Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…9293959798…102

Comments

  • Options
    #2822
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Informative read from the SFPE on the partial collapse of WTC 5, highlighting some of the shortcomings of fire protection standards.

    Namely, the sections of WTC 5 that failed we’re pretty clunky Gerber support designs that you can see in the figures; and they were attached to the columns at shear points some distance away from the columns which mitigated the heat dissipation performance.

    Also it is not in the scope of the paper so I could not reasonably affirm it, but it does appear to me that much of the exposed steel in the building suffered from sulfidation attacks, looking at the provided figures ;)

    https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/fpe_journal_archives/2009/JFPE_2009_4_1.pdf

    It wonderfully highlights WTC 5 as a real world sample for what different structural assembly types can do under enough fire load, with different sections of WTC 5 constructed differently than others.


  • Options
    #2823
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which one?

    The controlled demolition one
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which council?

    The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

    The one you quoted


  • Options
    #2824
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Know what would work though?

    Space lasers...

    200.gif?cid=3640f6095c7ef66a4d426b42411f1214


  • Options
    #2825
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yup and this has been explained, if there's a part of it you don't understand, ask

    What's the source on this? This looks like 10 year old stuff from conspiracy sites?

    Where has it been explained ?

    Sources are in the article ...FEMA etc


  • Options
    #2826
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Informative read from the SFPE on the partial collapse of WTC 5, highlighting some of the shortcomings of fire protection standards.

    Namely, the sections of WTC 5 that failed we’re pretty clunky Gerber support designs that you can see in the figures; and they were attached to the columns at shear points some distance away from the columns which mitigated the heat dissipation performance.

    Also it is not in the scope of the paper so I could not reasonably affirm it, but it does appear to me that much of the exposed steel in the building suffered from sulfidation attacks, looking at the provided figures ;)

    https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/fpe_journal_archives/2009/JFPE_2009_4_1.pdf

    It wonderfully highlights WTC 5 as a real world sample for what different structural assembly types can do under enough fire load, with different sections of WTC 5 constructed differently than others.

    Indeed ... Other buildings only need a few office fires to completely collapse

    Those beautiful "real world" samples


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2827
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Indeed ... Other buildings only need a few office fires to completely collapse

    Those beautiful "real world" samples

    Yep then we agree.

    SFPE concludes that the partial collapses in WTC 5 occured 2 hours into the blaze, excacerbated by a less than stellar structural design in the collapsed sections and the total lack of fire suppression.

    WTC 7 was a pretty epic blaze. It was hit with debris from between 9:52 AM and 10:28 AM, then burned for a substantial 7 hours, almost entirely without fire suppression efforts until 5:21 PM.

    That Cardington test was 40+40 minutes?


  • Options
    #2828
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,580 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    weisses wrote: »
    Indeed ... Other buildings only need a few office fires to completely collapse

    Those beautiful "real world" samples

    So a controlled demolition then. OK, I'm on board with that.

    Quick question, how did they rig the buildings with explosives?


  • Options
    #2829
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Yep then we agree.

    SFPE concludes that the partial collapses in WTC 5 occured 2 hours into the blaze, excacerbated by a less than stellar structural design in the collapsed sections and the total lack of fire suppression.

    WTC 7 was a pretty epic blaze. It was hit with debris from between 9:52 AM and 10:28 AM, then burned for a substantial 7 hours, almost entirely without fire suppression efforts until 5:21 PM.

    That Cardington test was 40+40 minutes?

    Most of the (visible) fires were burned out ... debris hitting wtc7 had nothing to do with the collapse

    Then at 5.21 all then supporting columns gave way instantly and the building collapsed collapses

    I think wtc 5 performed well when you look at the amount of debris hitting the building


    www.voanews.com_MediaAssets2_projects_ground_zero_10_05_b.jpg

    5-wtc-photo.jpg


  • Options
    #2830
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    The Nal wrote: »
    Quick question, how did they rig the buildings with explosives?

    That is the million dollar question.

    Does failure to answer that from my desktop automatically means it must have been office fires ?


  • Options
    #2831
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,580 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    weisses wrote: »
    That is the million dollar question.

    Does failure to answer that from my desktop automatically means it must have been office fires ?

