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

weisses

storker wrote: »

In other words, 95% of engineers and architects in the US felt no need to pursue the matter beyond the accepted explanation. Thank you.

By doing that automatically agreeing with its findings, is what you are arguing ..... pathetic

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

In other words, 95% of engineers and architects in the US felt no need to pursue the matter beyond the accepted explanation. Thank you.

They just did not research the explanation given. The trusted the source and left it at that. Big mistake.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Go on engineering forums and ask for yourself

Appreciate the attempt but reddit is not an engineering forum and I did see not one single attempt to answer the pretty specific question asked.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you believe the word of someone who has already admitted to being a liar :rolleyes:

I trust the photos are real. They were taken by David Morris a photographer a week or two after 9/11 happened.

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Instead of trying to be a smart ass you could have looked up the source on the pics

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf

Ur welcome

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

NIST is proven to be wrong ...Explained by people who understand physics ...

Your opinion and believes are noted

Ok, so why then would they say there was freefall if saying freefall gives the game away?

It doesn't make sense why they would do this.
So what's your explanation for it?

If you don't have one, then again your conspiracy explanation is invalid.
The explanation can't be that they are covering something up.

Also, why are you posting "evidence" for the explosives explanation. Are you again pretending that you believe that explanation when you likewise couldn't answer a single question about it?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so why then would they say there was freefall if saying freefall gives the game away?

It doesn't make sense why they would do this.
So what's your explanation for it?

If you don't have one, then again your conspiracy explanation is invalid.
The explanation can't be that they are covering something up.

Also, why are you posting "evidence" for the explosives explanation. Are you again pretending that you believe that explanation when you likewise couldn't answer a single question about it?

They didn't till they got corrected on it. They started the NIST WTC7 study in 2002 and concluded in Nov 2008.

In August of 2008 they handed out a draft of the final report and they denied freefall occurred. They even state that improbability of that based on their models and analysis. David Chandler corrected them on this point, and three months later NIST had a new theory freefall did occur in stage 2of the collapse?

NIST explanation is nonsensical they still claim the columns are buckling in stage 2. That's not possible. The columns were gone if Freefall occurred there was no resistance underneath at all to stop the floors above from coming down.

Cheerful Spring

Dr Sunder during the AUG 2008 conference said this it on video by the way as well:

“[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

Cheerful Spring

David Chandler question read out by NIST employee in Aug 2008. Listen closely to what Dr Saunder says then

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I trust the photos are real. They were taken by David Morris a photographer a week or two after 9/11 happened.

You're trusting someone who has already admitted lying to you! That's extremely naive of you.

Timberrrrrrrr

weisses wrote: »

Instead of trying to be a smart ass you could have looked up the source on the pics

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf

Ur welcome

There is no proof those beams are from WTC 7 though, in fact feom the link it says

The photos are most likely showing steel from WTC 7}/b] . Photos on Pages 16 to 18 have “WTC7” or “7” on them.

Timberrrrrrrr

Also from that link

I would like to add that in my entire work on WTC project and inspection of thousands of pieces of steel from the WTC structure, I never saw any piece of steel with
any indication of being subjected to blast.

This kind of dispels your claim of there being a controlled explosion to bring the buildings down.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're trusting someone who has already admitted lying to you! That's extremely naive of you.

The guy who gave me the link said the date the photographs were taken is not accurate.

Abolhassan ASTANEH a FEMA investigator claims in his link they were taken on the 8 of Oct.

The guy who gave me the link found evidence the photos were taken during the 20-28 of Sep. He was able to find the EXIF data and the images belong to a photographer named David Morris.

Abolhassan ASTANEH may be mistaken about the date or his covering up for some reason why I not sure?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Also from that link

This kind of dispels your claim of there being a controlled explosion to bring the buildings down.

Yet he staring at a steel piece totally eroded away and missing. Office Fire doesn't erode steel. The temp need to melt steel would have to be 1500c. You could get it to melt faster with Sulphur added in FEMA found this.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The guy who gave me the link said the date the photographs were taken is not accurate.

Abolhassan ASTANEH a FEMA investigator claims in his link they were taken on the 8 of Oct.

The guy who gave me the link found evidence the photos were taken during the 20-28 of Sep. He was able to find the EXIF data and the images belong to a photographer named David Morris.

Abolhassan ASTANEH may be mistaken about the date or his covering up for some reason why I not sure?

You mean the guy who admitted lying to you? But because what he has said afterwards suits your agenda you believe him this time?

Extremely naive.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You mean the guy who admitted lying to you? But because what he has said afterwards suits your agenda you believe him this time?

