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

13567…19

Comments

  • #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    No cheerful, it wasn't. It's been shown there was no thermite reaction. But that's another thread you've run away from.

    The issue here is you are dishonestly misrepresenting someone's position again to claim they support you when they don't.

    Robver says that the freefall collapse is only achievable by instantly severing all the supports in an instant with high explosive charges.

    This is not compatible with the idea of nanothermite.
    Nanothermite cannot instantly sever supports. It doesn't work like that.
    Also, explosive charges do not produce molten metal.

    You believe that Robver is wrong.

    Claiming his ideas somehow vindicate yours is very dishonest.


  • #63
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Real factual information is in this blog. Discussed why the NIST analysis breaks Newton laws and is pseudoscience. NIST denied freefall in AUG 2008 that 100% percent proof they lied later.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e


  • #64
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,767 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Sorry Im talking wtc7 here

    The same principles of logic apply

    You claim you need evidence (large amounts of it) to convince you the building fell due to X

    You require no evidence to believe it fell due to Y

    That's completely nonsensical - unless you want to clarify your position..


  • #65
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    We have another thread about thermite, iron particles and aluminum oxide.

    I thought you were closing the thread? I stopped posting there for that reason. We reached no agreement.


  • #66
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The same principles of logic apply

    You claim you need evidence (large amounts of it) to convince you the building fell due to X

    You require no evidence to believe it fell due to Y

    That's completely nonsensical - unless you want to clarify your position..

    Robver explained it yesterday and this info did not compute in your mind. Freefall never happens in a natural building collapse, it breaks Newtons laws.

    Only way to bypass this is by controlled demolition.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I thought you were closing the thread? I stopped posting there for that reason. We reached no agreement.

    I never said any such thing. The thread remains open. The only one calling for its closure was you.


  • #68
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Robver explained it yesterday and this info did not compute in your mind. Freefall never happens in a natural building collapse, it breaks Newtons laws.

    Only way to bypass this is by controlled demolition.

    Also gaslighting


  • #69
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    I never said any such thing. The thread remains open. The only one calling for its closure was you.

    Post 972 belonging to you. The thread has runs it course.


  • #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Only way to bypass this is by controlled demolition.
    But he specified that it was a controlled demolition using high explosives to cut all the supports instantaneously.

    You believe that explanation to be wrong.


  • #71
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,767 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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

    Who's this "we" business? This is your personal issue..

    You want someone in this forum to explain to you how the building fell due to fire or else you'll entertain it was controlled demolition.. with no evidence

    Why would anyone trust you to accept their explanation under such a bizarre nonsensical arrangement?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Post 972 belonging to you. The thread has runs it course.

    Well, if that’s how you took it. However the thread remains open.


  • #73
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Who's this "we" business? This is your personal issue..

    You want someone in this forum to explain to you how the building fell due to fire or else you'll entertain it was controlled demolition.. with no evidence

    Why would anyone trust you to accept their explanation under such a bizarre nonsensical arrangement?
    If this tactic is acceptable, then:

    "Explain to me how an orbital space laser can take down a building or else we'll continue to believe that it wasn't a giant conspiracy."


  • #74
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Who's this "we" business? This is your personal issue..

    You want someone in this forum to explain to you how the building fell due to fire or else you'll entertain it was controlled demolition.. with no evidence

    Why would anyone trust you to accept their explanation under such a bizarre nonsensical arrangement?

    This was the first time in history a steel framed high rise collapsed due to fire.
    The first time breaks Newton laws to achieve it- what does that tell you?


  • #75
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This was the first time in history a steel framed high rise collapsed due to fire.
    The first time breaks Newton laws to achieve it- what does that tell you?

    Not a lot of steel framed high rise fires in the 20th century to compare it to.


  • #76
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not a lot of steel framed high rise fires in the 20th century to compare it to.

    Dozens of steel framed high rises have caught fire, and never collapsed. With fires burning the whole building at all, very intense.


  • #77
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,767 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Dozens of steel framed high rises have caught fire, and never collapsed.

    Under the same exact circumstances?


  • #78
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Under the same exact circumstances?

    Using the same standards of evidence as truthers any replicative examples have to precisely mirror the conditions of 9/11. That is true.


  • #79
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This was the first time in history a steel framed high rise collapsed due to fire.
    The first time breaks Newton laws to achieve it- what does that tell you?
    First time in history a steel framed high rise building collapsed due to a secret demolition.
    First time in history a steel framed high rise building was demoliished while it was on fire.
    First time in history any kind of thermite was used to demolish a building.
    First time in history that a steel framed high rise building fell down at free fall speeds.


  • #80
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Under the same exact circumstances?

    WTC5 an interesting example. Steel framed building and only a localised collapse occurred when the towers debris smashed up against it and fires started inside the building. The entire building was on fire much hotter fires than WTC7 and it stood. You even see rows of columns are still there right across the floor in pictures. Fires did not collapse the entire structure.

    ]NIST ignores with WTC7- eight floors of columns (corner to corner) just disappeared seconds or less than that before full collapse, underneath. The top half was crushing nothing on the way down to the bottom. NIST model shows crumbling at the bottom that's not freefall resistance is provided in their model.

    [Freefall is zero resistance.


  • #81
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    NIST ignores with WTC7- eight floors of columns (corner to corner) just disappeared seconds or less than that before full collapse, underneath. The top was crushing nothing on the way down to the bottom. NIST model shows crumbling at the bottom that's not freefall resistance is provided in their model.

    Freefall is zero resistance.

