Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[bill smith]

See the thread on the subject that alienentity started.

Don't you have anything more convincing than that ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I didn't bother responding Dave because it is too reminiscent of your own panicky statement that it was an 'optical illusion' when I first showed you the video. Remember ?

It's not that you didn't respond, it's that you pretended the post had never been made. Don't you find it difficult coping with the fact that you have to lie so often to reinforce your own beliefs? A bit like you lying about what I said about the difficulty of observing a tilt in a video taken from a direction at right angles to the tilt axis. Funny how the way you "remember" things is so rarely the way they actually happened. Perhaps you'd like to back up your recollections with a link? Or would you rather waffle about how you'll just leave it to everyone else to work it out for themselves? I wouldn't recommend the latter strategy; if you let people think for themselves, they tend not to swallow your lies.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

If anybody sees RM you could ask him how did the antenna fall more or less straight downwards. I mean if the hat truss and attached core columns had put up even a moment's resistence the antenna would have fallen over sideways.

At this point, bill smith is sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "La la la la la, I can't hear you".

Dave

 

[R.Mackey]

Debate Anthology

Welcome back, those of you who were on Thanksgiving vacation.

Over at 911 Myths, Mike has been kind enough to put up direct links to all three shows, along with the slides I used and the full transcript of the second show: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

In the presentation, only some of the slides are numbered. Those are the ones I thought I might use on the show. The others are backstory and additional information intended for those who read the presentation on its own. Some topics we never got to, i.e. Tony was going to make some complaint about the CCTV fire in China, so I preemptively described why its non-collapse is completely plausible. Enjoy.

---

Also, for those engaging bill smith about the "question" of why I didn't acknowledge something as fact that only happened in his imagination, this discussion belongs in a rubber room, not my thread. Any further postings or responses on that subject are off-topic and will be reported. This is your only warning. Don't feed obvious trolls.

 

[bardamu]

Over at 911 Myths, Mike has been kind enough to put up direct links to all three shows, along with the slides I used and the full transcript of the second show: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

In the presentation, only some of the slides are numbered. Those are the ones I thought I might use on the show. The others are backstory and additional information intended for those who read the presentation on its own. Some topics we never got to, i.e. Tony was going to make some complaint about the CCTV fire in China, so I preemptively described why its non-collapse is completely plausible. Enjoy.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

Inward bowing of WTC 1 perimeter
Eight minutes before collapse
Estimated up to 55 inches of perimeter deflection

•After the first few floors collapse, most of the interface is rubble –amorphous, heavy, and moving fast
–Tends to slide away from the heavier core, falling to the side and landing on the truss sections
–This breaks and shears off the trusses and pushes perimeter columns and spandrels outward

First the perimeter columns are pulled inward then they are pushed outward.

•Core beams are sitting on welded seats, but beams themselves are not welded to the columns and lift out easily

When the beams of the upper block fall onto the beams of the lower block, only the beams of the upper block could be lifted off their seats. What exactly lifts the beams of the lower block off of their seats at such a rate that each floor could collapse in around 150ms?

–Lower core resists impact, but upper core falls apart

Only a small part of the lower core is left standing. What causes the greater part of the lower core to fall apart?

•Tilt angle, however, channels rubble and mass mostly inside the perimeter columns

Wouldn't you just know it!

•WTC 7 suffered an almost total internal collapse before the perimeter started to fall

At the time the perimeter started to fall, what was holding up the West penthouse and the Screenwall if the building had suffered an almost total internal collapse? In the videos, they appear to collapse at virtually the same time as the perimeter.

Summary, Continued

•Now pretend the WTC was sabotaged

–How did the devices get there?
–Why are there no recorded sounds of explosives?
–Why weren’t thousands killed by flying glass?
–Why did occupants and security fail to detect them?
–Why would anyone plant them in the first place?
–Why is there no support at all for this hypothesis in the scientific and engineering community?

•The idea depends on numerous leaps of faith, and raises more questions than it solves

This is typical of conspiracy theories

Is it wise for scientists to dabble in politics?

 

[R.Mackey]

First the perimeter columns are pulled inward then they are pushed outward.

Perimeter columns are pulled inwards until collapse initiation. Once the collapse is underway, we do not have slow sagging of floors anymore. Instead we have a large mass of rubble landing inside, which destroys the floor quickly and causes the now unrestrained perimeter columns to be pushed outward. Very simple.

When the beams of the upper block fall onto the beams of the lower block, only the beams of the upper block could be lifted off their seats. What exactly lifts the beams of the lower block off of their seats at such a rate that each floor could collapse in around 150ms?

They don't. The lower core survives the collapse, for a few seconds anyway. I have pictures of this in the presentation itself. Try reading it.

