Free Fall thread

weisses · 26-05-2020 3:24pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, that's your personal question.

Sorry Im talking wtc7 here

Which I think is a factual desciption

Overheal · 26-05-2020 3:26pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:27pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:30pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:35pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 3:36pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:39pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:41pm

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

Overheal · 26-05-2020 3:43pm

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 · 26-05-2020 3:45pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 3:47pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 3:50pm

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

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 3:56pm

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..

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 3:56pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:00pm

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.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 4:00pm

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.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 4:02pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:02pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 4:06pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 4:06pm

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?

Overheal · 26-05-2020 4:06pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 4:08pm

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."

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:18pm

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?

Overheal · 26-05-2020 4:19pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:22pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 4:24pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dozens of steel framed high rises have caught fire, and never collapsed.

Under the same exact circumstances?

Overheal · 26-05-2020 4:26pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 4:31pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:35pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 4:38pm

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?

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 4:45pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 4:56pm

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...

banie01 · 26-05-2020 5:02pm

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!

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 5:08pm

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"..

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 5:13pm

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:

King Mob · 26-05-2020 5:15pm

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.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 5:16pm

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.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 5:28pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 5:38pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 5:39pm

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.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 5:46pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Nobody said minutes. This happened in seconds.

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 5:47pm

Reminds me of the neverending moving goalposts:

"No steel-framed building or structure in the world has ever collapsed due to fire!"

- Numerous examples of partial and full collapses

"Well, no steel-framed skyscraper in the world has ever fully collapsed due to fire"

- Plasco 2017

"No steel-framed skyscraper in Europe, Asia or the US has ever fully collapsed due to fire"

King Mob · 26-05-2020 5:48pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Hulsey has been shown to be a fraud.:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Penthouse was a section where elevators are located- we don't exactly what led to that failure there.

But we do. It was column 79 failing.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 5:51pm

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody said minutes. This happened in seconds.

No building can collapse in seconds, naturally,. there too many elements would have to buckle and break first and fall away. There long span of floor space, from one corner to the next.

What you see on video is the Penthouse (went first first sign of failure) seconds later about 5 the entire building lost support.

Freefall explains why it was so fast- controlled demolition took out 8 floors of steel columns below and full collapse began.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 5:56pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

- Plasco 2017

Steel frame; Concrete floors; High rise; Fire; Collapsed.

yep.

Overheal · 26-05-2020 5:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No building can collapse in seconds, naturally,. there too many elements would have to buckle and break first and fall away. There long span of floor space, from one corner to the next.

What you see on video is the Penthouse (went first first sign of failure) seconds later about 5 the entire building lost support.

Freefall explains why it was so fast- controlled demolition took out 8 floors of steel columns below and full collapse began.

Yes the facade fell without impedance for about 2 and a quarter seconds. This is because the interior of the structure had already fallen apart.

Dohnjoe · 26-05-2020 5:58pm

Overheal wrote: »

Steel frame; Concrete floors; High rise; Fire; Collapsed.

yep.

AE911 suggesting it was an "inside job" - check

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 5:58pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Reminds me of the neverending moving goalposts:

"No steel-framed building or structure in the world has ever collapsed due to fire!"

- Numerous examples of partial and full collapses

"Well, no steel-framed skyscraper in the world has ever fully collapsed due to fire"

- Plasco 2017

"No steel-framed skyscraper in Europe, Asia or the US has ever fully collapsed due to fire"

Plasco was in Iran- one of the worst places on earth for maintaining building standards. They made it of concrete and steel, no fireproofing, the Iranians declared the building unsafe before the collapse. Gas canisters were stored inside the building ( temps above normal) plus it collapsed with four corners toppling inwards (another clue its natural)

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-05-2020 6:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

AE911 suggesting it was an "inside job" - check

I disagree- there no evidence. Even they can be dogmatic, just like the debunkers.

King Mob · 26-05-2020 6:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

controlled demolition took out 8 floors of steel columns below and full collapse began.

And for this to cause freefall in the way you believe, this requires that all the columns are taken out all at once instantaneously.
The only way to do that, is with explosives.
Nanothermite cannot do this.

But we know it also can't have been explosives either, because setting off over 650 explosive charges all at once would result in a very noticable explosion or sequence of explosions right before the collapse.
We know this didn't happen, so there was no explosives either.

Free Fall thread

Comments