That's why he's not answering it.
He knows (they ALL know) damn well that if they just used their brain for a 1/2 a second their 'questions' would be answered.
And writing insults on an internet forum isn't going to change that behavior. It's not worth getting yourself into trouble over something where the other individual does his own damage to his credibility. I'm not complaining to you to be an ass or anything; I just don't think it's worth it to get yourself in trouble over something trivial.
The all-important internal facts that are supposed to provide credance to the theory, were unobserved.
In any engineering investigation you have unkowns; that's absolutely no excuse to ignore the penthouse collapse or the window breakage along the exterior that followed before the exterior facade collapsed. The WTC 7 structural details and blueprints are available and provide information about the internal structure, whilst the available data of the exterior provides a rough estimate of both the location, and progression of the collapse. By ignoring even the external indicators, you are by definition excluding critical information that pieces together an approximate narrative of the collapse. This is basic in any engineering investigation, you use whatever information you have.
Of the concrete in the floors added to the rigidity and thus the overall strength of the structure.
You're missing a major difference between steel framed construction where most concrete is used as part of the floor systems adding lateral stability, and reinforced concrete construction that used higher strength concrete to carry gravity loads. The two construction approaches result in very different fire resistance ratings and structural dynamics, which is why buildings like the Chinese Mandarin Oriental Hotel, and the Madrid Windsor tower were never under any threat of total collapse, whereas the steel framed building of WTC7 was more vulnarable.
You of course have other facts which play in, such as the construction methods used in assembling the structural frame, for example unlike say, the Murrah Building which was not only reinforced concrete, but also built on a traditional grid layout, whereas the WTC had long spanning floor members and a non-standard column layout due to it being built on top of a substation. Things which drastically affect the expected behavior of the buildings, when compared with one another.
Steel is used because it has high tensile and compressive capabilities without the need to add additional reinforcement. Concrete has a very high compression strength but an extremely poor tensile performance (hence rebar reinforcement).
You are also ignoring the fact that the steel was undamaged and fully fire-proofed and the NIST estimated localized office furnishings fires as peaking after 20-30 minutes.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm fully aware of what the fireproofing does for the building and how it works. Firstly, the ratings for fireproofing are done under controlled conditions and they refer to full building assemblies, not individual structural members. Secondly the testing that establishes ratings does not necessarily model every real life scenario that you can expect the assembly to encounter. Thirdly, you're ignoring that the fires still produced heated gases within the enclosed space, exposing elements to elevated temperatures. Finally, you're ignoring unique properties of WTC 7's construction that may have made the assembly more vulnerable to a large scale progressive failure.
None of this requires the steel to be "pre-damaged"
According to the NIST fantastical hypothesis, office fires caused this column to lose support on 6 sequential floors and then buckle.
Thermal expansion/contraction from high temperature differentials introduces shear stresses on the bolts that join column and floor beam together. The expansion or contraction of the beam pushes/pulls on the bolt and causes it to fail. These aren't novel concepts; If you want to advance a case against that and call it "fantastical", then offer a quantitative analysis of why it can't have happened. I've seen none of that from Gage's group which allegedly professes to have done the full structural analyses.
Freefall, close-to-symmetrical collapses are the common signature of implosion-based controlled demolition collapses.
And it can be a feature of
any collapse under the right set of circumstances. Once again, how a building falls is directly impacted by:
- The make up of the structural assembly
- The Location of the initiating failures
- The sequence of failures.
Implosion based controlled demolitions are no different than any other collapse in this respect; they engineer where to induce the failures, to ensure that the building falls in a premeditated path to avoid damage to other buildings.
The mechanism is implosion, and the commercially used trigger is explosives. With a pre-rigged demolition, the designers have a complete expectation of what is going to happen, including where and when.
In any other collapse it is whatever the engineering investigation finds. Yet again, the path of the collapse is affected not by explosives, but by where the failure occurs (independently of the cause), how it it progresses, and how the construction factors into the progression. Some buildings are more vulnerable to collapse than others. Implosions are not a catch all as you unrealistically believe.
Of course, not being a legally-sanctioned commercial demolition, WTC7 utilized something more exotic than RDX.
None of the collapses were "controlled". If you're appealing to the "unconventional demolition" answer then you might as well be arguing that the destruction of the buildings resembled the 1999 attack on the US embassy in Kenya:
Which used explosives in an effort to destroy the building, and the attackers had absolutely no concern over the collateral both in terms of property and life.
You mean this short version;
Not just "no structural integrity", no structural resistance.
No integrity and no resistance are one in the same. When a structure has undergone any failure mechanism, such as buckling, there is no way for the structure to provide the "resistance" you're saying it should. Sunder understands this, you don't.
If you observe the global collapse video, for a few seconds after the east penthouse drops through the roof, other than some broken windows on the upper northeast face the whole structure remains visibly unaffected.
For the penthouse to have collapsed, there had to have been a failure inside the building to initiate it; there's no disputing it. The window breakage progresses downward in the same region as the penthouse and shows that there was enough of a deflection on that part of the facade to cause them to break. Clearly something was already happening inside the building and it progressed to a point where the rest of the building failed. Again, whether or not you see the internals, is no excuse to cast to the sidelines because you think it's irrelevant. In an engineering investigation, to ignore something like that would be downright incompetent, which is BTW what AE911 does, they ignore it.
Then, and unlike what is observed in the NIST computer simulated collapse video, the whole roofline suddenly, yes suddenly, begins a rapid descent which included 8 storeys of freefall.
The "sudden" collapse of the roofline only occurs
after a preceding sequence of failures, AKA the penthouse collapse and any associated progressive collapse occurring inside. You're ignoring cause, and effect, which pieces together the collapse narrative.
