DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What you're asking is for someone to explain an engineering report to you.
You don't understand it so you claim they didn't explain it. This is wrong.
Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
What you're asking is for someone to explain an engineering report to you.
You don't understand it so you claim they didn't explain it. This is wrong.
OK. I can see where you might think I am asking someone to explain it to me. I don't want that.
Instead, please provide a link to the reports that answers the questions. You don't need to explain anything, just copy and paste the text in the reports that answers the questions I asked. Thanks.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You need a link to the NIST reports? What you ask is not explained in a paragraph or two.
You want the NIST to do a laymens version, is that right?
FF: A simple question, Do you believe the NIST was tasked to explain the collapses to the general public?
Last edited:
You need a link to the NIST reports? What you ask is not explained in a paragraph or two.
You want the NIST to do a laymens version, is that right?
FF: A simple question, Do you believe the NIST was tasked to explain the collapses to the general public?
What I was asking for is a link to the text that explains two things. For WTC7, explain freefall. For WTC1 and WTC2, explain the actual collapse, not just what led up to the collapse.
If you know where this text exists, please post it.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You are asking for a few dozen links (wtc7).
The NIST was not tasked to explain the collapse after initiation, why would you ask for them to explain it?
Can you answer the simple question I asked?
You just said exactly what I was looking for. If NIST did not explain the collapse after initiation, don't you think we should have an investigation into that exact subject?
Also, no, I don't think the reports were written for the average person. I do think the summaries were.
I knew that NIST has never explained the collapse after initiation. I just wanted you to make my point for me. Thanks.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Have at it. The collapse is well understood by the building and engineering world.
And? Do you think they need to do a laymens version?
I knew that NIST has never explained the collapse after initiation. I just wanted you to make my point for me. Thanks.
What point? It was outside their mandate and frankly irrelevant to their task.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
I seem to recall something about a box of matches,...
Can you explain this reference?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Who said there wasn't. There's been a couple math models done. All show enough energy for the collapse to continue to completion.
Last edited:
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
No Truther would ever trust an expert. After all, aren't the people who actually know what they're talking about the first to be hired by the NWO?
Far better to go down to Skid Row and consult a wino who staggers out of an alley and throws up all over you. For the price of a quart bottle of Night Train Express, he'll tell you exactly what you want to hear.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Yes, I can. In fact I posted this in reply to you, a mere two days ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11214389&postcount=258
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
You just said exactly what I was looking for. If NIST did not explain the collapse after initiation, don't you think we should have an investigation into that exact subject?
Also, no, I don't think the reports were written for the average person. I do think the summaries were.
I knew that NIST has never explained the collapse after initiation. I just wanted you to make my point for me. Thanks.
It's quite simple, really. Once the columns of WTC 1 and 2 buckled, the columns no longer aligned, and the floor beneath the top section absorbed the dynamic load of ~30,000 tons (for WTC 1) and ~60,000 tons (for WTC 2) falling ~4 meters onto it. Since the floor could not even support a static load of 30,000 tons, there was no way it could survive a dynamic load. The collapse then progresses floor to floor in the same way.
This is child's play to any engineer. But it's the granite wall of reality that Truthers have been smashing their heads against for all these years.
Last edited:
Do you remember TWA 800? They knew the plane crashed, right? Did they stop the investigation after they knew it crashed? No. They found every single piece they could and they put the plane back together the best they could. Only then were they able to determine what really happened.
Did they ship the pieces to China to be melted for scrap before the investigation started? No.
Did they test for explosives. Yes.
Did they listen to eyewitness testimony? Yes.
Do you see a difference? I certainly do.
What explains the motions observed during the collapse? Did the government address this issue? No. If they didn't address this issue, we need a new investigation.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What experiment?
There has been several math models done (some by former "truthers").
Why don't you stop lying and say why you really want someone to do another investigation. Is it because it's what your religious leader is asking you to say?
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Because no other material works economically for rentable, tall buildings over about 12 stories.
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Skyscraper.html
Traditionally, the walls of a building supported the structure; the taller the structure, the thicker the walls had to be. A 16-story building constructed in Chicago in 1891 had walls 6 ft (1.8 m) thick at the base
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746