    No but unless theres any kind of theory thats in any way plausible regarding how "they" rigged the buildings (I haven't seen one in 18 years) then “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    What we have remaining, are office fires.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2832
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,646 ✭✭✭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:

    Still abusing the CBTUH report? I guess you must have forgotten about, not understood, or just decided to ignore this...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108366842&postcount=336

    The CBTUH does not support the Truthers' inside job/controlled demolition theory. They are quite clear on this point.


  • Options
    #2833
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    That is the million dollar question.

    Does failure to answer that from my desktop automatically means it must have been office fires ?

    But it's been 18 years and not one conspiracy theorist has been able to produce a single viable theory that isn't insane or hilarious.

    It can't be explosives...
    Nanothermite and space lasers are silly...

    Your only argument that it can't be office fires is that you, a person with no training in any relevant field and a lack of basic knowledge in fields like science, personally find it unlikely.

    So yea, the complete failure of you guys to provide any meaningful answers means it was most likely office fires.


  • Options
    #2834
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,646 ✭✭✭storker


    King Mob wrote: »
    and space lasers are silly...

    I can't agree with this. You obviously didn't see what the Death Star was able to do to an entire planet.


  • Options
    #2835
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's been 18 years and not one conspiracy theorist has been able to produce a single viable theory that isn't insane or hilarious.

    It can't be explosives...
    Nanothermite and space lasers are silly...

    Your only argument that it can't be office fires is that you, a person with no training in any relevant field and a lack of basic knowledge in fields like science, personally find it unlikely.

    So yea, the complete failure of you guys to provide any meaningful answers means it was most likely office fires.

    The conclusion it cannot be office fires is not made by me ... Its suggested by people with more knowledge then you and I

    That's why you probably keep dodging question about facts that actually happened and are not addressed properly by the official report...


  • Options
    #2836
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    storker wrote: »
    The CBTUH does not support the Truthers' inside job/controlled demolition theory. They are quite clear on this point.

    And they also dont support the NIST conclusion
    The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
    result of the buckling of Column 79

    So what did NIST do with this conclusion from the council ?
    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

    It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
    connection to Column 79 Page 5

    The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder
    connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would
    expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately
    prior to collapse. Page 7

    And NIST’s assertion that column buckling proceeded floor collapse:

    We strongly believe that the initiating event was the
    failure of the floor and the girder connections to the main column and that this should be documented in Section 14.3.4. Page 7

    The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
    result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
    the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
    buckling of internal columns. Page 10

    However, the CTBUH also casts serious doubt on NIST’s entire thermal expansion fairy tale by suggesting that cooling was in fact taking place around the magical Column 79 at the time of failure:

    It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column
    79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle? Page 6

    And questions NIST’s hypothesis about floor beams buckling both theoretically and with experimental data:

    It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
    of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
    of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
    flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests. Page 6

    Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:

    The report is rather confusing because the floor analysis is considered in
    Sections 8, 11 and 12. It would be better if there was a complete
    reconciliation of the analysis models. Page 6

    …

    In these sections NIST states that the initial failure was caused by the failure
    of the floor system, in particular the connections to Column 79, that led to the
    column becoming excessively slender and buckling. These statements
    contradict the summary section 14.3.4 that identifies the initiating event as the
    buckling of Column 79. Page 7

    But don’t expect the CTBUH to come out and endorse 9/11 Truth either:

    The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
    the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
    professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
    direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. 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. Page 4

    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.


  • Options
    #2837
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    The conclusion it cannot be office fires is not made by me ... Its suggested by people with more knowledge then you and I
    But people more knowledgable than you or I suggest that it was space lasers as well...

    The vast vast vast majority of knowledgeable people however fall on one side and not the other.
    weisses wrote: »
    That's why you probably keep dodging question about facts that actually happened and are not addressed properly by the official report...
    But I have addressed them:
    You simply don't understand the technical aspects of the reports and are simply parroting people who also don't understand or deliberately don't understand.

    And again, even if those "problems" held and weren't just born of ignorance, the fact remains that you have addressed absolutely nothing about the problems with the conspiracy theory and cannot propose a single viable alternative that isn't insane.
    It can't be explosives...
    Space lasers and nanothermite are sci fi nonsense...
    It's not a mini nuke...

