Here's what you don't understand.
Oh, geez…
The “I’m not an expert” queen is about to explain to me what I don’t understand about structural engineering …
This is like dealing with a spoiled, obnoxious 15 year old.
Who is somebody else’s kid, so you can’t smack ‘em upside the head.
Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7.
Sure thing.
Because there are no questions left on the collapse of the towers, Truthers are reduced to “chasing anomalies in innocent bystanders”.
The towers were the targets.
They hit the towers.
WTC7 was an innocent bystander, just like buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6, Fitterman Hall, the Verizon building, etc.
Why don’t you bring up the “inexplicable way that the elevated walkway between building 7 & building 6 collapsed.
That is exactly as "suspicious" …
1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that there were fires in WTC7. No, the entire building did not burn, but there were fires.
And, along with the fires, the building became structurally unstable, as proven by the FDNY’s transit readings.
Just a little detail that you left out…
2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds.
No, it was not.
Free fall is a CONSTANT acceleration.
If the acceleration was not CONSTANT, then it can NOT be “free fall”.
Look at the data points on NIST’s Velocity vs Time curve. Are the data points on the constant acceleration line?
NO, they are not.
What does this mean?
It means that the acceleration was NOT constant.
It was NOT free fall.
NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.
No, your amateur interpretation has been independently falsified.
NIST said “approximately free fall”.
NIST said “the linear interpolation (NOT the building itself) was approximately free fall.”
3. NIST did not explain freefall. They only said the columns buckled. This is not an explanation. An explanation would be one that described why the columns buckled.
NIST explained “near free fall” several times.
YOUR inability to understand what they wrote is NOT a scintilla of evidence that “they did not explain it”.
You’ve got the “I’m not an expert. I don’t understand nuthin’!” routine down to an art form.
Your inability to understand NIST’s explanations is a perverse little game of “you playing with yourself in public”.
4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.
They released 99% of the data.
There was very good reason for them to NOT release the data that they withheld.
NIST’s engineers did not have that data when they started.
They were competent enough to generate it.
Multiple other engineers have generated that data for their own models, too.
The only engineers who seem too incompetent to generate their own models are - surprise! - Truther engineers.
This has been a consistent pattern for a decade or so.
It emerged years ago, and there has been no evidence to the contrary, that “Truther engineer” is synonymous with “incompetent engineer”.
5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.
I’d really, really like you to reveal your thoughts on this little gem…
What role do you think that “high rise” plays in whether or not some structure collapses.
How does an inanimate piece of steel know whether it is in a “high rise” or a “low rise”, so that it knows whether or not to fail.
Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete.
All your “facts” are false.
All your innuendo is amateurish nonsense.
It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation. That is not a conspiracy theory.
Yup, that’s exactly what it is.
A conspiracy theory.
A baseless, laughable, Village Idiot, Conspiracy Theory.
Not one iota different than “aliens mutilating cows”, “aliens flying trillions of miles & then deciding to ‘communicate’ by stomping down hay in farmer’s fields”, or “alien flying trillions of miles using incredibly advanced technologies, and then crashing when they got here” Conspiracy Theory.
Some day, you’re going to realize that fact … and be terribly embarrassed at all of this.
No one is alleging a conspiracy.
Liar.
You are explicitly alleging a conspiracy on the part of the engineers who wrote the NIST report to deceive the public on the topic of “the causes of the collapse of those buildings”.
We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.
Your “demands” have been heard.
And dismissed as unnecessary, uninformed and unreasonable.
The basis for your demands have been heard.
And dismissed as clueless.
And laughed at.
Your assertion that “there has not been a thorough one to begin with” is the substance of the “conspiracy” that you just claimed “no one is alleging”.
Liar.
Why can’t you get your story straight?
