DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So the explanation excepted by the vast majority of relevant professionals is wrong but we need a new investigation to know why?
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
So the explanation excepted by the vast majority of relevant professionals is wrong but we need a new investigation to know why?
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
I don't have to. The simple fact is that you said this:
When I asked you to describe what "these certain conditions" actually are, you answered
I rightly pointed out that
Well, then, you are ignoring the well-known phenomenon of hinging:
Physics.
You are missing some "certain conditions."
Whether or not NIST mentioned "hinging," the simple fact remains that, in a gravitational collapse*, part of the structure can pull other parts so that they accelerate at g, or even "faster than g."
*
The conditions I have added explain why WTC7 could have portions of its collapse occurring at "g" in a purely gravitational collapse. They do not "contradict the official explanation given by NIST."
It's more than likely that another investigation will not reveal the step by step (millions of them) which would describe the collapse.
The basic mechanisms which destroyed the structure's integrity are understood. The fire progress was not known in any detail and so one can only speculate as to where it was destroying the structure and even then it's hard to know what was going on. Heat weakens steel, it also expands it. Joints fail from shearing of bolts, withdrawal and so on. The loads were not disappearing but the load paths were being eroded until there wasn't enough capacity locally and then globally. Most of the destruction was driven by gravity... loads which were freed from load paths. Initial destruction was heat driven... distortion, warping, destruction of connections and so on.
It is settled engineering how the building composites, materials and systems behave in those conditions. Nothing new will be revealed in a new investigation.
What is pretty clear is that there is nothing which suggests that explosives or any other devices were the cause.
And a new investigation will make the same finding.
The basic mechanisms which destroyed the structure's integrity are understood. The fire progress was not known in any detail and so one can only speculate as to where it was destroying the structure and even then it's hard to know what was going on. Heat weakens steel, it also expands it. Joints fail from shearing of bolts, withdrawal and so on. The loads were not disappearing but the load paths were being eroded until there wasn't enough capacity locally and then globally. Most of the destruction was driven by gravity... loads which were freed from load paths. Initial destruction was heat driven... distortion, warping, destruction of connections and so on.
It is settled engineering how the building composites, materials and systems behave in those conditions. Nothing new will be revealed in a new investigation.
What is pretty clear is that there is nothing which suggests that explosives or any other devices were the cause.
And a new investigation will make the same finding.
That's only because there is no official explanation given by NIST for freefall. This means they did not do their job.
How can you be so sure? Support a new investigation and let's find out.
MileHighMadness
Muse
But Richard Gage doesn't want a new investigation, so why should I or anyone else support one?
MileHighMadness
Muse
I attended a structural engineering convention in Phoenix a couple of years ago. Over 200 structural engineers attended. Everyone I talked to supported the official story.
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 414
Please post links to credible sources that prove freefall could NOT exist in a gravity driven collapse caused by fire...
So far all you have is yet another silly 9/11 "truther" meme.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Investigate it yourself.
Hire a structural engineering firm to run a bunch of computer simulations for you and see what you get.
This is literally all a new investigation would entail.
This is a new trick. Please explain.
Why? You would just ignore them.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Please provide proof that there is any professionals not supporting it. AE 9/11 will not work because the members can not be independently verified.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Just as I predicted, you dodged the questions like a champ! I'm sure the lurkers are very impressed!
Please explain in detail.
Another dodge, why do you have such difficulty answering simple questions?
No I don't. experts have already explained what happened, it's not my problem you're not mentally equipped to understand.
For the third time now (you 've already dodged this inquiry twice) who will conduct your new investigation?
Names and why their qualified please?
As is your pattern, I predict you'll dodge this too.
Lurkers please take note.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
You think millions of professionals around the world who are well aware of 9/11, believe almost 3000 people were murdered by their own government and are keeping quiet about it?
Do you realize how moronic that sounds?
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
That isn't a structural Engineering Firm.
What's really curious is Gage the scumbag claims he has Structural Engineers who have signed his petition, yet not one of them is willing to be at the forefront of his movement.
Strange that.
Maybe you have an answer?
Cue the popcorn.
Define "well aware of 9/11". Do you mean they know about WTC7 and how it collapsed? Please show me where millions of professionals know about WTC7 and are keeping quiet about it.