    If it's not those, what is it?

    The only explanation that is at all viable, is the real explanation.


  • Options
    #2838
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I have addressed them:
    You simply don't understand the technical aspects of the reports and are simply parroting people who also don't understand or deliberately don't understand.

    You have not

    How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

    You carefully avoided this by stating I wouldn't understand it anyway


  • Options
    #2839
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Most of the (visible) fires were burned out ... debris hitting wtc7 had nothing to do with the collapse

    Then at 5.21 all then supporting columns gave way instantly and the building collapsed collapses

    I think wtc 5 performed well when you look at the amount of debris hitting the building

    Debris hitting WTC 7 had *everything* to do with the collapse - the debris was the source of ignition for the multiple fires that burned through the building!

    Yes just like in the North and South tower, there's a stage where a catastrophic failure occurs.

    WTC 5 performed *remarkably well* given the amount of debris the smashed into the building. As noted by the SFPE in parts of the building that didnt collapse that nonetheless saw substantial blazes, they benefited from a more rigorous support structure.

    Again we are lead into thinking by Truthers that the Masterminds:

    a) Staged magic thermite everywhere
    b) Painstakingly and super accurately calculated the failure mode of the buildings to fall exactly how they wanted them to so that
    c) WTC 7 would be burned up so they could stage its collapse to destroy government documents (as opposed to just like, shredding them one weekend)

    BUT that

    d) All their expert math and pre-demolition calculations somehow missed the major damage that would be wreaked upon WTC 5 thus leaving a gaping plot hole in their official story cover-up because they forgot to rig WTC 5 with magic thermite too? Outta here with that.
    The conclusion it cannot be office fires is not made by me ... Its suggested by people with more knowledge then you and I
    And those 'conclusions' are and have been flatly debunked by a number of sources and issues with their argument. I have addressed several in just the past few days, independently.


  • Options
    #2840
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

    With science.

    Besides, thermite doesnt cut through steel instantaneously, invisibly, nor quietly. None of the samples that have been presented as evidence of this theory have been reproducible nor have they actually shown what truthers claim is shown: the 'unignited red thermite' was independtly sampled from other WTC dust and found to not have the necessary thermitic product//byproducts, and the 'melted steel' that FEMA recovered was a steel component that was hot corroded via sulfidation. Molten metal and the 1500 F temperatures reported in 1st and 2nd hand eyewitness accounts on the ground zero site are inconsistent with molten steel and very consistent with molten aluminum - and these buildings had aluminum exoskeletons. No one to date has simulated or recreated a thermitic experiment which has resulted in the persistence of molten steel for more than a minute or two after ignition, much less months, nor has any metallurgical evidence uncovered to date approached the suggestion that temperatures got anywhere close to the 4000 C that thermite reaction occurs.


  • Options
    #2841
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Debris hitting WTC 7 had *everything* to do with the collapse - the debris was the source of ignition for the multiple fires that burned through the building!

    I meant the structural damage caused by the debris

    Yes just like in the North and South tower, there's a stage where a catastrophic failure occurs.
    Overheal wrote: »
    WTC 5 performed *remarkably well* given the amount of debris the smashed into the building. As noted by the SFPE in parts of the building that didnt collapse that nonetheless saw substantial blazes, they benefited from a more rigorous support structure.

    Building 7 also had a more rigorous support structure

    Overheal wrote: »
    And those 'conclusions' are and have been flatly debunked by a number of sources and issues with their argument. I have addressed several in just the past few days, independently.

    Yes you addressed some of cheer fulls posts


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2842
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    I'd also like to point out you're viewing the Cardington Fire test from a vantage point just several feet away from the windows. You're also looking at a window:wall ratio in the range of 1:2.

    In virtually all of the WTC footage you're getting photography from the ground - almost a kilometer away from the fires in some cases! The fires you say are 'smouldering' in the WTC are as blazing if not more blazing than the Cardignton fire, you're just seeing it from further away. Like this?

    9_58south.jpeg

    That's a lot of aluminum exoskeleton. You can barely make out a window to begin with in most photos.

