To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 01:22PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not going to be compared to the NIST, because it's nothing like the NIST. It's a bizarre concept, proving a negative, it's the equivalent of an investigator approaching a case with the intent of "proving" it wasn't the culprit and then walking away from the case without explaining who it was. Or an aircraft investigation case that intends to prove a plane crash wasn't the result of a bird strike, and then walking away from producing an actual result

And this isn't an investigation team, it's one man. Paid by conspiracy theorists to have one conclusion.

It's a study that not junk science.

You can not model a building collapse accurately when you leave off structural components off the girdler at column 79 floor 13. The truth movement is pointing this fact out to the debunkers and they ignored it. If the structural components were secured to the girder during the construction of WTC7 in the 1980s, then why did NIST leave them off. Their study is not credible. NIST is claiming column 79 girder failure begun the collapse and eventually lead to full collapse.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 01:45PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You honestly believe gravity works differently inside a building?

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howbuildingswork.html

This topic we talking about is freefall during a building collapse. When their resistance inside the building, it can not fall at the speed of gravity. That why controlled demolition of a building it falls down at freefall speed, this resistance is removed ( steel columns and floors) There be less acceleration (speed of gravity) with structural resistance in place. It common sense facts that Kingmob was clueless about.

17-02-2019 02:04PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11 there was dust in the air the environmental conditions were not clean. You have to know exactly the quality of air on 9/11.

Lol...
So dust in the air would make the ball drop 2 seconds slower?

How do you figure that. Please show the math you used to reach this rather silly notion.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

226metres is the size of WTC7 it takes about 6+ seconds for the ball to reach the ground from that height. The problem is the air resistance on 9/11, you have to factor this in.

Ok, so show us the math you used to reach this number.
And could you be more precise than "6+".

Air resistance is also very easy to calculate, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to factor it in.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Anyway, what relevance has the ball dropped from the roof got?

The fact you keep dodging the question and you very clearly cannot to the math shows your position is not well supported.
It also illustrates the fact that I can't really answer your questions to you as such an answer would require a basic knowledge of physics.
You lack such a basic knowledge of physics.

This is further demonstrated by your use of the term:

speed of gravity.

That isn't really a term in physics in the context of this thread.

You clearly don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration.

Dohnjoe · 17-02-2019 02:11PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can not model a building collapse accurately ....

1. CS you state as fact that Larry Silverstein "blew up" up WTC 7, did he also blow up the WTC 1 and 2?

Reminds me of this (fun starts at 3:00)

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 02:15PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol...
So dust in the air would make the ball drop 2 seconds slower?

How do you figure that. Please show the math you used to reach this rather silly notion.

Ok, so show us the math you used to reach this number.
And could you be more precise than "6+".

Air resistance is also very easy to calculate, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to factor it in.

The fact you keep dodging the question and you very clearly cannot to the math shows your position is not well supported.
It also illustrates the fact that I can't really answer your questions to you as such an answer would require a basic knowledge of physics.
You lack such a basic knowledge of physics.

This is further demonstrated by your use of the term:

That isn't really a term in physics in the context of this thread.

You clearly don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration.

A website from Google read it to understand. Might be too complex for you though. Air resistance matters and location.

17-02-2019 02:20PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A website from Google read it to understand. Might be too complex for you though. Air resistance matters and location.

That's not a link. That's a picture. It's a picture of something you obviously just googled in desperation cause you realised you've made a very embarrassing claim. Again.

It's also not what I asked for.
I asked you to provide the math you used.

I've been asking you to do this for months.
But you can't provide it because you can't do the math.

For the moment, we can ignore exact air resistance.
Just show the equation you used to calculate that it would fall in 8-9 seconds with air resistance and "6+" seconds without.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 02:21PM

Kingmob what this then Mr Scentist?

17-02-2019 02:26PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob what this then Mr Scentist?

Read the description in your own picture.
The speed of gravity does not apply in this context. I was very clear on that.

