Talking about bricks and thinking actual bricjs is moronic here, don't you think?
Haha.
Wow. Youz moved that goal post by a thousand miles! Respect!!!
"Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse.
How much do you expect a person to suspend their disbelief?"
"Apart from the entire EMP? Oh dear. Then there's the "ripple" ....
Meanwhile, and strangely, there was a period of <g acceleration prior to the period of freefall. This doesn't tie in with any concept of all support being simultaneously removed, otherwise the acceleration would have been g from the outset.
*Nodding to Noah. I began composing this before cooking dinner, an hour ago
Yes, but what it means exactly we cannot know unless we now apply engineering, physics, math with actual numbers to it that describe the properties and behaviour of the actual steel structure.
Please try harder, and try to acknowledge that this focus on the single issue of acceleration profile and finding it suspicious or in need of answers is not something that you found yourself and could argue to be suspicious or singularly in need of being answered. Instead, you are following this path because truthers told you to. Yet they have not presented a complete argument that involves actual engineering and physics with actual numbers. So why do you ask us to debunk this incomplete argument, instead of demanding that truthers first make their argument complete (which they can't and won't)?
We are presuming that yes the internal structure was alread completely in the process of going down. Doesn't have to be complete (as in freefall), it suffices if the internal core end of the floor spans were already moving down when the collapse of the north wall began. And we know this to be so because we can see in the same vidoes that truthers use for showing freefall that the east penthouse and the west penthouse had begun falling before the north wall did, which means the core was failing entirely from east to west.
Seriously though, I am having a dilemma about WTC7. I've tried to learn some of the basic engineering principles needed to understand the collapse recently thanks to some peoples help here. Pretty much given up now, was taking far too long and I don't have the time. If I do get the time I would love to try and learn some of it though. Although I know the basics I can only go down to simple physics type mechanics and ideal situations that lack an in depth engineering perspective.
So all I can really do for now is agree with which ever side of the argument the science published by engineers agrees with. Not so much on technical points but more on the way science works.
From scanning google scholar, omitting all non peer reviewed journals, considering citation numbers, comparing the quality and quantity of papers for and against; I have come to the conclusion that basically no respectable engineer that is doing science the way it should be done really thinks that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If they do, I have yet to see such compelling evidence published in a reputable journal so it can receive valid criticism.
Nearly every point about WTC7 that I've seen brought up here supporting CD recently has had a counterpoint made. Although a lot of these points may be contentious, and lacking the direct evidence you usually get from science past theory, I don't think that parsimony puts much burden of proof on the official side when compared to the implications of what you would have to entertain if the opposing side was true.
Saying that, I'm still probably going to keep asking annoying questions out of curiosity for a bit here when i have the time
Seriously though, I am having a dilemma about WTC7. I've tried to learn some of the basic engineering principles needed to understand the collapse recently thanks to some peoples help here. Pretty much given up now, was taking far too long and I don't have the time. If I do get the time I would love to try and learn some of it though. Although I know the basics I can only go down to simple physics type mechanics and ideal situations that lack an in depth engineering perspective.
So all I can really do for now is agree with which ever side of the argument the science published by engineers agrees with. Not so much on technical points but more on the way science works.
From scanning google scholar, omitting all non peer reviewed journals, considering citation numbers, comparing the quality and quantity of papers for and against; I have come to the conclusion that basically no respectable engineer that is doing science the way it should be done really thinks that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If they do, I have yet to see such compelling evidence published in a reputable journal so it can receive valid criticism.
Nearly every point about WTC7 that I've seen brought up here supporting CD recently has had a counterpoint made. Although a lot of these points may be contentious, and lacking the direct evidence you usually get from science past theory, I don't think that parsimony puts much burden of proof on the official side when compared to the implications of what you would have to entertain if the opposing side was true.
Saying that, I'm still probably going to keep asking annoying questions out of curiosity for a bit here when i have the time
