Why did WTC 7 Collapse from fire but not Grenfell Tower?

[Nous]

Wrong again. I made one error that I owned up to.

Didn't you claim that NIST explained A36? Didn't you claim that NIST did not acknowledge the free fall reate of WTC 7? That's already 2.

You have not corrected yours.

Quote all the errors you claim that I've made.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can do no better explaining how NIST derived it's figure than the explanation given in the report. Quote whatever it is in the explanation that you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it to you.

Nothing more than "Read the report"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you claim that NIST explained A36? Didn't you claim that NIST did not acknowledge the free fall reate of WTC 7? That's already 2.

Quote all the errors you claim that I've made.

I pointed out that there was nothing to explain. You could not even justify your question. And no,you are simply wrong about the freefall issue. We went over that rather well. So that is zero.

 

[Nous]

I pointed out that there was nothing to explain.

Those are your errors, not mine. FEMA disagrees with you about A36, and FEMA is correct. The high temperatures required to produce A36 are not explained by open-air office fires such as occurred in WTC 7. The 105 feet of free fall rate of WTC needs to be explained. It isn't explained by a steel framed highrise building supposedly suddenly dropping into its footprint due to scattered office fires and asymmetrical damage. You won't find any other example of that every happening.

 

[Nous]

Nothing more than "Read the report"?

Yep. It sounds like you're afraid to inform yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. It sounds like you're afraid to inform yourself.

You cannot win an argument by dissing my motives.
Fear isn't the reason.
Tis the tedium of reading some lengthy tome only to
discover which of your presented figures betray a problem.
The relationship between time, distance, acceleration &
velocity are simple. It would be far faster if you, given your
great familiarity with the report, simply explained where I
went wrong in calculating a fall faster than gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are your errors, not mine. FEMA disagrees with you about A36, and FEMA is correct. The high temperatures required to produce A36 are not explained by open-air office fires such as occurred in WTC 7. The 105 feet of free fall rate of WTC needs to be explained. It isn't explained by a steel framed highrise building supposedly suddenly dropping into its footprint due to scattered office fires and asymmetrical damage. You won't find any other example of that every happening.

Wrong again. You made an overly general remark about the "free fall speed" drop of WTC 7. It was not at free fall speed. Only parts of it were. You are not being consistent. If you want to claim that part of the fall was a free fall speed the time to make that claim was from the start and not after your general claim was shown to be wrong.

And please pay attention. You will not find another example of a large office building burning uncontrollably for seven hours. Your complaint has no merit.

 

[dfnj]

Is that a statement or a question?

Obviously you are confusing WTC 7 with the twin towers. It doesn't matter. Just believe whatever you want to believe. Just keep believing anyone can bring down 3 buildings and land a jet into the Pentagon from a cave in Afghanistan. Everything is fine. Who cares about the million Arabs who have been genocide by US bombings in the ME. Go back to sleep. I heard Trump just tweeted. You better go find out what he said! I heard it's juicy and scandalous. Go ahead, run along....

 

[dfnj]

I'm sure I could follow the money better than what I have done. But I'm certain that any conclusions I might derive doing so are going to be much more speculative than the hardcore physical evidence (e.g., the evidence of inexplicably high temperatures, such as A36, and the iron spherules that multiple sources discovered in the dust).

I don't disagree. But, follow the money. A cabal of military industrialists had the motive and the means. Every crime has to have a motive. This country is run by pirates. Human life is a secondary consideration. Over million Arabs have been killed by US bombings in the ME since 9/11. Who knows how high the death toll from the genocide will go.

More than 200 civilians killed in suspected U.S. airstrike in Iraq

 

[exchemist]

It doesn't matter.

Very true.

 

[Nous]

Wrong again. You made an overly general remark about the "free fall speed" drop of WTC 7. It was not at free fall speed. Only parts of it were. You are not being consistent. If you want to claim that part of the fall was a free fall speed the time to make that claim was from the start and not after your general claim was shown to be wrong.

Here is the first thing I said on this thread about the free fall rate of WTC 7's collapse:

WTC 7 suddenly dropped into its footprint, falling at free fall rate for some 2.5 seconds, according to NIST.

I believe that is sufficiently accurate, especially to inform someone who is too lazy intellectually to even bother to lay eyes on the NIST report.

And please pay attention. You will not find another example of a large office building burning uncontrollably for seven hours.

Say what? You're claiming that there has never been another steel-frame highrise building that has burned for 7 hours?

Why don't you don't look it up, rather than spouting more falsehoods from your chair?

 

[Nous]

You cannot win an argument by dissing my motives.
Fear isn't the reason.
Tis the tedium of reading some lengthy tome only to
discover which of your presented figures betray a problem.

Which figures have I presented that you are referring to here?

If you knew how to search the NIST report, you wouldn't have to read the whole report in order to discover how they derived their figure for the building falling at free-fall rate for 2.5 seconds.

But it's too much "tedium" for me to explain which keys to touch to search that document to someone who too lazy intellectually to even open the document. It's fine with me for you to remain ignorant. It only makes people like me look smarter.

 

[Nous]

I don't disagree. But, follow the money. A cabal of military industrialists had the motive and the means. Every crime has to have a motive. This country is run by pirates. Human life is a secondary consideration. Over million Arabs have been killed by US bombings in the ME since 9/11. Who knows how high the death toll from the genocide will go.

More than 200 civilians killed in suspected U.S. airstrike in Iraq

The reason I don't bother with trying to identify the perpetrators and motives and so forth is because it's ultimately highly speculative, and in discussions (debates) such as this, I think such speculations tend to overwhelm and distract from arguments in which propositions are deduced from the physical evidence.

When I first learned of skepticism of the official story of 9/11, it was in a (different) discussion forum, about 2004 or perhaps even later. There wasn't much physical evidence at that point, and those who were "arguing" the skepticism case basically began and ended their "arguments" with claims about how evil and underhanded governments are, especially Bush and his administration. I found it so easy to dismiss everything they said--I thought those who were spouting this stuff all needed to be locked up. It wasn't until much later that I actually began looking at the physical evidence regarding the WTC buildings. That's what grabbed my attention. And, in the end, I like being able to make and focus on those clean little succinct deductions from the physical evidence.

 

[exchemist]

Which figures have I presented that you are referring to here?

If you knew how to search the NIST report, you wouldn't have to read the whole report in order to discover how they derived their figure for the building falling at free-fall rate for 2.5 seconds.

But it's too much "tedium" for me to explain which keys to touch to search that document to someone who too lazy intellectually to even open the document. It's fine with me for you to remain ignorant. It only makes people like me look smarter.

Now that really is saying something!

 

[Revoltingest]

Which figures have I presented that you are referring to here?

I calculated the acceleration of the falling material based upon the figures you provided.
The result was impossibly fast.
So what was wrong?

If you knew how to search the NIST report, you wouldn't have to read the whole report in order to discover how they derived their figure for the building falling at free-fall rate for 2.5 seconds.

But it's too much "tedium" for me to explain which keys to touch to search that document to someone who too lazy intellectually to even open the document. It's fine with me for you to remain ignorant. It only makes people like me look smarter.

My ignorance is why I asked you to critique my analysis.
But you only respond with "read the report", which isn't discussionworthy.
Do you not understand my calculation?

 

[Shad]

How do you account for the active thermitic material found in the dust of the WTC disaster?

Cited article was so controversial and a 9/11 conspiracy theory itself the editor-in-chief resigned. Hardly a ringing endorsement is it now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the first thing I said on this thread about the free fall rate of WTC 7's collapse:

I believe that is sufficiently accurate, especially to inform someone who is too lazy intellectually to even bother to lay eyes on the NIST report.

Say what? You're claiming that there has never been another steel-frame highrise building that has burned for 7 hours?

Why don't you don't look it up, rather than spouting more falsehoods from your chair?

Here is the first thing I said on this thread about the free fall rate of WTC 7's collapse:

I believe that is sufficiently accurate, especially to inform someone who is too lazy intellectually to even bother to lay eyes on the NIST report.

Say what? You're claiming that there has never been another steel-frame highrise building that has burned for 7 hours?

Why don't you don't look it up, rather than spouting more falsehoods from your chair?

Rudeness and ignorance is a bad combination. I suggest that you ease up a bit. After all you are the one that has been shown to be wrong. Of course when you don't like an answer you tend to pretend it does not exist as you have with the explanation of the collapse of WST 7.

But thank you for the suggestion. You seem to forget that history does have a tendency to repeat itself eventually. Just last year there was a fire in Dubai. Does this look at all similar to another event:

EDIT: Vid drop.

 

[Nous]

Cited article was so controversial and a 9/11 conspiracy theory itself the editor-in-chief resigned. Hardly a ringing endorsement is it now?

Source?

So you don't know of any errors in the paper or the analysis of the red/gray chips. Correct?

 

[Nous]

After all you are the one that has been shown to be wrong.

You haven't substantiated a single thing I've been wrong about yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

So you don't know of any errors in the paper or the analysis of the red/gray chips. Correct?

Yes, several. It was not taken seriously enough to be repeated. The people that supposedly did this research apparently did not even save any samples themselves so that others could test them.

Why would you not at least preserve some soil samples if your claim was valid?

And a example of an article form the predatory glamour press hardly qualifies as an article from a well respected professional peer reviewed journal.