By the way, Jonathan Cole, a professional engineer whose video on this issue is the subject of this thread, has just put out an additional two part video on the issue aimed at helping those who might have a hard time understanding the principles involved. They are here
What was I supposed to learn exactly? I'm not sure the proper message got out. I learned
about him the following:
The idea that a structure smaller than another part of itself cannot cause the collapse of a larger part of the same structure under any circumstance....
and the idea that an arbitrary stack of masonry blocks should represent the reaction of an entire building system:
Shows that he does not consider the
Square-Cube law, and example of which I elaborated on
here almost a year ago.
I learned, from him how he thinks of the towers as solid blocks rather than systems:
I
learned he treats it as if it's a unified monolithic structure like this
rock when discussing the 3rd law on a structural
system
Here, I
learned how he demonstrates the
"stunning" similarities between small concrete framed construction and the towers:
In Part 2 I learned he rehashes most of the no jolt "theory" and how the Verinage's idealist case scenario and entirely different construction should model the trade centers "if they were ""natural"" collapses"
I then
learned how when a structure fails it is to be automatically assumed that explosives are responsible from his exquisite comment on the 2 second, 100 ft free drop of WTC7.
I
learned from him the idea that a collapse initiation in a lower part of the building interior and the idea that a buckling column has negligible strength for support never enters the discussion. In fact it is apparently to be ignored without any explanation given as to why...
I
learned from him that air pressure from a large collection of mass are actually the infamous
"hush-a-booms"
And that when
hush-a-booms fail, we can claim no evidence of high temperatures
and that simultaneously there's evidence for a nano-thermite paint layer being applied throughout the entire building...
If these were the concepts to be discussed it's no wonder many of us are having a hard time understanding. I simply do not understand how this helps your case any, you literally chose a conceptual clone of Bjorkman's wackiest theories.... Throwing away the things I learned about the basics is somewhat impossible for me; I personally would not like the idea of being viewed as an incompetent idiot and have that affect my prospects at applying for a job which explicitly requires such understanding.
Has to be just that...a reduction in the rate of acceleration. (as long as there's no velocity reduction during the period)
