Now why are you compelled to make statements like that David? You know that is untrue.
http://mountainrepublic.net/2011/03...der-for-controlled-demolition-inc-speaks-out/
Bare assertion fallacy. This appears to be the source of the untrue assertion that a roofline kink is an indicator of controlled demolition. I've explained perfectly clearly why this cannot be true.
Yes I know this is old news to you. If you need further evidence that roofline kinks are quite commonly associated with building implosions, I guess I can throw together a photo composite.
Or you could look at the videos I just linked to, which clearly show that a roofline kink may or may not be present in a building implosion. However, you have yet to advance any evidence that a roofline kink is not expected in any other kind of collapse. Without that evidence, you can't cite a roofline kink as an indicator of controlled demolition.
To argue briefly by analogy, you can cite as many sources as you like to the effect that a cat has four legs; it still doesn't prove that something with four legs can't be a dog.
Beyond any possible doubt? Instead of conceding the point you just raise the ante with a bigger lie.
I don't think anybody could doubt that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. For example:
The velocity of the global collapse is at zero and therefore, so is the acceleration.
Your complete inability to understand simple Newtonian physics is clearly demonstrated by your continued insistence that zero velocity must therefore mean that acceleration is zero.
Regarding your irrelevant comparison example of the upwardly tossed ball.
There is an easy to use word in the english language which clearly describes the motion condition of your upwardly moving ball when is "falling at zero velocity over a zero period of time". It is called stopped David. From that extremely brief "stopped" condition, T=0, it will enter into a state of freefall or an acceleration of 1G.
Keep going. This is superb comedy. Are you arguing that an upwardly thrown ball, at the instant when its velocity is zero, also has an acceleration of zero?
It does not alter the engineering facts required for WTC7 to be in a state of freefall for 100 feet.
It does not alter the fact that at least 100 feet of zero structural resistance must have existed for the NIST's WTC7 global collapse Stage 2 freefall to have occurred.
All of which is simply explained by the formation of a multi-storey buckle during Stage 1, the fracture of the hinges at the beginning of Stage 2, and the collision of the facade with the lower structure at the end of Stage 2.
Dave is remaining remarkably silent on this.
More comedy. You're claiming I'm lying about your incompetence, and at the same time you're claiming I'm remaining remarkably silent on whether you're incompetent. Both can't be true, can they?
I never denied there was movement in WTC7 prior to NIST's Stage 1.
So, if the acceleration was zero at all times prior to T=0, how exactly did this movement take place?
And I doubt it was possible, considering the rather crude video measurements available to the NIST, for them to precisely state that Stage 1 was a perfectly smooth zero to 1G acceleration over 1.75 seconds.
Since the graph of acceleration is available, your doubt is of little interest. Here it is, with acknowledgements to tfk, who just posted it in the "CD = Free Fall?" thread.
The use of "near freefall" to characterize the Stage 1 portion of the WTC7 collapse, is clearly intended to convey a relative value to the observed descent. This would seem to be a fair description given that after 1.75 seconds, WTC7 was in freefall.
And
you accuse
me of using empty words?
The use of "near freefall" to characterise the stage 1 portion of the WTC7 collapse is clearly intended to convey the impression that, in the above graph, the green line follows the red line up to the 5 second point on the X axis. Look at the red line. Look at the green line. Note how, up to this point, their behaviour is completely different.
It's abundantly clear who isn't accepting the engineering realities here.
Dave