The part of the lower core that is destroyed is typified by the seats themselves being smashed off the columns. It happens, just with less efficiency than destruction of the upper core.

Only a small part of the lower core is left standing. What causes the greater part of the lower core to fall apart?

This "small part" is dozens of stories high.

The remnant cannot support itself even if intact. And it's damaged, and being loaded in funny ways by the huge pile of debris at the bottom. Shouldn't take much genius to figure out why it fell too.

At the time the perimeter started to fall, what was holding up the West penthouse and the Screenwall if the building had suffered an almost total internal collapse? In the videos, they appear to collapse at virtually the same time as the perimeter.

No, they don't.

Is it wise for scientists to dabble in politics?

Non sequitur.

 

[newton3376]

3rd show was definately the best....good job Ryan.

 

[bardamu]

They don't. The lower core survives the collapse, for a few seconds anyway. I have pictures of this in the presentation itself. Try reading it.

This "small part" is dozens of stories high.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

•In both collapses, building cores were the last pieces left standing
•Core remnant is approximately 70 stories in height

There were 47 core columns. How many columns are still standing 70 storeys high? More than one? Over twenty floors of core were completely destroyed, and many more floors of core were almost completely destroyed.

Have you worked out which columns remain standing for a few seconds? According to some researchers, it was the weakest columns that survived the longest.

The part of the lower core that is destroyed is typified by the seats themselves being smashed off the columns. It happens, just with less efficiency than destruction of the upper core.

The question is, what smashes the seats off the columns of the lower section if the beams of the upper section just lift off?

•Clearly, the cores were not destroyed by explosives

A carefully worded sentence. Not ALL the cores were destroyed, but that doesn't mean the ones that WERE destroyed weren't destroyed by explosives.

No, they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

In this video the East penthouse starts to drop at 0:05s, then there's no observable movement of any other part of the roof until the Screenwall and the West penthouse begin to fall at 0:11s. After a further 0.7s - while these two structures are still moving downward - the perimeter begins to drop with them. In the scheme of the progressive collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building, does 0.7s not count as 'virtually at the same time'?

According to NIST, during the 6.9 seconds between the first movement of the East penthouse and the initiation of global collapse, "The interior columns buckled in succession from east to west in the lower floors...". They admit that this is "Not observable". What this means is that the proposed 'successive buckling' is not part of the observed data, but a consequence of NIST's assumption that fires caused the collapse.

They sum up by saying: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good, validating probable collapse sequence." A more accurate conclusion might be: 'the probable collapse sequence is the result of circular logic'.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf (pages 36-46)

Non sequitur.

During the Hardfire debate you gave the impression you were annoyed at Ron for his tendency to stray from the subject of the collapse physics, yet in your presentation you ask the following question, which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics:

–Why would anyone plant them in the first place?

 

[R.Mackey]

There were 47 core columns. How many columns are still standing 70 storeys high? More than one? Over twenty floors of core were completely destroyed, and many more floors of core were almost completely destroyed.

Get to the point, please?

Have you worked out which columns remain standing for a few seconds? According to some researchers, it was the weakest columns that survived the longest.

No, nobody has. It's not relevant.

The columns that survived are likely to be the interior columns, and those are weaker, yes, but this is coincidence.

The question is, what smashes the seats off the columns of the lower section if the beams of the upper section just lift off?

The impact from above still does damage. It can lift upper beams and smash off lower beams at the same time -- and it does.

A carefully worded sentence. Not ALL the cores were destroyed, but that doesn't mean the ones that WERE destroyed weren't destroyed by explosives.

There is absolutely no evidence for explosives. There is absolutely no need for explosives.

In this video the East penthouse starts to drop at 0:05s, then there's no observable movement of any other part of the roof until the Screenwall and the West penthouse begin to fall at 0:11s. After a further 0.7s - while these two structures are still moving downward - the perimeter begins to drop with them. In the scheme of the progressive collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building, does 0.7s not count as 'virtually at the same time'?

No. The 0.7 second difference, in fact, disproves your previous claim.

According to NIST, during the 6.9 seconds between the first movement of the East penthouse and the initiation of global collapse, "The interior columns buckled in succession from east to west in the lower floors...". They admit that this is "Not observable". What this means is that the proposed 'successive buckling' is not part of the observed data, but a consequence of NIST's assumption that fires caused the collapse.

The actual core collapse is not directly observable because no one can see through opaque objects. Its collapse is inferred by the collapse of objects on top. There's no conflict here, just willing ignorance.

They sum up by saying: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good, validating probable collapse sequence." A more accurate conclusion might be: 'the probable collapse sequence is the result of circular logic'.

Nope. The probable collapse sequence was shown rigorously to be possible, and a better fit than any available alternate hypothesis. What you claim is "Circular" is, in fact, rigorous use of the Scientific Method.

