lexicon008, it is a refreshing change to encounter a poster here who at least sympathizes with, or assigns a significant likelihood to, 9/11 "Truth" claims of CD and who is able to hold differentiated views on single topics, agreeing with counterclaims when those seem well supported.
Thanks for that.
You're welcome.
It's pretty sad when a group that pretends to be of technical professionals doesn't define its terms, wouldn't you say?
It happens on both sides sadly, but yes, they should be more clear.
Nope. Do you know that part of the north wall, which supposedly fell oh so neatly, actually fell across the street and on top (on the roof) of another highrise there, damaging that other building so severely it had to be demolished in turn? Debris from WTC7 also crossed the street to the west, slamming high into the Verizon building and contributing to the Verizon's >1 billion damage bill.
This is pretty damned different from "into the footprint" and a major deception (lie), in my opinion. You can't possibly say "into foot print" or even "pretty damn close to footprint", if you destroy and majorly damage buildings on the other side of at least two streets!
Ok i'll give you that but only because classical CDs have the opportunity wrap the structure and surrounding area to lessen damage and possibility of errant materials. And the fact that the structure was not predemolished so had far more mass and material to eject
But back to the point I made:
You had previously agreed that the "freefall" argument isn't valid, and I had asked you what you make of the fact that Gage and, supposedly, his 1900+ A&E, push that argument anyway. You handwaved this question, saying it's just one argument, and perhaps not central.
Now you agree that several other of the arguments Gage and his supposed 1900+ make about WTC are also invalid, or at least weak or ill-defined.
Is it maybe time for you to step back and assume that Gage does not present good arguments for a CD of WTC7 - period? And if he doesn't - who else does? Do any good arguments exist - at all?
I think not.
Although I find the CD theories to be baseless, I do think NIST should release it's data for their simulation of the collapse. It would be very useful to have it.
NIST vs. AE911 and simulations sounds like a great topic for another thread. One may even already exist.
true but what would the lead NIST investigator say about g.
of course.
hum, it would be nice if they kept that steel so we could analyze that hypothesis.
No, in the original context that is his definition of the time for a complete free fall.
NIST didn't "have to" break the collapse up in stages. They went beyond the scope of the report to add that section ("for discussion purposes"), but it didn't change any of their conclusions including the measured collapse time.
No, I don't. The acceleration gradually increased and fluctuated g for a duration (what NIST calls "stage 2"), which just shows that at that point in time, the structural support(of the perimeter wall) would have been neglible, which is consistent with most of the internal structure having already collapsed and likely serving as an extra down-pull.
ok? they did break it up after chandler called them out though didn't they?
does the computer sim show free fall? your just making stuff up and have no forensic evidence (steel beams from those locations that show bucking and such). we can watch the vid showing the collapse but can only speculate to what is going on in the inside. neglible is resistance therefor sunders remark about "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it" would be incorrect. are you going against the lead investigator of wtc 7 from the NIST and say that resistance can = free fall along with physics in general?
sure...sounds like some good spin to me.
it is proof of what sunder said:
Great, take it up with Sunder.
Great, take it up with Sunder.
This is incorrect. Freefall can also mean that forces resisting are equaled by forces pulling plus the affect of gravity. If you disagree, show your work.
That's nice, I don't care what CD can be, although I think you'd be hard pressed to find CD's that are above FF, since that means the interior is collapsing first, although there are examples. I think one was the Hudson building in Detroit. Have fun playing around, freefall CD won't disprove that non-CD can also be freefall.
The resistance is matched and overcome by the load applied by the interior collapsing first. Please reread the OP.
Thanks for your second paragraph. I'd like Senunmut to focus. On that, that is the gist of OP point nr. 1: free fall is not demonstrably constantly achieved.
