Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[carlitos]

MHM, your comment is nothing but rhetoric.

Wait, You want them to show the exact mechanism, down to an inch,

3/4" actually. 47 stories tall, but the "truth" people need to know exactly what happened to the tune of less than an inch.

ETA - And they pretend that the planes in DC and Shanksville are irrelevant. Insanity.

 

[JayUtah]

Where is your basis for your claim that the NIST conclusion is possible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis?

I posted a rather lengthy essay on that subject several pages back and several weeks ago, which you assiduously ignored.

Of course, the answer is obvious that you don't have one. NIST couldn't do it, so it is no surprise that you can't. All you have is rhetoric and that will not work.

The obvious reason you won't address the answers that were given is because you cannot. That hypothesis is supported by your inability to get any of your claims regarding NIST and WTC 7 analysis published in, and addressed by, any of the relevant engineering community. Since you are clearly an outlying voice on this point among your peer engineers, it is bold of you to claim that everyone who disputes you has nothing but rhetoric to offer.

Publish your claims in a mainstream, peer-reviewed structural engineering journal. Otherwise it's just noise.

 

[Justin39640]

More unsurprising rhetoric proving my point about the bias here to simply continue supporting the NIST WTC 7 report conclusions, even when confronted with evidence showing its conclusions are impossible when the omitted structural features are included.

Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

The simple minded statement that it did because there were fires in it does not satisfy NIST's mandate to explain how it collapsed.

I think Jay, Carlitos, and LSSBB summed it up nicely while I was a busy beaver at work.

I only see one side of this debate shilling rhetoric and it's not debunkers.

 

[Gamolon]

With all that has come out, anyone who still says girder A2001 could have walked off its seat at column 79 is only fooling themselves or trying to fool others.

How come, after almost 15 years and thousands of conspiracy backing engineers (including you) looking at this, did everyone miss what ARUP found in their analysis?

Will you retract your statement above?

 

[skyeagle409]

Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

Anyone knowledgeable about structures and structural steel would have known the collapse of WTC 7 was fire-induced.

That was evident as witnesses observed WTC 7 buckling and upon hearing noises from within WTC 7 that were signs of structural weakening as fires raged out of control for hours, which eventually led to structural failure.

There were no secondary explosions from explosives observed as debris from WTC 1 slammed into the south wall of WTC 7 and no secondary explosions from explosives observed as fires raged out of control for hours and no secondary explosions from explosives as WTC 7 collapsed.

No physical evidence of explosive hardware was ever found within the rubble of WTC 7 because the use of explosives to destroy WTC 7 was nothing more than a fabrication, yet a number of truthers took the bait because they are not in the habit of doing homework or doing it properly when they did.

There is not a shred of evidence after 15 years that explosives were used during the 9/11 terrorist attack.

.