This is getting very very silly.
Why are you posting pictures and not links?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 02:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

That's not a link. That's a picture. It's a picture of something you obviously just googled in desperation cause you realised you've made a very embarrassing claim. Again.

It's also not what I asked for.
I asked you to provide the math you used.

I've been asking you to do this for months.
But you can't provide it because you can't do the math.

For the moment, we can ignore exact air resistance.
Just show the equation you used to calculate that it would fall in 8-9 seconds with air resistance and "6+" seconds without.

It's a website you can read and learn. Instead of posting waffle I was a liar and making things up. The position i take are established facts.

Nobody disagrees freefall occurred during the collapse even now NIST. So to what you even arguing about, only you know.

17-02-2019 02:29PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's a website you can read and learn. Instead of posting waffle I was a liar and making things up. The position i take are established facts.

This is waffle.

Show the math you used to reach your figure.
It's very simple.
By refusing to do so, you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

For the moment, we can ignore exact air resistance.
Just show the equation you used to calculate that it would fall in 8-9 seconds with air resistance and "6+" seconds without.

There's no point discussing free fall with you if you don't understand basic physics.
And right now, it's very clear you don't understand basic physics.

17-02-2019 02:31PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob what this then Mr Scentist?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howbuildingswork.html

This topic we talking about is freefall during a building collapse. When their resistance inside the building, it can not fall at the speed of gravity. That why controlled demolition of a building it falls down at freefall speed, this resistance is removed ( steel columns and floors) There be less acceleration (speed of gravity) with structural resistance in place. It common sense facts that Kingmob was clueless about.

Just for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

In the relativistic sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c).

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 02:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

This is waffle.

Show the math you used to reach your figure.
It's very simple.
By refusing to do so, you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

There's no point discussing free fall with you if you don't understand basic physics.
And right now, it's very clear you don't understand basic physics.

Go disagree with NIST if you have a problem freefall happened.

Says someone who could not answer what happened in stage 1 and 3- I have addressed all this already and if you don't understand it not my problem.

17-02-2019 02:43PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Go disagree with NIST if you have a problem freefall happened.

Says someone who could not answer what happened in stage 1 and 3- I have addressed all this already and if you don't understand it not my problem.

Not once did I dispute what was said in the NIST report. I am just highlighting the fact you clearly don't understand it, as you don't understand basic physics.

Now again, please show you are capable of doing basic physics.
Show your math.

Dohnjoe · 17-02-2019 02:46PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This topic we talking about is freefall during a building collapse. When their resistance inside the building, it can not fall at the speed of gravity. That why controlled demolition of a building it falls down at freefall speed, this resistance is removed ( steel columns and floors) There be less acceleration (speed of gravity) with structural resistance in place.

"I can't read these words, they're not in the right order"

17-02-2019 02:54PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"I can't read these words, they're not in the right order"

It's also funny cause he seems to contradicting himself without realising it.

He seems to be saying that if it were a controlled demolition, then there would be no resistance, thus would fall at gravitational acceleration.
He also seems to think that because the report mentions free, then it must mean there was no resistance, thus is a controlled demolition.

However, he keeps pointing to the examples of resistance as if they then somehow provide that it was controlled demolition.

I'm honestly not sure how this works in his brain.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 03:05PM

King Mob wrote: »

Not once did I dispute what was said in the NIST report. I am just highlighting the fact you clearly don't understand it, as you don't understand basic physics.

Now again, please show you are capable of doing basic physics.
Show your math.

You don't know what in the report, I just go with the flow with someone like you.

Numerous times I have asked you to explain stage 1 and 3 of NIST progressive collapse you ran away. Explain that?

You Kingmob are all talk, but no action. You're just a debunker who does not want to answer the real questions. You here to just score cheap points. Freefall happened is not disputed its an established fact accepted even by NIST. Asking someone to do complex math on a conspiracy forum shows how retarded you are. You don't even understand a ball falling from the roof of WTC7, is of no importance, it just your way of deflecting and going off topic! You the one asking the dumb questions, not me.

Physic teacher David Chandler has done the math and has the calculations about freefall. I don't see the need to debunk your nonsense when this stuff is readily available online and can be looked at.

17-02-2019 03:14PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't know what in the report, I just go with the flow with someone like you.

Numerous times I have asked you to explain stage 1 and 3 of NIST progressive collapse you ran away. Explain that?

To explain this, you would either need a basic knowledge of physics, or you need to honestly admit that you don't understand physics.Me asking you to do this child's physics problem is to illustrate how answering your question would be pointless.

I have told you this many many times.
However, you persist in pretending to know more than you do and in the attempt make it crystal clear you don't.

You can't even do a basic physics equation and you can't even admit you can't. It's not "complex" at all.
You have stated several times that you can and have done it, yet in the process have only offered wrong answers and a very shocking lack of education.

It's hilarious.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 03:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

To explain this, you would either need a basic knowledge of physics, or you need to honestly admit that you don't understand physics.Me asking you to do this child's physics problem is to illustrate how answering your question would be pointless.

I have told you this many many times.
However, you persist in pretending to know more than you do and in the attempt make it crystal clear you don't.

You can't even do a basic physics equation and you can't even admit you can't. It's not "complex" at all.
You have stated several times that you can and have done it, yet in the process have only offered wrong answers and a very shocking lack of education.

It's hilarious.

The difference is you asking about freefall that occurred outside the building. A ball dropped from WTC7 roof, it pure nonsense that only made sense to you. It is complex because you have to know the air resistance (dust and particles) in the air from the collapses of buildings on 9/11 and calculate and know if those factors matter. The air quality changed on 9/11.

It, not simple math, you have to use complex symbols and graphs, it not divide, add and subtract math you have to post to this forum.

17-02-2019 03:34PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The difference is you asking about freefall that occurred outside the building. A ball dropped from WTC7 roof, it pure nonsense that only made sense to you.

Nope. It makes sense to everyone reading.
You are embarrassing yourself.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is complex because you have to know the air resistance (dust and particles) in the air from the collapses of buildings on 9/11 and calculate and know if those factors matter. The air quality changed on 9/11.

You said that the answer would be "6+" seconds without air resistance and "8-9" seconds with.

Please show the math you used to reach those figures.

Also, I don't think you know what "air resistance" is now either.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It, not simple math, you have to use complex symbols and graphs, it not divide, add and subtract math you have to post to this forum.

What do you mean by "complex symbols"?
Do you mean algebra?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 03:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. It makes sense to everyone reading.
You are embarrassing yourself.

You said that the answer would be "6+" seconds without air resistance and "8-9" seconds with.

Please show the math you used to reach those figures.

Also, I don't think you know what "air resistance" is now either.

What do you mean by "complex symbols"?
Do you mean algebra?

It does not. How does it when the ball can fall freely to the earth typically when there no air resistance or structural resistance? You were claiming the same principle implied inside WTC7 You embarrassed yourself in this thread and I left it alone till you brought the subject up again. Then I said explain stage 1 and 3 of NIST progressive collapse you ran away. The only person with a lack of knowledge is you, read your posts.

17-02-2019 03:59PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It does not.

No, it does. You are the only one who can't see it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How does it when the ball can fall freely to the earth typically when there no air resistance or structural resistance? You were claiming the same principle implied inside WTC7 You embarrassed yourself in this thread and I left it alone till you brought the subject up again.

Again, as I've explained to you like you are a child, the question is just to illustrate your utter lack of knowledge in physics.
It shows that you can't do basic math.
It shows that you don't know what free fall actually even is.

Also, in the course of your deflection and avoiding, you have not only provided an incorrect answer, you have made several statements that show your utter ignorance of physics. For example: "Speed of gravity"... "Gravity works differently"... " air resistance (dust and particles)"

The quickest way to end this would be to just show the math you said you did. It's trivial math and it's trivial to show.
But you can't.
Because you don't know how to do it.
Just admit it and we can move on.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Then I said explain stage 1 and 3 of NIST progressive collapse you ran away. The only person with a lack of knowledge is you, read your posts.

But as I've told you many times:
To explain that part of the NIST report, you'd either need to understand basic physics (which you don't) or be honest about your real level of knowledge (which you can't).
Otherwise, any explanation I would give would be falling on deaf ears.
Further, to actually completely engage the point you would have to be able to answer some simple questions about your claim and provide some clarifications. Things you've shown time and time and time again that you are incapable of doing.

Also, again:
What do you mean by "Complex symbols"?
No such term exists in physics.
Do you mean algebra? Or something like the square root symbol?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 04:05PM

King Mob wrote: »

No, it does. You are the only one who can't see it.

Again, as I've explained to you like you are a child, the question is just to illustrate your utter lack of knowledge in physics.
It shows that you can't do basic math.
It shows that you don't know what free fall actually even is.

Also, in the course of your deflection and avoiding, you have not only provided an incorrect answer, you have made several statements that show your utter ignorance of physics. For example: "Speed of gravity"... "Gravity works differently"... " air resistance (dust and particles)"

The quickest way to end this would be to just show the math you said you did. It's trivial math and it's trivial to show.
But you can't.
Because you don't know how to do it.
Just admit it and we can move on.

But as I've told you many times:
To explain that part of the NIST report, you'd either need to understand basic physics (which you don't) or be honest about your real level of knowledge (which you can't).
Otherwise, any explanation I would give would be falling on deaf ears.
Further, to actually completely engage the point you would have to be able to answer some simple questions about your claim and provide some clarifications. Things you've shown time and time and time again that you are incapable of doing.

Also, again:
What do you mean by "Complex symbols"?
No such term exists in physics.
Do you mean algebra? Or something like the square root symbol?

You don't understand it. You denying my assertions even though NIST has posted online what happened inside building 7 their version of the truth.

NIST version. Your ball principle is nonsense and is of no importance to understanding the collapse..

Stage 1 and Stage 3 Show no Freefall Your ball would fall faster as there nothing in the way to stop it besides (air resistance)

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

17-02-2019 04:10PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't understand it. You denying my assertions even though NIST has posted online what happened inside building 7 their version of the truth.

NIST version. Your ball principle is nonsense and is of no importance to understanding the collapse..

Waffle waffle waffle rant.

Again, there's no point discussing this until either:
A) you show some basic understanding of physics and math and show how you arrived at the numbers you claimed.
or

be honest and admit you can't.

Also again, I'm really curious.
What are "complex symbols".
Please explain what you meant.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 04:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, there's no point discussing this until either:
A) you show some basic understanding of physics and math and show how you arrived at the numbers you claimed.
or
be honest and admit you can't.

Also again, I'm really curious.
What are "complex symbols".
Please explain what you meant.

There no pointing discussing irrelevant topics with you. Take your ball measurements to another forum;)

17-02-2019 04:15PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no pointing discussing irrelevant topics with you. Take your ball measurements to another forum;)

Again it is relevant as it shows that you don't know anything about physics and that you are incapable of doing high school level math.

You refer to high school level math as using "complex symbols" which I think means things like algebra, further demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge.

You've had more than enough chances. This is now your admission that you cannot answer that question.

Thus, the response to your question about the figures given in the NIST report is simple.
You simply don't understand them because you don't understand basic physics or math.

Again, every time you go on about qualified scientists not understanding physics, the fact you can't answer a child's physics problem will be brought up.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 04:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again it is relevant as it shows that you don't know anything about physics and that you are incapable of doing high school level math.

You refer to high school level math as using "complex symbols" which I think means things like algebra, further demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge.

You've had more than enough chances. This is now your admission that you cannot answer that question.

Thus, the response to your question about the figures given in the NIST report is simple.
You simply don't understand them because you don't understand basic physics or math.

Again, every time you go on about qualified scientists not understanding physics, the fact you can't answer a child's physics problem will be brought up.

It's of no relevance to this discussion. Why don't you just post the math and solve it for everyone? I not going to bother wasting my time to figure this out on paper or do stuff online to prove it for you.

Go ahead enlighten everyone you said its easy and can be done high school physics?

I posted what NIST claimed. 9/11 truther dispute the freefall occurred because of progressive collapse. They claim no math required the steel columns got taken away by controlled demolition.

17-02-2019 04:37PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's of no relevance to this discussion. Why don't you just post the math and solve it for everyone? I not going to bother wasting my time to figure this out on paper or do stuff online to prove it for you.

Go ahead enlighten everyone you said its easy and can be done high school physics?

But you've said previously that you had worked it out and gave figures of "6+ seconds" as well as a figure of "8-9 seconds".

So not sure why you'd need to figure it out again "on paper".

The truth is that you can't do it as you don't understand basic math and physics.

I'm not going to do the work for you, then you'd never learn.

You also said that it would require "complex symbols". That isn't a math term, so could you detail what exactly you mean there. I'm very curious.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I posted what NIST claimed. 9/11 truther dispute the freefall occurred because of progressive collapse. They claim no math required the steel columns got taken away by controlled demolition.

This is a bit of a word salad and doesn't make any kind of sense.

9/11 truthers are now saying there was no freefall?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 04:47PM

King Mob wrote: »

But you've said previously that you had worked it out and gave figures of "6+ seconds" as well as a figure of "8-9 seconds".

So not sure why you'd need to figure it out again "on paper".

The truth is that you can't do it as you don't understand basic math and physics.

I'm not going to do the work for you, then you'd never learn.

This is a bit of a word salad and doesn't make any kind of sense.

9/11 truthers are now saying there was no freefall?

I said off the top of my head that figure do you not read? It is already known worked out, it takes about 6+ seconds to collapse (226metres) entirely at freefall speed. You can use toolkits online and work it out and provide calculations. I see no reason to solve it and do the same work. People have already done the calculations in another conspiracy forum, also. I saw no relevance in posting this work here when has no bearing on what actually took place inside the building.

You don't even know the answer. You asking for info you have not worked out yourself online. You do not think it is crazy asking for info you have solved yourself?

17-02-2019 04:57PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said off the top of my head that figure do you not read?

Yes, and when you said that, you gave a figure of 8-9 seconds, which is incorrect. You then later claimed that this figure included "air resistance" which you also claimed was greater due to the dust in the air.
Are you now saying that you calculated this in your head also?
I very much doubt that.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is already known worked out, it takes about 6+ seconds to collapse (226metres) entirely at freefall speed.
You can use toolkits online and work it out and provide calculations. I see no reason to go to that trouble and do the same work..

Yup. I know, as I said, the answer is easy to work out and I was able to do it as I do understand basic math and physics.
But I want you to show that you can work it out.
I want you to show that you understand how this figure can be reached using basic math and physics.

But you can't do that as you don't understand basic math or physics.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

People have already done the calculations in another conspiracy forum, also. I saw no relevance in posting this work here when has no bearing on what actually took place inside the building.

Again as I've stated before, it's relevant because it shows that you do not understand physics or math.
Your doubts and concerns about the figures in the NIST report stem from your lack of understanding of math and physics, probably coupled with your extremely poor reading comprehension.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 05:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and when you said that, you gave a figure of 8-9 seconds, which is incorrect. You then later claimed that this figure included "air resistance" which you also claimed was greater due to the dust in the air.
Are you now saying that you calculated this in your head also?
I very much doubt that.

Yup. I know, as I said, the answer is easy to work out and I was able to do it as I do understand basic math and physics.
But I want you to show that you can work it out.
I want you to show that you understand how this figure can be reached using basic math and physics.

But you can't do that as you don't understand basic math or physics.

Again as I've stated before, it's relevant because it shows that you do not understand physics or math.
Your doubts and concerns about the figures in the NIST report stem from your lack of understanding of math and physics, probably coupled with your extremely poor reading comprehension.

Able to do it sure mate? You still waffling and still have not posted the math you have worked out for your question.

How do you know it's wrong, show your own math? Otherwise, you don't know basic maths or physics?

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Comments