During the Hardfire debate you gave the impression you were annoyed at Ron for his tendency to stray from the subject of the collapse physics, yet in your presentation you ask the following question, which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics:

Are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to ask that allegedly political question? A bit fascist, aren't you?

 

[bardamu]

Get to the point, please?

You need to propose a mechanism for the breaking apart of the lower core, in its entirety for more than 20 floors, and virtually in its entirety for many more floors.

No, nobody has. It's not relevant.

The columns that survived are likely to be the interior columns, and those are weaker, yes, but this is coincidence.

The question for now is not whether it's coincidence or cock-up, but whether science can explain what could cause the strongest columns to be destroyed yet allow the weakest ones to survive. If your hypothesis can't explain this, you need to examine whether an alternative hypothesis can.

The impact from above still does damage. It can lift upper beams and smash off lower beams at the same time -- and it does.

Unless you can expand on this, it's nothing more than an assertion. Which individual pieces of falling debris could smash off the lower core beams? The hypothetical construct of 'amorphous rubble' is a fudge.

There is absolutely no evidence for explosives. There is absolutely no need for explosives.

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

No. The 0.7 second difference, in fact, disproves your previous claim.

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

The actual core collapse is not directly observable because no one can see through opaque objects. Its collapse is inferred by the collapse of objects on top. There's no conflict here, just willing ignorance.

The Screenwall and the West penthouse are supported by the interior columns and can be seen on top of the roof by anyone who watches the videos. The observable fact that they show no movement until around 7 seconds after the first movement of the East penthouse infers that the interior columns are not progressively failing during those 7 seconds.

Nope. The probable collapse sequence was shown rigorously to be possible, and a better fit than any available alternate hypothesis. What you claim is "Circular" is, in fact, rigorous use of the Scientific Method.

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

Are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to ask that allegedly political question?

Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.

A bit fascist, aren't you?

To avoid delving even deeper into politics, I'll ignore that one.

 

[TruthersLie]

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

ROFLMAO. Yes. Thank you for changing it from the normal truther lie. Usually it makes me go p "DOH!" when I hear that truther lie.

I love how it has switched from architects and engineers to architectural and engineering professionals. Why do twoofs have to lie and move the goal posts? I mean having 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects is a good number. Why do they have to then shift from their original claims to include architectural and engineering professionals? that includes office workers, office managers, the guy who gets the coffee, the draftsmen, etc... why shift like that?

The appeal to authority is rejected. Are you new at this game twoof? you don't play it very well.

I'm enjoying watching Ryan demolish you, though I figure he will soon put you on ignore because you are an obvious waste of his time.

ETA:
I also love this gem.

Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.

If you choose to believe that it is fully concieveable and the only explaination for the collapse of wtc, then the rest of your presentations are redundant. your conclusion is then based soley on politics and not on science.

Thank you for debunking Steven Jones and Richard Gage. I'm sure the twoof movement will not be happy with you.

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

I love ignorant twoofs. What video are you watching where you can see the four corners of the roof fall at the same time? I'd love to see that video.

Oh back with the normal twoofer lie of freefall/near freefall. you really need to go back to school twoof. You just might learn something.

 

[beachnut]

You need to propose...

...

Zero evidence to support false ideas about 911, implying, if not outright saying explosives or some other devices were used to destroy the WTC complex. It takes knowledge to understand 911 and enable people to fight the moronic delusions.

Tony failed to present evidence to support his real-cd-deal. The fantasy of explosives has failed to gather evidence and the failed movement remains for eternity like JFK CT, Apollo CT, and Bigfoot; in the delusional mode.

There is a reason only 0.0087 percent of engineers support the delusions of 911TruthLies.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread if you're interested in learning more.

 

[TruthersLie]

Newton.

he isn't interested in learning more.. he is a no planer who thinks the verinage technique was used on the towers... why should he LEARN something from people with the education and experience that is lacking in Manchester.

 

[A W Smith]

You need to propose a mechanism for the breaking apart of the lower core, in its entirety for more than 20 floors, and virtually in its entirety for many more floors.

the core cannot stand by itself. In fact the column to column connections are not even fully welded to their root. you can see proof of this in the debris,

The question for now is not whether it's coincidence or cock-up, but whether science can explain what could cause the strongest columns to be destroyed yet allow the weakest ones to survive. If your hypothesis can't explain this, you need to examine whether an alternative hypothesis can.

strongest columns were mainly at the perimeter of the core. The very reason that are stronger, to carry their share of the floor space outside the core, is the reason they were stripped away during the collapse.

Unless you can expand on this, it's nothing more than an assertion. Which individual pieces of falling debris could smash off the lower core beams? The hypothetical construct of 'amorphous rubble' is a fudge.

the seats of the top section are sheared upward as it collides with the lower section. the seats of the lower section are sheared off downward as the upper debris front impact them.

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

No, it is a matter of fact. not opinion. There never was evidence of explosives, And there never will be evidence of anything more than paint. The worlds architects and engineers disagree with your tiny fraction of agenda driven incompetents.

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

Huh? oh i get it, false choice fallacy revealed. i thought i recognized it.

The Screenwall and the West penthouse are supported by the interior columns and can be seen on top of the roof by anyone who watches the videos. The observable fact that they show no movement until around 7 seconds after the first movement of the East penthouse infers that the interior columns are not progressively failing during those 7 seconds.

and how exactly is east to west movement taking seven seconds total NOT a sign of progressive collapse? Perhaps willful ignorance?

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

are you watching what you are typing? because what you are describing is exactly a progressive collapse. Then you hand-wave away your own words with the last sentence.

Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.

i think you are confusing MOTIVE with politics. You are sweating it because it is inconvenient to your agenda driven fantasy which in fact is based on politics itself. Oh irony.

To avoid delving even deeper into politics, I'll ignore that one.

Of course you will. You are very adept at ignorance. Just like you ignored thousands of eyewitnesses in the other thread who corroborate that they witnessed planes flying into the twin towers. An inconvenient truth that you hand-wave away as unreliable. The only things that are unreliable are your neurons and synapses.. Get professional help.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Newton.

he isn't interested in learning more.. he is a no planer who thinks the verinage technique was used on the towers... why should he LEARN something from people with the education and experience that is lacking in Manchester.

Huh.

I thought all the no-planers had faked their own deaths and come up with new online handles rather than face the shame of having believed something so completely ridiculous.

 

[twinstead]

I thought all the no-planers had faked their own deaths and come up with new online handles rather than face the shame of having believed something so completely ridiculous.

oh no he di'int!

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread if you're interested in learning more.

The interior of the building collapsed first, as seen in the initial penthouse fall, and pulled the exterior columns last seconds later. This is normal in a progressive collapse. In the following video a small cause (one ball hit) produces a disproportionate large result (progressive collapse of an entire structure). The collapse occurs progressively, naturally and sequentially as in WTC7 , not simultaneously.

 

[bardamu]

I love how it has switched from architects and engineers to architectural and engineering professionals. Why do twoofs have to lie and move the goal posts? I mean having 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects is a good number. Why do they have to then shift from their original claims to include architectural and engineering professionals? that includes office workers, office managers, the guy who gets the coffee, the draftsmen, etc... why shift like that?

The appeal to authority is rejected. Are you new at this game twoof? you don't play it very well.

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread if you're interested in learning more.

The thread you linked to is not related to the collapse of WTC7.

strongest columns were mainly at the perimeter of the core. The very reason that are stronger, to carry their share of the floor space outside the core, is the reason they were stripped away during the collapse.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

the seats of the top section are sheared upward as it collides with the lower section. the seats of the lower section are sheared off downward as the upper debris front impact them.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

No, it is a matter of fact. not opinion. There never was evidence of explosives, And there never will be evidence of anything more than paint. The worlds architects and engineers disagree with your tiny fraction of agenda driven incompetents.

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Huh? oh i get it, false choice fallacy revealed. i thought i recognized it. and how exactly is east to west movement taking seven seconds total NOT a sign of progressive collapse? Perhaps willful ignorance? are you watching what you are typing? because what you are describing is exactly a progressive collapse. Then you hand-wave away your own words with the last sentence.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

i think you are confusing MOTIVE with politics.

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

Crime Laboratory

Lab personnel

A typical crime lab has two sets of personnel:

Field analysts - investigators that go to crime scenes, collect evidence, and process the scene.

Job titles include:

Forensic evidence technician
Crime scene investigator
Scenes of crime officer (SOCO)

Laboratory analysts - scientists or other personnel who run tests on the evidence once it is brought to the lab (i.e., DNA tests, or bullet striations).

Job titles include:

Forensic technician (performs support functions such as making reagents)
Forensic scientist/Criminalist (performs scientific analyses on evidence)
Fingerprint analyst
Forensic Photographer
Forensic Document Examiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Lab

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

The interior of the building collapsed first, as seen in the initial penthouse fall, and pulled the exterior columns last seconds later. This is normal in a progressive collapse.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

In the following video a small cause (one ball hit) produces a disproportionate large result (progressive collapse of an entire structure). The collapse occurs progressively, naturally and sequentially as in WTC7 , not simultaneously.

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

 

[twinstead]

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Why would ANY architects be challenging YOUR explanation for the collapses--in even larger numbers than your intrepid list of merry professionals? Are these whom you must consider incompetent or worse "in on it" still allowed to design buildings? Have YOU complained to the architect licencing body?