    That's more than one floor burning - and that goes basically half the width of the building, so 100 meters. The Cardington building as a whole was only 45 meters wide (and only 21 meters length), that video you posted shows fire blazing out of 2 windows - a span of 18 meters total. Meanwhile the WTC was 208 meters square with an open floor plan - not the compartmentalized testing Cardington did!

    We not going to agree here I am betting.

    If the purpose here is to identify then I expect you to post images resembling this

    475490.png

    And also please do provide the time it took for the steel to corrode in this environment? I not attacking the science.

    My point was, If this happened when the building was still standing then a genuine scientific experiment, should be made available by NIST or FEMA
    The source for the sulphur even FEMA admits could not be identified and they said it needed further research. The Gypsum wallboard ( the source for the sulphur) is now a debunked theory can be ruled out. You can find this experiment online (shown on video_ and I posted it here a few times already. The steel did not melt, crack, leave holes or corrode the surface of steel in 24 hours. There is a severe loss of weight that needs to explained.

    There office furniture, computers, and paper everything you find in the towers and they even added extra wood and they burned up to 1000c heat ( i believe they used a gas burner at one stage) and the steel beam was unprotected and just sagged ( was not a bare room) Here the image to show you.

    475491.png

    What special about the fire in towers? Do you think the fires in the Carrington fire experiment are different? There no evidence whatsoever the steel in the towers reached the same temps. How can it have when NIST even admits the jet fuel was gone in 10 to 15 minutes? Range around the steel was far lower.

    South tower collapsed in 56 minutes less than an hour. Fireproofing should have prevented weakening despite what NIST claims. There no evidence the fireproofing got knocked off by the plane.

    You just proved my point thanks. This the fireball after the plane hit the South Tower. Most of the jet fuel igniting outside the building. Speculator but not evidence of out control fires on all floors. You see random pockets of intense fires on some floors, not on others.

    North Tower and a big fireball image is an example of my point. Few fires and mostly smouldering smoke. You see the top portion of the north tower ( with the antenna) if there were 1000c fires you see flames breaking windows on every floor. Look at the Carrington video again that’s a raging hot fire (yellow and red temp)

    I do see the aluminium walls sagging at one corner. Where debunkers claim the walls bowed in from the truss failure. You can’t see behind this wall and check if the perimeter steel sprandels are losing stability and failing. The load is fine, there was no weakening of steel by the fire. The steel hat truss was weakened by controlled demoition+ maybe the nano-thermite?

    4-inch floor concrete was powder when the towers started to fall there just no way this can be caused by fire.

    The nano-thermite chips were found in the dust. They are there to be analysed 6 scientists have done so and confirmed the chips have thermatic properties They are not painted chips or chips made during a fire. FEMA claims there was no aluminium and I can’t prove they are lying and are keeping this quiet. I just agree with you it not mentioned in there reporting.

    Neither can NIST prove it was not Molten steel. You have seen the picture I posted of the yellow/red liquid pool by the steel columns (yes?)
    Molten Aluminium is silver color you can't change the colour unless you add in another chemical.


  • Options
    #2843
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    With science.

    Besides, thermite doesnt cut through steel instantaneously, invisibly, nor quietly. None of the samples that have been presented as evidence of this theory have been reproducible nor have they actually shown what truthers claim is shown: the 'unignited red thermite' was independtly sampled from other WTC dust and found to not have the necessary thermitic product//byproducts, and the 'melted steel' that FEMA recovered was a steel component that was hot corroded via sulfidation. Molten metal and the 1500 F temperatures reported in 1st and 2nd hand eyewitness accounts on the ground zero site are inconsistent with molten steel and very consistent with molten aluminum - and these buildings had aluminum exoskeletons. No one to date has simulated or recreated a thermitic experiment which has resulted in the persistence of molten steel for more than a minute or two after ignition, much less months, nor has any metallurgical evidence uncovered to date approached the suggestion that temperatures got anywhere close to the 4000 C that thermite reaction occurs.


    That is not an answer to my simple question

    But to recap ... thermite is out ... but office fires can cause it ?


