But NIST does have basic reasoning skills, even when a high school teacher had to help them admitting the free fall moment
Debunkers and logic....
Ergo, are you denying that you scoffed at someone using information from the National Observatory and the sun's position in a video to determine the approximate time of day? Yes or no?
"....Using the sun position calculator on the Naval Observatory website, we can tell when the sun was in that approximate position on 9/11/2001 in NYC: ..."
Bedunker super google sleuthers! This is hilarious.
,,,,
"It's a car exploding."
"No, it's steel falling!"
"No, it's a water cooler exploding!"
"NO! It's a pumpkin dropping on the pavement! They're really loud, you know..."
Always remember: explosion sounds are never, ever explosives....
And how many of them have design and engineering credentials, like you asked Scott back on page one?
Look up the ASCE membership. They endorsed NIST's report. Several hundred thousand, I believe their membership is. But, of course, you're about to dismiss them because they're civil engineers, not structural, despite being perfectly willing to accept non-structural engies for the petition. In fact, you're willing to accept people who aren't engineers at all.
Why 'building code changes', specifically? Why not architects designing buildings with 9/11 in mind, like that building in Asia, IIRC, that used improvements learned from NIST's studies in its construction, and had improved resistance when it caught on fire?
No it didn't. Parts of the building fell at free fall. The truther argument is that a building or buildings, from top to bottom, fell entirely at free fall. The whole thing, not parts. The argument was that free fall necessarily meant controlled demolition. Which it does not.
No, debunkers had long pointed out that freefall!=CD.
Your real name is 'ergo'?
Which is why all the pieces went outward, in North Tower's case even hitting WTC 7 and leading to its collapse, right?
Because it didn't. Truthers claimed that the entire building fell at free fall.
I disagree. I think you're being intellectually dishonest again. I also think you probably won't answer my posts on this page. If you do, you'll quote-mine it to respond to a single line or suchlike with a veiled personal attack which addresses no facts.
I said you 'didn't know how sundials work', I recall.
Uh, you asked me to prove my claim. I did. You claimed, or at the very least strongly implied, that 911Myths was wrong, and have just carefully quote mined around my question asking you to clarify your position. Because it either means admitting you were wrong, or saying something that is obviously false.
