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

Free Fall thread

1…78101213…19

Comments

  • #272
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Explain the science geniuses.

    Avoid the topic like the plague.

    Freefall impossible with the steel support still there in place where i marked out.
    514554.png

    In the actual real collapse these floors have already fallen away to rubble below.

    Rob outlines again for you guys.
    Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time.
    Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
    Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure.


  • #273
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Rob outlines again for you guys.
    But again, Rob says your theory is false.
    You believe his theory is false.

    Why should be believe him?
    Why do you believe him when he disproves your nanothermite nonsense?


  • #274
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    Avoid the topic like the plague.

    We're doing nothing but discussing the topic.

    You not understanding something doesn't automatically mean that a) it didn't happen and b) something else entirely happened

    That's the common denominator to all your "arguments" on the subject..


  • #275
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    We're doing nothing but discussing the topic.

    You not understanding something doesn't automatically mean that a) it didn't happen and b) something else entirely happened

    That's the common denominator to all your "arguments" on the subject..

    You don't how free fall works, that obvious because you still deflecting.
    Robver outlined the Newton's laws in his post and why a building can not undergo freefall by natural forces caused by a fire.

    You don't believe in science if you support the NIST theory.


    There no hope for debunkers when it obvious no freefall happened in the NIST model and yet still believe magic occurred here :D


  • #276
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,860 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Explain the science geniuses.

    Avoid the topic like the plague.

    Cart before the horse.

    There is no science to be explained unless you can explain how they rigged the buildings. You can't. You can't even begin to. Because it completely impossible.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    There no hope for debunkers they see no freefall happened in the NIST model and yet still believe magic occurred here :D

    The real magic would be you explaining above.

    Please explain it to us.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Cart before the horse.

    There is no science to be explained unless you can explain how they rigged the buildings. You can't. You can't even begin to. Because it completely impossible.



    The real magic would be you explaining above.

    Please explain it to us.

    They had years and months to do it- not difficult. :D
    We know how they did because 8 floors collapsed at freefall!!!


  • #278
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You don't how free fall works, that obvious because you still deflecting.
    No, we do understand what free fall is and how it works.
    You have demonstrated that you do not.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Robver outlined the Newton's laws in his post
    Lol, no he didn't at all.

    Again, I don't think you even know what Newton's Laws actually are.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    why a building can not undergo freefall by natural forces caused by a fire.
    His explanation shows that the nanothermite theory is impossible.
    We also know his explanation is impossible because we'd hear it.

    You keep ignoring those points and think that others are just going to forget them. It's very silly.


  • #279
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    They had years and months to do it- not difficult. :D
    We know how they did because 8 floors collapsed at freefall!!!
    But we don't know that because there's no explanation for how those 8 floors gave way instantaneously.
    We know it's not thermite because thermite can't do something like that.
    We know it's not high explosives because that would be very obvious.
    We know that there's no evidence for either of these in the dust.

    If it's not those, how else did they do it?


  • #280
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You don't how free fall works

    Stop telling others what they know and don't know based on your own ignorance

    I've witnessed posters painstaking explain these basic concepts to you countless times and you simply don't understand them

    A person on the internet not understanding something is not proof of a conspiracy theory

    Likewise, I suspect many truthers simply don't want to understand because maintaining their faulty belief is more comforting than facing the terrifying fact they've been wrong for years


  • #281
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,860 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    They had years and months to do it- not difficult. :D
    We know how they did because 8 floors collapsed at freefall!!!

    What about WTC1 and 2?


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Nal wrote: »
    What about WTC1 and 2?
    Huh weird. He's changed his theory again. Last time he claimed that those 15 guys set up the demolition over a weekend...


  • #283
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,860 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    Huh weird. He's changed his theory again. Last time he claimed that those 15 guys set up the demolition over a weekend...

    I know. Now its years.

    Either way its funny.


  • #284
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Stop telling others what they know and don't know based on your own ignorance

    I've witnessed posters painstaking explain these basic concepts to you about how the building fell and you simply don't understand them

    A person on the internet not understanding something is not proof of a conspiracy theory

    Likewise, I suspect many truthers simply don't want to understand because maintaining their faulty belief is more comforting than facing the terrifying fact they've been wrong for years, or worse they know it's all bull**** to start with and engage out of pure and utter belligerence

    Repeated nonsense in every post you mean.

    You were shown their computer model. This is their sequences of failures that lead to the building collapsing down due to fire. They also claim in a revised report freefall happened (it is now established fact)after saying it was impossible just weeks before.

    Now the support on the 8 floors was negligible in the revised report?

    This theory not supported by their own model of the collapse due to fire.

    References (photos and images) and supporting evidence shown here in this thread, and still you go out about trutherrs are mistaken and lying. Debunkers got taken in by lies and fraudster.

    Again freefall impossibility when the whole right in blue is still there and has not collapsed.
    We can't wait around for NIST imagined buckling and crumbling to take place due to fire- and the building thus collapse minutes later )again imagined scenario is not supported by the evidence.
    We know the exact time freefall occurred. You got shown a screenshot of the actual building on 9/11 in New York, that lines up with the time, for the freefall event.

    514563.png


  • #285
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,860 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    What about WTC1 and 2?


  • #286
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    Again freefall impossibility when the whole right in blue is still there and has not collapsed.
    Again, freefall proves that your nanothermite theory is impossible.

    If you decide to be reasonable and mature for once, and admit that your nanothermite theory is debunked, then I will personally hand hold you through the explanation for freefall again.

    But if you continue to bleat on and on about the topic, all while ignoring how it debunks your theory, what would be the point?


  • #287
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    What about WTC1 and 2?

    Truthers only have to shown it happened at building seven to wake people up to the fact a covert team placed devices inside the building before 9/11.

    Nanothermite: Harrit and team claim the samples belong to the Twin Towers and the people who collected the dust on 9/11 said they gathered up the dust when WTC1 and 2 fell and put in sealed bags of plastic.


  • #288
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Truthers only have to shown it happened at building seven to wake people up to the fact a covert team placed devices inside the building before 9/11.
    And this was the covert team of 15 people who did it over a weekend.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Nanothermite
    Which was proven to be not in the dust and can't produce freefall.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Harrit and team
    Who said there was tons and tons and tons of explosives on top of the nonexistant thermite.


  • #289
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Repeated nonsense in every post you mean.

    Lol, by definition it's not nonsense. Structural engineers wouldn't accept it if it were patently untrue, how do you explain all the investigations coming up with the same conclusions, all these massive engineering and expert groups supporting those conclusions..

    Oh that's right, you've insinuated they are in on your conspiracy, you've literally claimed that NIST professionals are part of this vague theory you can't detail..


  • #290
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Lol, by definition it's not nonsense. Structural engineers wouldn't accept it if it were patently untrue, how do you explain all the investigations coming up with the same conclusions, all these massive engineering and expert groups supporting those conclusions..

    Oh that's right, you've insinuated they are in on your conspiracy, you've literally claimed that NIST professionals are part of this vague theory you can't detail..
    Are these part of the 20 people I wonder?

    Did some enginners and architects do some moon lighting as demolition experts?


  • #291
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Lol, by definition it's not nonsense. Structural engineers wouldn't accept it if it were patently untrue, how do you explain all the investigations coming up with the same conclusions, all these massive engineering and expert groups supporting those conclusions..

    Oh that's right, you've insinuated they are in on your conspiracy, you've literally claimed that NIST professionals are part of this vague theory you can't detail..

    These structural engineers are not independent. NIST is the US government investigating their own crime.
    NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce

    It's a politically motivated agency and funded by the groups truthers accuse of covering up the attack.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    These structural engineers are not independent.

    It's just amazing

    You are actually insinuating any engineer who doesn't think it's some whacky inside job is somehow compromised..

    It's absolutely amazing
    It's a politically motivated agency and funded by the groups truthers accuse of covering up the attack.

    And again!

    FEMA, NIST, Weidlinger, thousands of lawsuits, every recognised group of related experts in the world.. all compromised..

    Except for a whacky group on the internet, who just so all happen to think it's some type of inside job..


  • #293
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Except for a whacky group on the internet, who just so all happen to think it's some type of inside job..
    And when they literally pay a guy to do a study with a preselected outcome, and announce that fact...

    Well then, he's obviously on the up and up...


  • #294
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's just amazing

    You are actually insinuating any engineer who doesn't think it's some whacky inside job is somehow compromised..

    It's absolutely amazing



    And again!

    FEMA, NIST, Weidlinger, thousands of lawsuits, every recognised group of related experts in the world.. all compromised..

    Except for a whacky group on the internet, who all happen to think it's some type of inside job..

    There something wrong with our reality when NIST ruled out Freefall in Aug 2008.
    Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

    Tha question put to them why does their study show no free fall. A physics teacher "a truther exposed them and NIST quickly had to make up lies before the whole report was exposed to be a fraud. It one of the reasons NIST will never release their body of work about the collapse to be checked by the world
    body of engineers.


    We have the video after the end of the study them say no freefall had happened inside the building before collapse.

    This is a denial 8 floors collapsed due to freefall. Truthers are right to hold them accountable and others in the mainstream ignore it and probably too afraid to rock the boat and lose funding and lose their careers over this.


  • #295
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This is a denial 8 floors collapsed due to freefall. Truthers are right to hold them accountable and others in the mainstream ignore it and probably too afraid to rock the boat and lose funding and lose their careers over this.[/I]
    Again, this "8 floors of freefall" stuff proves that it wasn't nanothermite.
    You keep ignoring that.


  • #296
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Truthers are right to hold them accountable

    What are you talking about?

    Truthers aren't holding engineers to account anymore than Bigfoot hunters are holding biologists to account..


  • #297
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful you were warned about your abuse of the websites file attachment server.

    Don’t upload any attachment to this thread again.


  • #298
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, the only way to have the building drop at free fall for those 8 floors is to instantaneously remove the supports on all 8 of those floors all at once.

    The only way to do that is to use high explosives on every support on all of those floors. Thermite, nano- or otherwise, is not able to do the same kinda of instant cutting.

    That's 81 supports for 8 floors.
    So in all that's at least 648 explosive charges for the vertical components.

    We don't hear any of these 648 explosions on any video.

    So we know there was no high explosive demolition charges. And since those demolition charges were the only way a controlled demolition leading to free fall could happen, we can exclude that as a possibility.

    So there must be another explanation.

    Im all ears


  • #299
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,841 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Some poster came in and made one post and now it's gospel to you - I'd say that's incredible, but it's par for the course

    I am pretty sure one of us could create another name on boards, make up some technical sounding crap, post it in one of these threads and you would take it up as gospel, maybe it's already happened ;)

    Look, Rob posted he was a structural engineer!
    It's on the internet and clearly true! ;)

    I actually hope Rob does dip back in, if only to explain "upward resistance".


  • #300
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Sure, if you had genuine intent here, but, from past experience you've demonstrated that clearly isn't the case

    It's a snide challenge dressed up as a "simple question". One loaded with feigned objectivity asking others to explain something to you that you'll "not get", act incredulous about and dump 15 years of pseudo-scientific AE911 muck on .. to put it very mildly

    Of course, perhaps you've turned a corner, in which case, cool, I'd be more than glad to provide links and sources that explain what happened to WTC 7 in great detail, I'm sure others can to

    And yes, I am well aware in response you will keep repeating that you are just asking a simple question and want straightforward information..

    Then why in all these threads no one actually posted a plausible cause as to how the building fell as it fell ?

    I get a lot of info from AE911 .... Much of it has not been challenged or honestly addressed.

    And its not a snide challenge at all. I have no time for that


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There are no debunkers in the equation.

    From their testimony many firefighters witnessed and described how serious the fires were in building 7 were and how close it was to collapse in the end. However since that threatens your conspiracy beliefs, you're attempting to discredit all that testimony by drawing attention to the fact that a handful of firefighters were mistaken in identifying hot/molten metals

    Why stoop to such a level when you are trying to portray yourself as objective?

    All I am saying is that firefighter evidence seems only valid when it suits the narrative ...


Advertisement