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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just associate speed with acceleration.

Yes, I know you confuse speed and acceleration because you don't understand basic physics.
You are again, showing how little you know and it's really really funny.

Acceleration and speed are not the same thing.
Acceleration due to gravity is never called "the speed of gravity" because that is the incorrect term.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

I know what the acceleration due to gravity is.
You didn't have to google it for me.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Again, you don't understand the very basic wording of the report you are dismissing.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob you don't.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

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

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Again, you are making a show of yourself here.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

You realize how poor of quality that image is? How low resolution it is?
Here is the same study, the same studied object



Here is sulfidation of carbon steel from other sources







If that doesn't help you than neither can I.

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.

I refer you to the FEMA report. I couldn't tell you how long this sample was in the rubble before it was recovered or if it was the result of a few hours of burn or if it was recovered months later in one of the aforementioned hot spots.

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.



What special about the fire in towers? Do you think the fires in the Carrington fire experiment are different?

Yes, they were different, and this image you're sharing is not of the same study in the original paper you linked to. The Cardington building, for example, is not at all the same structural design, composition, height, width, or length to the Trade Center towers. It is a composite concrete-steel construction with steel spans that are supported in at least half the spans seen in the WTC, with Cardington spans being no longer (and often shorter) than 9 meters and simply supported, while the steel spans on the towers were at least 18 meters. That's before we even get into the joint and assembly design at the towers, which studies already provide.

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.

NIST reports the towers "reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit," which is the same heat that was reported in the Cardington paper, as a matter of fact. It is also very consistent with the FDNY eyewitness reports often re-shared by truthers, in which firefighters are seen talking about how it 'must be as hot as 1500 F in there.'

It just so happens though that the Cardington tests were quite short - only 40 minutes in which peak burn was achieved and 40 minutes to ramp off, and still, only in small sections of their mock-up building. Their test was not at all designed to simulate a runaway fire across several floors, their assumption was clearly that fire foors and other prevention measures would stop pyro-runaway.

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.

Entertaining this for a moment, is there any evidence it didn't get knocked off? Who has recreated the fireproofing, aged it 30+ years, and then slammed 40 million kg-m/s of momentum into it (as well as a massive f*ck-off explosion shockwave which released millions of joules of kinetic energy?)

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.

From out the windows sure. The floors are quite expansive. And that fireball has the useful side effect of igniting everything in its path.

North Tower and a big fireball image is an example of my point. Few fires and mostly smouldering smoke.

Again, you seem to have missed my point about your matter of perspective, you clearly fail to grasp just how large the towers were - 208 meters square, per floor. These fires by any standard were massive, just not in direct proportion to the sheer size of the building as a whole, as you seem to think is required to classify this as a significant event.

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)

As I said, that 'raging fire' in the Cardington video is fundamentally less raging than the WTC fires you claim are smouldering. You're just looking at them up close. How do you not understand this? Those two windows you see blazing in the Cardington video are 18 m across, where some spans of the towers had fires blazing out of up to 100 meter rows of windows. The WTC fires were significantly larger.

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?

I don't know where to begin with this - you're assuming the wall is fine *based on what?* your Engineering credentials? Your math? I'm not following here - and somehow you're STILL stuck on the nano-thermite theory, in spite of a clear lack of any evidence to support this theory.

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

There's actually nothing to say concrete, when pulverized, doesn't fail in brittle mode and partially sublime to dust at the failure points, however: Who says the concrete was powder? Where is this established? Are you ignoring the fact that after materials burn off (eg. office paper, fabrics, etc) that they become ash?

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.

That paper was widely debunked, it failed to pass scientific replication. We've been over this. They were not thermite chips - and who has re-created thermite chips to prove this theory, anyway?



Thermite is a powder, not a chip. It categorically makes no sense for a "NANO" thermite to be a giant chip. The powder burns effecively because the dust particles provide a high surface area vs. the total volume. Chips do not. Not at all. This is beyond laughable.

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.

*molten aluminum is not silver*. The *exposed to air* surface of molten aluminum, like a magma flow, is not necessarily always bright white hot, but that doesn't mean it is silver color in its molten state. I could see why you would get confused because aluminum still flows quite easily with a cooled skin encasing the molten state.



Here is magma flow. It is red to yellow hot when it is molten, look at its silver skin as it cools. Doesn't mean that molten magma is silver.

Enjoy:

The pitfalls of basing an argument on technical and scientific language and jargon in a language that one is not conversant in on a "native" level is really starting to bite CS on the arse!

Although...
Given that "Math" is the universal language and he has serious issues grasping and demonstrating understanding of fairly basic physics concepts...
Maybe its not so universal!

The sheer obsitnacy on display in the face of overwhelming evidence and consensus and in light of basing your entire position on your secret knowledge of conspiracy that is constantly debunked is both admirable and worrying.
Admirable in the sense that much like the little engine who could, he just never gives up.
Worrying in the sense that I honestly believe the level irrationality on display would leave me questioning competence if it was displayed by someone I know IRL.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They only measured 18 floors fact if you believe otherwise post new info?

What relevance is them only measuring the collapse for 18 floors in one part of one part of an addendum to the report?


A few posts ago, you were clinging to that same measurement as if it were gospel truth.

It seems like you are flip flopping again because you realised your theory was starting to spring leaks.

The Nal wrote: »

Still waiting on evidence as to how they rigged three buildings with explosives.........

8 people, one weekend. Friday morning, go....

I'd get comfy and maybe make some tea...
Gonna be a while.

We can't even get them to decide if it was nanothermite or not. Cheerful seems to have abandoned that claim now.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There 5 of you guys one of me I have only two hands to reply.

But you make plenty of time to reply to everything else, then come back around again and then some more. You have yet to answer this basic question and this 5 vs 1 dodge is incredibly hollow.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't even know the report. Explain stage 1 in full explanation, how long do you estimate it took for 84 columns and floors to fall away?

Again, the parts of the report you yourself quoted explain stage one in very clear terms. You just don't understand what it says.
It doesn't say that all 84 columns and floors fell away during stage one.
They make this very clear.

You claimed that the NIST report said there was no resistance.
You were wrong. You are trying to distract from that and for another example of how you displayed an embarrassing lack of science knowledge.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Explain why there no breakage of windows on 47 floors.
Where the dust?
You explanation for no deformation of the east and west walls in stage 1

Again, you demand answers while doing nothing but dodging and weaving.
I have no intention in trying to decipher your poor grammar for what is essentially you trying to change the subject again.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST only measured 18 floors. What they could observe on video. There no clear video of the collapse below this

So...?