Extremely naive.

What guy admitted lying to me what you on about?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yet he staring at a steel piece totally eroded away and missing. Office Fire doesn't erode steel. The temp need to melt steel would have to be 1500c. You could get it to melt faster with Sulphur added in FEMA found this.

Oh sweet jesus :rolleyes:

my close-up investigation of these pieces indicated clearly and beyond any doubt
that the steel pieces in these photos have been subjected to fire after the collapse and while were resting on the ground and exposed to Ground Zero fires that were
going on for weeks.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus :rolleyes:

I think you need to watch the video I posted.

NIST admitted Aug 2008 that freefall can only occur during an instantaneous event. They even highlighted the improbability of freefall as their analysis showed there would be structural resistance underneath when the building fell.

NIST really messed up big time and unfortunately, 9/11 Skeptics did not notice this big flaw.

weisses

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST really messed up big time and unfortunately, 9/11 Skeptics did not notice this big flaw.

Ohh they did noticed it ... They are only in Denial as to how to respond ... How to explain this discrepancy ... Its is laughable at this stage

This same thread I am asking for weeks to provide solid evidence that collaborates the collapse Hypothesis presented by NIST

So far ....Nil, nothing, nada, zip ... Other then the usual subjects being pedantic and obtuse ... Cheap shots re truthers etc etc ...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so why then would they say there was freefall if saying freefall gives the game away?

It doesn't make sense why they would do this.
So what's your explanation for it?

If you don't have one, then again your conspiracy explanation is invalid.
The explanation can't be that they are covering something up.

I dont have a conspiracy explanation other then the one you find plausible

What I asked over and over is to provide the evidence that supports/proves free fall acceleration due to office fires ......

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I dont have a conspiracy explanation other then the one you find plausible

Ok, so we can exclude the idea that the NIST was covering something up.

So if they weren't hiding something, why would they first say there was no free fall and then say there was free fall and how does that point towards a conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we can exclude the idea that the NIST was covering something up.

So if they weren't hiding something, why would they first say there was no free fall and then say there was free fall and how does that point towards a conspiracy?

They claimed the second stage was over 3.9 seconds originally. In the space of three months, it was down to 2.25 seconds.

NIST is trying to cover up the obvious implications of freefall. They attempting to hide what truly happened.

First they denied it. Then in space of three months, they claim freefall, but in stage 2 they claim slight resistance is still there? What how the**** can you claim stage 2 is Freefall if there still resistance?

Cheerful Spring

NIST analysis is problematic

It highlighted in this graphic.

NIST said freefall did not occur for these reasons in Aug of 2008.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You asked yourself and barely got a response.

That's because the question has been asked repeatedly (and answered) for years. On some engineering forums it's banned

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Is this rubbish above providing evidence their model was accurate and included the free fall data ?

It was related to the question you posed - which I kindly asked on engineering forums (where it's been asked dozens of times before)

You rubbish/reject all the responses
You post a conspiracy video from a known crank (Chandler)
You again ignore the topic of the thread

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's because the question has been asked repeatedly (and answered) for years. On some engineering forums it's banned

If that was even remotely true the truth movement would not exist.

Chandler is crank lol he is a teacher of science. He forced NIST to evaluate their findings so hardly a crank.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If that was even remotely true the truth movement would not exist.

There is a Sandy Hook truth movement, a flat earth society, "Ufologists", a massive anti-vax movement, holocaust denier historians

They can call themselves whatever they want, their existence doesn't validate their (extreme) beliefs. Certain types of people will always be drawn to them.

The fact that this thread is on the relevant forum should give you a clue

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is a Sandy Hook truth movement, a flat earth society, "Ufologists", a massive anti-vax movement, holocaust denier historians

They can call themselves whatever they want, their existence doesn't validate their (extreme) beliefs. Certain types of people will always be drawn to them.

The fact that this thread is on the relevant forum should give you a clue

Odd people on the internet support the Sandy Hook theory and flat earth theory.

The 9/11 truth movement is very different. There plenty of evidence the official narrative is incorrect. It supported by retired FBI officials and even 3 of 4 co-chairpersons on the 9/11 Commission stated later the commission was set up to fail. Two of the commissioners actually quit because of the stonewalling and lack of access to information.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe You don't believe in Ufology either. So you think the Pentagon was investigating weather balloons and fog?

Ipso

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe You don't believe in Ufology either. So you think the Pentagon was investigating weather balloons and fog?

What do you think Bigelow was investigating at Skinwalker ranch?