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?
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
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?
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.
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: » 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
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 ?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The building in Iran did not even collapse just to fire.. The firefighters suspected gas explosions brought the building down.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It was concluded that fire brought down Plasco
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Concluded by the government?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Concluded by the official investigation by the Iranians into the collapse and it's causes
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Ahhhh more deflection Are you ever going to answer the question that has been asked of you?
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
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?
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
Dohnjoe wrote: » What would the Iranians be covering it up? a building went on fire. The building owners were found to have ignored multiple warnings about the building safety. It was investigated because many people died Why should I trust an internet conspiracy theorist (no offence) who watches youtube and makes up things in their head over the official investigation which had no reason to lie and had access to the site and all the evidence?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And again you dodge, why not answer the question instead of avoiding it?
King Mob wrote: » So how come the acceleration was less than gravity in the first stage of collapse?
weisses wrote: » Correct assertion yes or no ? I leave it at 1 question
weisses wrote: » Because of the buckling of the columns I answered (NIST its conclusion) ...What am I dodging ?
King Mob wrote: » Yup, I do know that's the real explanation. But you don't accept the real explanation. So if it wasn't the buckling of the columns, what was it? Why was the acceleration less than that of gravity in the first stage of collapse?
The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed.
NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall. So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.
King Mob wrote: » So hang on now... Are you saying that the times that you provided and said you believed aren't actually accurate?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Insurance reasons, public harmony. Firefighters got killed by gas canisters stored in the building (the reason the building came down). I not sure what the laws are in Iran, and can people be prosecuted for this? Iranian government could be protecting the owner of the building?
weisses wrote: » Please elaborate
weisses wrote: » What I mean is that the buidings collapse was accelarating wtc 7 Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall) Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
weisses wrote: » I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds
King Mob wrote: » Do you believe the numbers provided by the NIST, that you quoted, are an accurate description of what happened?: If not, what are the accurate numbers? Remember, that you said: Which implies that you believe those numbers to be correct. If that's not the case, where did you get this number of 2.25 seconds of freefall?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)