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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Free Fall thread

24567…19

Comments

  • #32
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    This is gaslighting.

    Sure

    Im not doubting his sanity ...


  • #34
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,420 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Sure

    Im not doubting his sanity ...

    Sure. Nor his perception either?


  • #36
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Sure. Nor his perception either?

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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Not as in vision no the term perception in gas lighting does not mean eye sight

    Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.


  • #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • #39
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    Sure bud. Weak semantic argument.

    Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means


  • #40
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Not my fault you dont know what gaslighting means

    More gaslighting.


  • #41
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    More gaslighting.

    I thought a mere statement of fact based on your posts


  • #43
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #44
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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


  • #45
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭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


  • #46
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    weisses wrote: »
    Demolition was not used in wtc7 remember

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


  • #47
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭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?


  • #48
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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 :)
    514333.png


  • #49
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #50
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #51
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nope, that's your personal question.

    Sorry Im talking wtc7 here

    Which I think is a factual desciption


  • #53
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #54
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭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


  • #55
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #56
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #57
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #58
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #59
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #60
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,537 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement