ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Hmm.. there were only two seconds of free fall noted at all, yet Gage's demonstration and your point is an argument trying to say that there was zero internal resistence. The more you post, the further you deviate from what actually happened. Go time the collapse. Note how the total collapse time in fact deviates from any notion that the entire structure was in any sort of free fall. It was measured to be 40% longer than it should have been had the roofline indeed been in free fall.
The more you post, the further away you put yourself from what actually occurred that day. Instead of just (to paraphrase) 'relying on the opinion of some other former architect who's just lying', you'd better look up the basics of WTC 7's collapse. A segment fell as a unit, most likely 8 stories total, and the uniform failure of that segment allowed part of the roof to fall without resistence until it impacted the collapsed section. The total time, even minus the penthouse collapse, refutes the notion of no internal resistence during the collapse. The time the collapse took proves exactly what Gage thinks he's arguing against, and that's that there were internal collisions and structure that had to be impacted before it failed.
But you don't see this because you quite obviously haven't tried to comprehend the original information. That's a bad spot to start from with us here.
Even after being told that this demonstrates that researchers not involved with the US government don't find anything suspicious about the collapses, you still miss the point? Really? You're that dense? You work on one professor's early misapprehension, ignoring the fact that he last looked at that aspect of the incident back in 2002, didn't have the benefit of NIST's findings, and still didn't find anything suspicious?
On top of that, you yourself discuss one professor and two engineers who stated something at odds with the NIST report and don't realize that you yourself just negated your earlier post saying that these independent researchers:
You're so oblivious to your own inconsistency that you don't realize you refuted your own statement from earlier?
Random? You mean when they said:
NCSTAR 1-1A said:
ibid said:
Or are you talking about something else with the "random" mention? Citation, please, and explanation of what they meant by "random" and why they were wrong. Your posts have never proceeded from known events, which means we need to ask what in God's name you're talking about before we can explain anything. What statement by NIST saying some aspect of the collapse was "random" was so wrong that "it had to be deliberate"? Generalities don't cut it; quote the statement and explain why it's wrong.
-----
WTC 7's time for collapse completely indicates that internal resistence was met, and also disproves Gage's allegation by demonstrating the exact case he claims WTC 7 did not fit.
And "random" elements of the collapse creating difficulties for modeling is nothing more than a statement of fact. See above, and take the challenge. Try making real arguments, instead of stating unsupported generalities.
