The NIST Theory does not explain how Building 7 collapsed, says Chris7.
He's right. I asked Michael Newman at NIST about it and he said the main thrust of both studies was understanding what caused the collapse. After that, "gravity took care of the rest." So the minute detail of the NIST report gives way to very short explanations once the onset of collapse occurs. I had to do a lot of research independent of NIST once I tried understanding the collapse itself.
Once again C7 is playing word games Chris. He is only "right" in a narrow setting which he has chosen. Please don't fall for it! For our purposes here he is wrong in two different strands of mendacity. I can identify others but let's leave C7 aside for now.
I want to caution you to keep these comments by NIST in context. And to consider C7's comments in the same context but leave that aspect till later.
The statement from NIST is spot on. The key issue relevant to NIST's objectives was what caused the collapse. The initiation of collapse. Whatever terms we use to define it.
Once collapse was initiated the global collapse was inevitable in all three towers. So that stage is of little interest to future builders of high rise buildings or the world wide profession of engineers. (With one possible exception which nit pickers may try to attack - I'll deal with it if the need arises.)
Most of the interest in the global collapses arises in the community of those attempting to claim human malfeasances in the form of CD and those defending against those claims. i.e. the two sides of forums such as this and similar discussions between the same parties in other arenas.
Those members - the vast majority - of the engineering and science professions who have no interest in the false claims of truthers also have no interest in discussion of the global collapse mechanisms. They are not contentious except in the false environment such as this forum where we entertain discussion of those topics.
And I make no apology for the two uses of "false" in that preceding paragraph. The reality is that the collapses of the three buildings have been comprehensively explained in two cases and adequately explained in one. And after ten years no-one has gone within a bulls roar of putting forward a reasoned counter claim in favour of demolition.
Therefore my caution to not lose context. Bend over backwards as much as you, or we, wish to enter into discussions with truthers of various types the reality out in the real world is vastly different. Reality is different. There was no CD and there is little interest if any in discussing the "global collapse" details. It was "inevitable x 3" as correctly determined by NIST.
So I think you enter into dangerous territory when you state "I tried understanding the collapse itself." Itself? You really should be referring to the inevitable stage of global collapse. I could but won't argue that the "collapse itself" was the initiation phase.
Just the action of me stating it that way should allow you to reconsider your focus. Do you really think that the dramatic global collapse was "the collapse itself"? Where in your mind is the balance between the "initiation" stage and "global' or "progression" stages? Are you falling for the truther adjustment of context for whatever their objectives are?
Cheers.
BTW There is a strong analogy here to your use of a wooden stick example. The snapping looks dramatic but the real structural engineering failure was reached long before that stage - in the range covered by Euler's explanations.
