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

Free Fall thread

Overheal

Dedicated thread for free fall of WTC 7.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

It is not up to the ct ers to explain free fall .... If you have 2 functioning eyes it looks like controlled demolition, Thats a fact

I have never seen someone scientifically explaining how a building on fire can collapse reaching gravitational acceleration

All the so called debunkers here haven't a clue

This is gaslighting.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

This is gaslighting.

Sure

Im not doubting his sanity ...

The Nal

weisses wrote: »

It is not up to the ct ers to explain free fall .... If you have 2 functioning eyes it looks like controlled demolition, Thats a fact

So the question then is, how did they rig the two biggest buildings in the world and a 52 story building beside it with explosives, in one of the busiest and well protected places on earth?

And how did those explosives survive the plane crashes?

Until we start looking at that, theres no theory.

You can't pick a theory and work your way back but in this case there isn't even a way back to how this could be done.

Most easily debunked theory I've seen.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Sure

Im not doubting his sanity ...

Sure. Nor his perception either?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Sure. Nor his perception either?

Not as in vision no the term perception in gas lighting does not mean eye sight

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Not as in vision no the term perception in gas lighting does not mean eye sight

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

[Deleted User]

Overheal wrote: »

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

King Mob wrote: »

The majority of your beliefs and arguments come from not having a good grasp of scientific topics and clinging desperately to narrow, often bizarre interpretations of statements about those topics.

Just saying...

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means

More gaslighting.

weisses

The Nal wrote: »

So the question then is, how did they rig the two biggest buildings in the world and a 52 story building beside it with explosives, in one of the busiest and well protected places on earth?

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

More gaslighting.

I thought a mere statement of fact based on your posts

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

Have you read this? It's the most detailed explanation of freefall you find online. He goes over every aspect why its impossible by natural means.
https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

To bad it is not answering the point i made

but just an objective observation of demolitions that have occurred of buildings that are potentially similar in nature

I am not talking about demolition....Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

Then why post a link that deals with demolition when I am specifically are asking for facts and science to explain the collapse?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what skeptics have been impressing upon you yes.

Rob made an insightful post yesterday. Similar discussion points are made in the chandler blog.

He says he is a forensic structural engineer.

Pity he only make two posts in two years so his not a regular poster, unfortunately. He just dropped by to show how silly the debunkers arguments are

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Rob made an insightful post yesterday. Similar discussion points are made in the chandler blog.

He says he is a forensic structural engineer.

Pity he only make two posts in two years so his not a regular poster, unfortunately. He just dropped by to show how silly the debunkers arguments are

You seem to missed the fact he disagrees completely with and doesn't believe your or AE9/11's theory.

You shouldn't misrepresent people like that.

weisses

Other simple scientific and factual point

NIST makes a computer model on which they base their collapse hypothesis on, nowhere in this model do they account for their own three stage collapse sequence

That is a big scientific boo boo and I believe I am factually correct with this statement

Thoughts ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Nope ..The question is, How a building can fall symmetrically reaching free fall acceleration due to a progressive collapse
If you can answer that question with science there is no need for a demolition theory

Nope, that's your personal question.

What happened on 9/11 is widely accepted recorded history. The theory (based on overwhelming consensus and evidence) is that terrorists flew planes into buildings. You are attempting to revise that history by claiming "I don't get it, therefore it was some sort of conspiracy I can't detail or explain"

That's the intellectual height of your argument here.

Consensus doesn't work for you either, it works against you. A certain amount of individuals may think like you, but they exhibit the exact same logical flaws in their arguments, i.e. they either have no theory (like you) or have a vast multitude of vague contradictory theories - and that's an even bigger red flag

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, that's your personal question.

Sorry Im talking wtc7 here

Which I think is a factual desciption

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

To bad it is not answering the point i made

I am not talking about demolition....Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

Not according to truthers?

Thread aptly demonstrated what it takes to demo a building with explosives (a lot). It also demonstrated the challenges in computer modeling a collapse accurately even when you know the precise placement of cutting charges.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Not according to truthers?

I am more interested in NIST and their findings. Once we can scientifically establish they had it right, the whole demolition theory is out the window

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, that's your personal question.

What happened on 9/11 is widely accepted recorded history. The theory (based on overwhelming consensus and evidence) is that terrorists flew planes into buildings. You are attempting to revise that history by claiming "I don't get it, therefore it was some sort of conspiracy I can't detail or explain"

That's the intellectual height of your argument here.

Consensus doesn't work for you either, it works against you. A certain amount of individuals may think like you, but they exhibit the exact same logical flaws in their arguments, i.e. they either have no theory (like you) or have a vast multitude of vague contradictory theories - and that's an even bigger red flag

WTC7 breaks Newtons laws. This point was made yesterday in the new post by Robver.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

I am more interested in NIST and their findings. Once we can scientifically establish they had it right, the whole demolition theory is out the window

The work is not flawless and they are limited by what they can do via computer simulation.

As in the thread I showed, a collapse model was built for a controlled demolition with known variables. It still cut corners, made virtual assumptions, and had to bridge gaps between numerical methods and real world physics. The simulation took 29 days to compute. That was in 2011. NIST was working with less advanced computing several years removed and a fraction of the power. Subsequently the NIST simulation doesn’t look like a 1:1 recreation of the total collapse. But then, that fact is not surprising given the realities of simulation analysis.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

WTC7 breaks Newtons laws. This point was made yesterday in the new post by Robver.

No, it doesn't.

Again, Robver's explanation is completely incompatible with your explanation for the collapse.

If you are now latching onto his explanation, you have to completely reject and abandon the idea of nanothermite and super hot fires.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

The work is not flawless and they are limited by what they can do via computer simulation.

As in the thread I showed, a collapse model was built for a controlled demolition with known variables. It still cut corners, made virtual assumptions, and had to bridge gaps between numerical methods and real world physics. The simulation took 29 days to compute. That was in 2011. NIST was working with less advanced computing several years removed and a fraction of the power. Subsequently the NIST simulation doesn’t look like a 1:1 recreation of the total collapse. But then, that fact is not surprising given the realities of simulation analysis.

You have not read Chandler's blog. He shows in precise detail why NIST revised three stages is a fabrication, a big fat lie.

You ignore on video in Aug 2008 NIST said freefall was impossibility during a natural collapse. They got caught and their study is junk.

Cheerful Spring2

The nanothermite was found in dust samples belonging to the Twin towers. WTC7 dust samples were not collected by Harrit and his team.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The nanothermite was found in dust samples belonging to the Twin towers. WTC7 dust samples were not collected by Harrit and his team.

This thread is about free fall.

We have another thread about thermite, iron particles and aluminum oxide.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

This thread is about free fall.

We have another thread about thermite, iron particles and aluminum oxide.

Just pointing out the truthers have no real idea what explosives/devices brought down WTC7

They just found nanothermite in dust samples belonging to the Twin towers.