Because, for WTC7, freefall of the roofline for 2.25 seconds was due to simultaneous failure of the remaining columns.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
Has someone made this claim? If so, who? It isn't necessary for the collapse of the building.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Well, then, you are ignoring the well-known phenomenon of hinging:
Physics.
You are missing some "certain conditions."
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why do you continue to ignore the bulk of the collapse?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Deleted Duplicate Post.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Last edited:
Well, then, you are ignoring the well-known phenomenon of hinging:
Physics.
You are missing some "certain conditions."
Please show me where NIST discusses "hinging".
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What implications? You still can show that a fire induced collapse can't produce the same effect.
Get to work.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Let's review shall we.
You claimed:
I replied:
Now is the below really is the best you can do?
Was this the biggest FBI investigation in history? Yes or No?
Were several other law agencies involved? Yes or No?
Were their investigations also the biggest they've ever undertaken? Yes or No?
I fully expect you to cowardly dodge answers to these questions like you've done several times in the past. The lurkers have now given up on you.
No wonder you've been failing for 15 years.
Anyway let's continue with the free comedy, shall we?
I'm guessing where they put of all of their other evidence. In rooms, buildings, boxes, filing cabinets, etc.
Where do you think it is?
None that I'm aware of, how about you explain what you think they ignored, please be specific.
I'll let you in on a little secret, debunking twofer dolts and making them look silly is one of the easiest things I've ever done. People believing in Bigfoot make more sense these days.
You claimed:
I replied:
Now is the below really is the best you can do?
Was this the biggest FBI investigation in history? Yes or No?
Were several other law agencies involved? Yes or No?
Were their investigations also the biggest they've ever undertaken? Yes or No?
I fully expect you to cowardly dodge answers to these questions like you've done several times in the past. The lurkers have now given up on you.
No wonder you've been failing for 15 years.
Anyway let's continue with the free comedy, shall we?
I'm guessing where they put of all of their other evidence. In rooms, buildings, boxes, filing cabinets, etc.
Where do you think it is?
None that I'm aware of, how about you explain what you think they ignored, please be specific.
I'll let you in on a little secret, debunking twofer dolts and making them look silly is one of the easiest things I've ever done. People believing in Bigfoot make more sense these days.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
You did not download and read the reports. That means you just lied.
Every single thing you have stated or asked in this thread has been answered or you were pointed to where the answer is. You have just ignored or insulted every single response. Sorry, you did get one thing right, the date. I hope you enjoy your little game.
If you want a detailed explanation of the collapse you need to support a new investigation.
It amazes me how you want truthers to explain what happened, but you refuse to support an investigation where experts would explain what happened.
Once again, you can't expect the columns to fail one by one in a collapse of this nature. You can't expect any spacing between failures of columns. If the remaining columns all together can't hold the weight, they fail, and fail quickly. Instantly, for most practical effects.
I say "a collapse of this nature" because that façade is sturdy. If a single column fails, and the rest can hold the weight, you don't see the roofline at the failed column sinking. You don't expect that. You only see the whole façade fall at once when the load overwhelms the capacity of the remaining columns. And when the roofline moves, it means that ALL columns have failed. And it moves a few instants before it reaches free fall, therefore all columns have failed before reaching free fall. In other words, free fall is reached (and exceeded) only after the columns have failed.
NIST had no need to explain this.
Prove me wrong. Post the text where NIST explains how the columns buckled simultaneously causing freefall of the top of the building for 2.25 seconds.
Don't you agree that simultaneous failure of the remaining perimeter columns is necessary for the fall of the façade?
Yes, FalseFlag said "all" in that instance, but I take that as sloppy wording.
Yes, they did. That was their job.
NoahFence
Banned
The only people who think NIST didn't do their job are idiots who think explosives played any part in 9/11.
In short, your opinion doesn't matter.
No, their job is not to interpret the reports for unqualified people.