Dohnjoe wrote: » I have read it before (it was on Metabunk) What are your 3 questions?
NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible
Cheerful Spring wrote: » By the Iranian government. Who do you trust the firefighters or a government who has agenda to cover up? You should know by now governments lie all the time. You saw that with Russian Salisbury case. Putin calls agents of the GRU civilians. Do you think governments are truthful? Do you think the Americans were truthful about the Iraq war?
weisses wrote: » NIST using that time to account for the bucling of the columns ... Its common knowledge NIST asserts that KM knows that ... He knows that I know that ... he just likes to play mind games
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Ahhhh more deflection Are you ever going to answer the question that has been asked of you?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Concluded by the official investigation by the Iranians into the collapse and it's causes
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Concluded by the government?
Dohnjoe wrote: » It was concluded that fire brought down Plasco
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The building in Iran did not even collapse just to fire.. The firefighters suspected gas explosions brought the building down.
weisses wrote: » Uhh the article starts with Maybe before posting try at least read what you are talking about You didn't read the article so ?
weisses wrote: » Ahhh Timbeerrr Any more dead reddit links to share ? Or sites that contradicts the actual point you are trying to make ?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Other steel framed structures have collapsed and partially collapsed Most engineers I've seen responding to questions online about 911 have pointed to the NIST Never come across a "controlled demolition theory", some individuals just speculate it but have next-to-zero details on it and no evidence
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » If he hasn't answered by now i doubt he ever will, constantly ignores the question or defkects away from it, then berates others claiming they wont answer questions.
Dohnjoe wrote: » For anyone reading thishttps://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...n2016-47-4.pdf As well as addressing this earlier in the thread (it was a non-peer reviewed speculative article submitted to a magazine) - Snopes has given the below overview of ithttps://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/ As well as the piece containing debunked information
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
King Mob wrote: » Ok. So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse? You said that the supports all vanished at the same time. So why wouldn't the acceleration be the same as gravity from the start?
King Mob wrote: » Again, my answer is that you don't understand the report. You don't understand what free fall is. I've been very clear on that. You haven't even acknowledged the pressing question you've stumbled into and disproves your objections and shows how little you understand: Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?
Unfortunately, that truly scientific and impartial study is not this paper. EPN, which is run by the European Physics Agency and owned by EDP Sciences (a company unrelated to the the entity that owns the European Scientific Journal), even put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was “somewhat different” from its “purely scientific articles” in that it includes “some” speculation: "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
These caveats in place, a variety of websites — notably the website Anon HQ — published the claim that this news feature was a scientific article published in the European Scientific Journal, suggesting that because it was peer-reviewed it was a stronger validation than than previously published conspiracy theories. In response, the publishers of the European Scientific Journal issued a statement clarifying that they had nothing to do with the article: "Regarding the recent developments on social media, we would like to inform the public that neither the European Scientific Journal, ESJ, nor the European Scientific Institute, ESI have published content on 9/11 attacks."
Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressively promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings. The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including: Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally). A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.) The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). Puffs of smoke exploding from below the collapsing towers suggests controlled demolition. (This claim does little to address the simplerexplanation that air pressure from the collapse of one of the largest buildings ever built would have forced air and debris through windows). The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition. (Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.)
weisses wrote: » Okay ... Can you do me a favor and read page 24 of the piece in the link in regards to wtc 7 "the case of wtc7"https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf My questions to you are from that piece ... If you find it to be a CT ers crackpot analysis then that is fine, I will no longer push you to answer any of the points raised.
weisses wrote: » I don't have a version Im arguing against the NIST/your version
King Mob wrote: » Sure does. So convince me of your version.
weisses wrote: » And that doesn't bother you ? Maybe read the piece I asked DJ to read so you might get a grasp of it
King Mob wrote: » Lol. Ok. you got me. The NIST doesn't allow for free fall in it's model. :rolleyes:
weisses wrote: » Stop embarrassing yourself Answer my question ... My knowledge of psychics is irrelevant ... Its the NIST theory re free fall I ask you to anwser How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse sequence ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ? You can ether try to answer it or engage in more deflecting tactics ... up to you
King Mob wrote: » Lol, again, you don't understand the report. Your question doesn't make sense as it relies on a misunderstanding of the report. I can't explain this to you as you do not understand basic physics, particularly you do not know what free fall is. This is evidenced by your earlier claims about how "it takes time to reach free fall". The second part of my answer comes with the question you are dodging in the most pathetic and obvious way. Now, answer the question: Why was the acceleration less than gravity in the first stage of collapse? Answer that directly and honestly, then I'll answer whatever questions you demand.
weisses wrote: » Bla bla bla You said you answered the question re progressive collapse ... point to the relevant post or stop wasting my time
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