    So then all the supports on all of those 8 floors were rigged with high explosives?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    This was the first time in history a steel framed high rise collapsed due to fire.
    The first time breaks Newton laws to achieve it- what does that tell you?

    Fires have never caused freefall in any building collapse of steel before then its not a trustworthy explantation. Newtons laws are unbreakable so far and NIST has to show the science. They have refused to release their imputs for the model of their collapse. This is faith based engineering.


  • #83
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This was the first time in history a steel framed high rise collapsed due to fire.
    First time in history a steel framed high rise building collapsed due to a secret demolition.
    First time in history a steel framed high rise building was demoliished while it was on fire.
    First time in history any kind of thermite was used to demolish a building.
    First time in history that a steel framed high rise building fell down at free fall speeds.

    You can keep repeating the soundbite all you like, but it doesn't change the fact it's a silly argument that's easily debunked and even more easily turned back on the conspiracy theory.

    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The first time breaks Newton laws to achieve it- what does that tell you?

    Fires have never caused freefall in any building collapse of steel before then its not a trustworthy explantation.

    Newtons laws are unbreakable so far
    Cheerful, I don't believe you actually know what Newton's laws are.

    And again: Demolition has never caused freefall in any building either.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    NIST has to show the science. They have refused to release their imputs for the model of their collapse. This is faith based engineering.
    And this is also a long debunked, silly argument.

    Again it seems another thread is just a dumping ground for cheerful to just repeat the same old stuff...


  • #84
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,464 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again it seems another thread is just a dumping ground for cheerful to just repeat the same old stuff...

    But now he is providing repetitive waffle in fancy italics.

    It means it's Fact!


  • #85
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,767 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    WTC5 an interesting example. Steel framed building and only a localised collapse occurred when the towers debris smashed up against it and fires started inside the building. The entire building was on fire much hotter fires than WTC7 and it stood. You even see rows of columns are still there right across the floor in pictures. Fires did not collapse the entire structure.

    So you consider the 9 story WTC 5 and 47 story WTC 7 to be the "exact same circumstances"..


  • #86
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    NIST letter- 85 percent of the work never released. Thats the case still today 18 years later.


    2009 letter written by NIST. Reply to a request to see the raw data for the progressive collapse of building seven.

    514345.png

    Classified :cool:

    514346.png


  • #87
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    NIST letter- 85 percent of the work never released. Thats the case still today 18 years later.


    2009 letter written by NIST. Reply to a request to see the raw data for the progressive collapse of building seven.


    Classified :cool:
    And you've brought this up before many times.
    It's still a silly debunked point.


  • #88
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    WTC5 an interesting example. Steel framed building and only a localised collapse occurred when the towers debris smashed up against it and fires started inside the building. The entire building was on fire much hotter fires than WTC7 and it stood. You even see rows of columns are still there right across the floor in pictures. Fires did not collapse the entire structure.

    ]NIST ignores with WTC7- eight floors of columns (corner to corner) just disappeared seconds or less than that before full collapse, underneath. The top half was crushing nothing on the way down to the bottom. NIST model shows crumbling at the bottom that's not freefall resistance is provided in their model.

    [Freefall is zero resistance.

    WTC 5 was also only 9 stories and didn't have a penthouse iirc. I'm not convinced it's L-shape didn't factor either. WTC 7 collapsed from the inside first, behind the exterior facade, which then collapsed a few moments after.


  • #89
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Overheal wrote: »
    WTC 5 was also only 9 stories and didn't have a penthouse iirc. I'm not convinced it's L-shape didn't factor either. WTC 7 collapsed from the inside first, behind the exterior facade, which then collapsed a few moments after.
    Also, if a building that radically different in radically different circumstances counts, then there's a lot of steel framed buildings and structures that absolutely did collapse due to fire.


  • #90
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,767 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a nine-story building in the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY (Figure 1). On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the World Trade Center Tower collapses ignited fires in WTC 5. These fires burned unchecked, ultimately causing a localized interior collapse from the 8th floor to the 4th floor in the eastern section of the building (Figure 2). Debris impact was not a direct factor in this failure; the collapse was caused by fire alone.
    https://www.engineeringcivil.com/complete-report-on-failure-analysis-of-world-trade-center-5.html

    Steel fails due to fire, no questions asked by truthers.

    8790473fd447d5c0a.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    WTC 5 was also only 9 stories and didn't have a penthouse iirc. I'm not convinced it's L-shape didn't factor either. WTC 7 collapsed from the inside first, behind the exterior facade, which then collapsed a few moments after.

    How did it begin in the NIST study? Hulsey has shown in his report the girder at column 79 could not have slipped from its seat and started a progressive collapse anyhow from one corner to the next. It’s nonsense and shown to be already.

    The building fully supported up to a few seconds before the collapse. If the interior was collapsing minutes before the collapse, the entire facade would come apart, and be crumbling and distorting. What stopping the exterior walls from cracking and pulled in from falling debris? Why is there no windows smashing across the entire width of the building before the onset of full collapse?

    NIST model: see their building crumbling on all corners, and the roofline, and that’s the reality for their explanation (chaotic collapse)_- What you see on 9/11 it entirely different- the walls are coming down intact (west side a clue) and there no crumbling of the building facade up top or in the middle.
    I never seen a building lose its steel support in the top half (corner to corner) or before collapse and keep it shape, freefall has not even started yet.


    Penthouse was a section where elevators are located- we don't exactly what led to that failure there. That doesn't change the fact the building was fully supported when the Penthouse left the roof. And we know this, after this collapsed- there a second bulilding beside it that sits on top of the central core.


Advertisement