to be expected that they would sit up and take notice. They may indeed have been concerned that substandard components were used in the construction - a far more believable scenario than the All Encompassing Evil Conspiracy.

The CTBUH gives no indication of presenting itself as expert in fire damage or building demolition, and I suspect they they did not write about their concerns with the intention of them being fodder for conspiracy theorists. If they at any point said that the failures that concerned them could only have been the result of a controlled demolition, then please provide the relevant quote.

UPDATE: I searched out the CBTUH report for myself, and guess what I found...
"We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings." (My emphasis)

So why didn't the "Truthers" quote this part of the report? Assuming they are interested in...er..truth...

[Deleted User]

Let's pretend Cheerful, that you have convinced us that the NIST report is flawed completely.
So what's next? What can you show us to convince people that it's not just that the NIST are wrong, but that it's a conspiracy?

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The pictures you continue to post are of the steel structure only.

The trick here is to draw you into a debate on the NIST. It's an 800 page report, there is an entire community of highly dedicated people who've been attempting to discredit it for over a decade. Some people are incredibly good at it, like Tony Szamboti. There are structural engineers who would struggle to explain some of the more complex aspects - and anything that contains a probability figure, or is difficult to explain is considered as a "chink" in the NIST by conspiracy theorists, ergo it's "wrong" ergo it was all an inside job

TLDR, you will be repeatedly drawn into the "explain this to me" - you give an explanation, it will be rejected, therefore it was all a conspiracy. No evidence given for the conspiracy

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe Not sure why you always complaining about conspiracy sites. They do real research and catalogue this stuff.

Watching youtube videos is not research. We've been over this cheerful.

And how come if they are doing real research you haven't been able to point to one jot of evidence in support of an alternative theory?
An independent theory that stands on it's own that doesn't rely on what you think are flaws in the real theory?

It's been 20+ pages. No one is interested in debating the NIST paper with you. You don't understand it and you are not capable of discussing it in a meaningful or adult way.

Try a different tactic. Try proposing an alternative theory.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe Not sure why you always complaining about conspiracy sites. They do real research and catalogue this stuff. Skeptics go to forums debating this research.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are copying straight from conspiracy sites. Read the first post.

This thread is about alternative theories, supported by credible evidence. The point is not to use conspiracy or crank sources

Maybe you need to take a read of this. So they found flaws but conspiracy theorists are nuts for finding similar flaws?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Tall_Buildings_and_Urban_Habitat

Cheerful Spring

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) believes the collapse happened differently. They believe that fire was the cause still.

As the author highlighted though

So, on the one hand, the CTBUH provides at least three good reasons to dismiss the NIST report as a blatant fraud: (a) phenomenal shear-stud and bolt failure at Column 79, (b) cooling around Column 79 at the supposed time of thermal expansive failure and (c) mystical floor beam buckling. But on the other hand, the CTBUH ignores the blatant evidence of controlled demolition in WTC 7 for no technical reason what-so-ever.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-14/structural-engineering-council-ctbuh-casts-doubt-nists-wtc-7-report

You are copying straight from conspiracy sites. Read the first post.

This thread is about alternative theories, supported by credible evidence. The point is not to use conspiracy or crank sources

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Recognised organisations like the American Institute of Architects (representing 90,000+ members), the American Society Of Civil Engineers (150,000+ members), the ICC, the CTBUH have endorsed the NIST report/incorporated findings

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.

The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.

The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

More inside.
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-14/structural-engineering-council-ctbuh-casts-doubt-nists-wtc-7-report

More professional groups were not happy and they were listed on a website I read before, but I have to search that out.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have to prove something that you are claimiing

2+ million engineers and architects read the WTC7 study?

You're claiming that there's more support than that.
Prove it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

2+ million engineers and architects read the WTC7 study?

Recognised organisations like the American Institute of Architects (representing 90,000+ members), the American Society Of Civil Engineers (150,000+ members), the ICC, the CTBUH have endorsed the NIST report/incorporated findings

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr Just in case you think I am lying

NIST simulation. You even see their logo lower right corner.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The computer simulation and the graphic is showing the interior and exterior. Do you think they are not showing the roof and corner walls?

The pictures you continue to post are of the steel structure only.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So the report shows the steel structure inside failing, but because of the concrete on the exterior you cannot see this happening so it has to be fake?

The computer simulation and the graphic is showing the interior and exterior. Do you think they are not showing the roof and corner walls?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is NIST (WTC7) computer simulation of progressive collapse.

Did is what happened for real on 9/11. There is no illusion or fakery this CBS video of the collapse that day.

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

If you guys are unable to see the difference between reality and fakery i don't know what to tell you.

So the report shows the steel structure inside failing, but because of the concrete on the exterior you cannot see this happening so it has to be fake?