  • Options
    #2844
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You have not

    How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

    You carefully avoided this by stating I wouldn't understand it anyway
    But I have addressed this several times.
    The supporting columns weren't simultaneously removed. It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. You keep referring to "allowing free fall" acceleration, but you can't explain what you mean by that, how it's relevant or how it indicates a controlled demolition. You can't explain this as you don't know what free fall is or how it works and you can't do the basic physics needed to understand it.

    To explain this to you, you need to actually outline what it is your claiming, what you are basing all of it on and how it shows the controlled demolition or else how the real explanation is false. But you can't do that as you are simply repeating canards you've watched on youtube, but don't actually understand.
    From experience I know you aren't capable of engaging in an actual discussion where you are open to these things being explained to you.

    I have repeated these points to you many, many times.

    You have not once been able to address a single point about the conspiracy theory in this area (or any other area).
    If you like, I can list them.


  • Options
    #2845
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Okay I realize to the average joe that the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat might sound like a very official, scientific, and well-to-do body of people...

    But literally, their mission objective and job is to simply be the 'authority on the official height of tall buildings.'

    Not exactly the SFPE, NIST, FEMA, ASME, ASCE, etc. .....


  • Options
    #2846
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob freefall means 84 columns (east to west all the way across) were taken out when it reached stage 2 of the collapse. If there were columns there be a push back a resistance. WTC7 just dropped meeting no resistance no structural support was stopping the descend.


  • Options
    #2847
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    That is not an answer to my simple question

    But to recap ... thermite is out ... but office fires can cause it ?

    I can substantially prove an office fire occurred, whereas I have no evidence which can prove there was any thermite present.


  • Options
    #2848
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    King Mob freefall means 84 columns (east to west all way across) were taken out when reached stage 2 of the collapse If there were columns there be a push back a resistance. WTC7 just dropped meeting no resistance no structural support was stopping the descend.
    But that's not true.
    According to the NIST report, it did encounter resistance.
    You just simply didn't understand what the report said. And you don't understand what free fall is.
    Stage 1 of the collapse and Stage 3 where when the facade of the building was collapsing and experiencing resistance.

    Further, we know that this isn't the case because of the simple math question I asked you and you took 2 months to answer.

    Again, this has been explained to you guys in painful detail. You either aren't reading or you just don't understand what you are talking about.


  • Options
    #2849
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not true.
    According to the NIST report, it did encounter resistance.
    You just simply didn't understand what the report said. And you don't understand what free fall is.
    Stage 1 of the collapse and Stage 3 where when the facade of the building was collapsing and experiencing resistance.

    Further, we know that this isn't the case because of the simple math question I asked you and you took 2 months to answer.

    Exactly. There should be no resistance. Freefall is an object falling at the speed of gravity.

    If there was structural support providing resistance in stage 2 of the collapse, it not freefall is it?

    Your question was stupid and still is. Irrelevant question.


  • Options
    #2850
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Freefall is an object falling at the speed of gravity.
    Lol, no cheerful. Again you are displaying your ignorance.
    Freefall is not a speed.
    The "speed of gravity" is equal to the speed of light.
    Objects do not fall at the speed of light.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    If there was structural support providing resistance in stage 2 of the collapse, it not freefall is it?
    Again, you are either not reading or you don't understand.

    The start of the collapse began at the beginning of stage 1.
    Throughout stage one, the facade of the building was falling at less than freefall.
    It was collapsing at less than free fall because it was experiencing resistance.

    You said:
    WTC7 just dropped meeting no resistance no structural support was stopping the descend.
    That's simply and demonstrable not true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2851
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, no cheerful. Again you are displaying your ignorance.
    Freefall is not a speed.
    The "speed of gravity" is equal to the speed of light.
    Objects do not fall at the speed of light.

    Again, you are either not reading or you don't understand.

    The start of the collapse began at the beginning of stage 1.
    Throughout stage one, the facade of the building was falling at less than freefall.
    It was collapsing at less than free fall because it was experiencing resistance.

    You said:
    That's simply and demonstrable not true.

    I just associate speed with acceleration.

    If you want to be exact freefall is an acceleration 9.81m/s^2.

    Really lol no stage 2 is 100 feet of collapse about 8 to 10 floors. Stage 1 is the roofline, stage 2 is 100 feet about 8 floors + and Stage 3 is the rest of the floors. They only measured the top 18 floors they could see on video.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement