Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[leftysergeant]

Does that mean that the entire report is incorrect? No. Does he think that the fuel loading was higher or lower?

Me personally, I think it was more like 40kg/m2, as 32 is the ideal fuel loading by code, and was, IIRC, what the sprinklers were designed to handle. But, knowing tall office building as well as I do, I know for a fact that the fuel loading is often exceeded. Why? Well, an area may be designed for one purpose, then converted into something else. I have seen this time and time again.

Does it mean that NIST's entire report on 7WTC is wrong? Of course not, as it still collapses with the 32kg/m2.

Given that in WTC7 videos, you can see rooms that appear to be in flashover on several floors near the gaps, and given that a lot of uncombusted hot gases from lower floors were being conducted upward, perhaps into other burning floors, I would think that designed fuel loading is not the most important factor we can take into consideration here. We also do not know with any certainty what sorts of mini-furnaces formed in the mangled mess of the towers.

 

[beachnut]

... Thomas's models as definitive proof until he has proven those 15 collisions. This is common sense

The 15 collisions?, what about the 99 collisions in 12.08 seconds? You have no clue what is going on.

The common sense you need in this problem would be understanding models, physics, math and more. Your common sense used to create CD delusions is not applicable with respect to physics, it only works in your fantasy.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

a 99 collision model would simply be nothing more than theory unless 99 collisions are proven

 

[leftysergeant]

a 99 collision model would simply be nothing more than theory unless 99 collisions are proven

The collapse took longer than it would have had those collisions not occurred.

Point proven.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Even a video at 5 frames per second can prove that uniform acceleration didn't happen right off the bat.

Dave Thomas's analysis does not use any video evidence at all. He should of incorporated the initial change in acceleration because it is apparent even in a 5FPS video. The only thing that isn't apparent is things like the 15 collisions that you would need at least a 30 FPS video to see according to Thomas. Thomas's whole model works only if those 15 collisions exist - none of which he has proof of. I can't deny they might exist. But I can easily deny Thomas's models as definitive proof until he has proven those 15 collisions. This is common sense

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit: Shift the origin of Chandlers woefully inaccurate graph to the left. Dave doesn't need to fix your graph, you do.

what?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

The collapse took longer than it would have had those collisions not occurred.

Point proven.

However the theory that the first 15 collisions (exactly) and the whole 99 collisions (exactly) is still unproven.

A few missing collisions at the very beginning could be very important to CD theory

 

[T.A.M.]

However the theory that the first 15 collisions (exactly) and the whole 99 collisions (exactly) is still unproven.

A few missing collisions at the very beginning could be very important to CD theory

Really? Unproven? How do you know? Have you read everything on the matter? Every paper?

A lot of reading inn 3 weeks.

TAM

 

[ozeco41]

However the theory that the first 15 collisions (exactly) and the whole 99 collisions (exactly) is still unproven.

A few missing collisions at the very beginning could be very important to CD theory

The real dilemma is not between 15 or 99 or any other integer multiple number of collisions.

It is between 1 and any other number.

The "missing jolt" and related hypotheses depend on one identifiable big jolt.

The reality was multiple single elements of top block with each one contacting one of multiple elements of the lower tower together with multiple bits of damaged impact zone in the middle.

No one will ever know how many individual contacts NOR their sequencing NOR the time intervals NOR how many but relatively few occurred at coinciding times.

But there were many in what really happened and discussing 15 versus 99 is midding the point which matters. Multiple rather than one.

 

[triforcharity]

Check my previous post to see what Dave Thomas is wrong about

Other math that shows uniform free-fall acceleration:
David Chandler's math
MacQueen and Szamboti's math

Neither published in a real journal. Those are both in JO911S, a sham journal.

Just FYI, McQueen's scientific study consists of Ctrl+F in a PDF, and count the word explosion. That, to him, means explosives.

PS. JO911S refused to publish my discussion to one of their papers. The excuse? I wasn't invited.

 

[triforcharity]

Given that in WTC7 videos, you can see rooms that appear to be in flashover on several floors near the gaps, and given that a lot of uncombusted hot gases from lower floors were being conducted upward, perhaps into other burning floors, I would think that designed fuel loading is not the most important factor we can take into consideration here. We also do not know with any certainty what sorts of mini-furnaces formed in the mangled mess of the towers.

Exactly. We do not know, with any kind of certainty how hot those fires were, what mangled mess they got into, or what other types of accelerants were encountered.

Also, a very valid point about uncombusted gases. Due to the "chimney effect" the fires that were burning, were also bringing in hot gases from the fires below. This would add extra fuel, as it contained, no doubt, hydrocarbons that were not broken down. Putting this back into the fire, would allow those HC to become superheated, and create almost a "Perfect Storm" so to speak.

This would raise the temperatures of those fires even more, and make them even more devastating.

Good point, I never did consider that......

 

[Dave Rogers]

Other math that shows uniform free-fall acceleration:
David Chandler's math
MacQueen and Szamboti's math

Look, I've tried to point out enough times that this acceleration is not at free-fall for WTC1 that I'm now justified in calling you a liar every time you assert it. So, stop lying about uniform free-fall acceleration of WTC1. Neither of these papers supports such an assertion. It never happened.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Debris from the upper floors outpaced the collapse progression to the ground by several seconds... I still don't see what the "freefall" issue is supposed to prove, but this issue of freefall speed or acceleration is full of hot air regardless of how you look at it.