Dohnjoe wrote: » Put the question to askengineers on reddithttps://old.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/9z2ybl/a_specific_question_about_the_collapse_of_wtc_7/ Responses to similar questionshttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/8tbtb0/how_did_wtc_building_7_collapse/https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/6zezjb/how_did_the_third_tower_collapse_in_911_without/ Explanation of a progressive collapsehttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/33tl74/how_did_the_wtc_north_tower_top_section_fall_and/cqplmln/ Can't ask on r/engineering as posts about 911 are blacklisted Put the question to a structural engineering forum, no responses received yethttps://www.istructe.org/forums?forumid=1&threadid=18447 Some details of the NIST addressed in this thread from that forumhttps://www.istructe.org/forums?page=2&forumid=1&threadid=16207 As for the article itself in Europhysics magazine rebuke of the story herehttp://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1 Snopeshttps://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/ International skeptic thread on the articlehttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065 Overview of the common misconceptions and CTs on WTC 7http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Discovered some new photographs of WTC7 steel eroded and melted away. The pictures were not taken in October. They were taken on Sep 20, 2001, by David Morris.
I guy on the internet showed me the images actually contain data when the photos were actually taken.
Why Abolhassan ASTANEH is lying when the images were taken is curious? He even tries to dismiss conspiracy theorists in this link. Sure from a guy who lies about when this steel was removed from the rubble pile.
Some of the intriguing images he did not hide though in his link.http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf
King Mob wrote: » Why didn't you just say that pages ago?:rolleyes: So in the NIST version (ie. the real version), the free fall only comes after a stage of less acceleration. This stage of less acceleration was caused by the supports buckling and failing. Then when they gave out completely and there was no more resistance, there was just the acceleration due to gravity. This is the problem you were trying to avoid and why you back pedaled so hard and are now saying you don't believe the 3 stages, despite your previous claims. As you'd be forced to admit that either the building encounter resistance or the building somehow started collapsing before the imaginary demolition charges went off. (Or, as you did, try to claim that you "ramp up" to free fall acceleration, either due to dishonesty or ignorance.) Also, I don't think any of your experts actually do dispute the 3 stages, hence why you've been so cagey about addressing your position on it. The evidence for those 3 stages in discussed in the NIST report. Which you'd know if you understood it. The flaw in your "thinking" is that you think they are saying this is for the whole building all at once. It's just not. And you would know that if you understand the report. This is also the reason why it's not super connected to the computer model (which has been scrutinised and peer reviewed, despite your silly conspiracy theory to dismiss that fact). The other flaw in your thinking is that you and your "experts" are deliberately misquoting people and misleading people ignorant of physics and terms like free fall. That's the explanation. You won't accept it however. But this thread is about your silly conspiracies and the evidence and reasoning behind them. You've dodged every question about those, and I'm done letting you deflect. I will not respond to any more demands to prove reality to you.In conspiracy land, if admitting free fall was a dead give away, why did the NIST do it?
King Mob wrote: » Mm hmm. Yup, ya got me again. The NIST is wrong. You are right even though you can't do a child's physics problem. You've convinced me. So why would they admit to freefall if it's a dead give away? Also, lol at the gif. Very witty.
weisses wrote: » Annnd we are at the point I predicted pages ago would happen You are class ..Whinging about CT'ers for weeks without providing actual proof for the theory you believe to be true :rolleyes::rolleyes:
King Mob wrote: » Why didn't you just say that pages ago?:rolleyes:
King Mob wrote: » So in the NIST version (ie. the real version), the free fall only comes after a stage of less acceleration. This stage of less acceleration was caused by the supports buckling and failing. Then when they gave out completely and there was no more resistance, there was just the acceleration due to gravity.
King Mob wrote: » The evidence for those 3 stages in discussed in the NIST report. Which you'd know if you understood it.
King Mob wrote: » This is also the reason why it's not super connected to the computer model (which has been scrutinised and peer reviewed, despite your silly conspiracy theory to dismiss that fact).
King Mob wrote: » The other flaw in your thinking is that you and your "experts" are deliberately misquoting people and misleading people ignorant of physics and terms like free fall.
King Mob wrote: » That's the explanation. You won't accept it however.
King Mob wrote: » But this thread is about your silly conspiracies and the evidence and reasoning behind them. You've dodged every question about those, and I'm done letting you deflect. I will not respond to any more demands to prove reality to you.
weisses wrote: » I dont know who is correct
King Mob wrote: » Weisses, you keep whinging about wanting your points to be addressed, but I could ahve addressed them pages and pages ago
weisses wrote: » I don't do riddles ... I believe the Chandler calculations ... that gives you my position
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.
King Mob wrote: » What you have posted already does not address my very simple question. If it was, please quote where you think it was and highlight it.
King Mob wrote: » So again, do you believe there was a first stage of collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity? Yes or no, that's all you have to type. You don't have to qualify it or hedge your bets. You don't have to give obtuse riddles. Just, yes or no.
King Mob wrote: » As I have said repeatedly I can't really address the specifics of your question until you clarify and nail down your position. If you are unwilling and (more likely) unable to do this, then mymore general answer was again repeatedly given to you:You don't understand the NIST report. You don't understand what free fall is. Your question is based on your lack of understanding.
weisses wrote: » Read what my position is
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 by not exactly accurate, you mean...? Was there a first stage of the collapse or not?
weisses wrote: » Chandler is arguing that the NIST three stages collapse is not exactly accurate, And based on his observations I tend to agree with him ... Yes
King Mob wrote: » I can answer your question, but I can only make the attempt after you clear this up.You seem to be stating that the figures you quoted from the NIST are not an accurate representation of what happened. Ie there was no first stage of the collapse where the acceleration was less than gravity. Is this correct? You only need to say yes or no.
King Mob wrote: » Again, you dodge the question: 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 (2.5) seconds of freefall?
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.
King Mob wrote: » I can't really address your point until you clear this up. The post you link back to does not answer my questions, so please answer them directly and clearly.
weisses wrote: » https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108626596&postcount=1436 How can you achieve free fall acceleration when using the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis ? In other words ..where does the animation allow for free fall acceleration ? and where is the solid scientific evidence that supports that conclusion
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?
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
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?
King Mob wrote: » So hang on now... Are you saying that the times that you provided and said you believed aren't actually accurate?
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.
weisses wrote: » Because of the buckling of the columns I answered (NIST its conclusion) ...What am I dodging ?
weisses wrote: » Correct assertion yes or no ? I leave it at 1 question
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?
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
