So you just give up because you're not an engineer? You don't have to be an engineer to understand the impossibility of what happened on 9/11. Basic high school physics is enough, so is basic logic and basic math and common sense. You don't have to be an engineer. Stop raising the bar. You wanted credibility from experts so I gave that to you. Obviously you've NOT done any research on this at all. You gave up long ago. I can tell. You never saw any of the documentaries I gave you or links. So YOU are the one badly misinformed and in denial about this. Not me. I studied this 9/11 thing since 2006 and YES I studied BOTH sides.flowerthief00 wrote: ↑July 15th, 2020, 8:29 pmThat is not the opinion of one engineer but the widely accepted view of most engineers who have looked at the issue.Winston wrote: ↑July 14th, 2020, 3:08 amSo you saw one engineer say that it was possible for the twin towers and building 7 to collapse at free fall speed from office fires alone and pulverize into almost 100 percent fine dust, and that settles it for you? LOL. You're not serious are you? LOL. Are you joking? Is your critical thinking skills that bad? LOL
Good grief, @Winston, did you not read my last post before you started to bombard me with "read this, watch that"? I am no expert in engineering and I assume neither are you.
I could try to read the reports of the investigations that have been done of 9/11, the findings of the various organizations that studied the evidence, the many peer-reviewed analysis that have been published.... I could read the objections from the truther side--AE911Truth.org and their experts (still far fewer in number than the conventional side), all the links and videos they love to share, etc. Then the objections to the objections from the conventional side again. Then the objections to the objections to the objections.
By this point it is beyond the ability of a layman like myself to judge what is correct. Are you telling me that you scrutinized everything published by both sides and concluded based on your expertise of structural engineering that Richard Gage and his crew were the ones in the right? I seriously doubt it. What are your engineering credentials exactly?
To go with the matter of building 7's free fall, here's an excerpt of what NIST published on the subject. (presumably in response to AE911Truth.org)
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... eports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Did you understand all of that?
I call bullshit if you say you did. Engineers can grok this stuff but not us.
What can a layman do to makes sense of things when the experts disagree? Only two things. Either he can become an expert himself (impractical for most people). Or he can ask the simple question, "Who is more credible?"
And there's the crux of it all. We are both taking this logical shortcut.
I have a definite opinion on who is more credible, but you have a different opinion.
You have given as the reason for why you dismiss the experts on the conventional side that experts cannot say what they want without losing their careers. For some individuals in some circumstances, sure. I can believe that there are some people out there who would lie to protect their careers.
But is the near-entire scientific and engineering establishment lying to us? Well now, that is a conspiracy theory of its own!
So now at last we have come to the reason why you entertain this and other conspiracy theories. Your belief in this and other conspiracy hinges on another, grander, even less plausible conspiracy theory--the theory that huge swaths of people are willfully lying. Because everyone from the government down to independent researchers to engineering firms down to the editors of scientific journals can now be dismissed, the way is clear to run with alternate theories no matter how fringe.
And since you're unlikely to convince me of this grander conspiracy theory that everyone is lying, you're unlikely to convince me of any conspiracy theory that relies on it. It's what I've been saying all along. Conspiracy theories rely on other conspiracy theories to "prove" their "truth" in accumulating waves of implausibility.
Yes I followed the NIST vs AE911Truth.org and NIST totally lost. I was one of the advisors to Richard Gage before his debate on Coast to Coast AM. I outlined a strategy for him but he never followed it. I spoke to him on the phone too. NIST was totally whipped. Everyone on YouTube saw it. The end result was that "NIST admitted free fall but could not explain it and left it at that." Did you see that Indian dude who was in charge of NIST? He looked guilty and not passionate about NIST at all. He knew he was lying and part of a cover up. That's why he looks sad and guilty all the time, not passionate. He never spoke from the heart. He was hired to cover up 9/11 and Building 7 but deep down he knows his side is lying and trying to cover things up for damage control. You can see the sad gloomy look on his face. It's obvious. Duh.
I told you, the Massimo Mazzuco documentary presents EVERY argument from both sides. I'll post the link to it below.
No it is not true that the engineering establishment agrees with the government story. Obviously they cannot speak out against it. That would be treasonous, neither can the media. Geraldo Rivera did a sympathetic piece about Building 7 once and agreed the collapse could not be from fire alone.
You forget that I already told you, most independent engineers, once they examine the evidence on BOTH sides, usually agree that the government story is impossible. I'm talking about objective open minded engineers that have not made up their minds and are not closed to the possibility of the inside job hypothesis. Those types always agree that the government story is impossible. I already explained that.
This isn't rocket science. Just open your mind and examine all the arguments. You don't need to be an engineer. As of now 40 percent of the American public believe it was an inside job, at least in part.
If you think NIST is so honest, why can't it explain the collapse and why won't it allow independent investigators to examine their computer simulation models for flaws? That speaks VOLUMES.
There is no debate that is up in the air here. It's already been settled. The truthers have WON! In the court of logic and reason. If you don't believe me, watch this 5 hr documentary called "9/11 The New Pearl Harbor" that presents ALL arguments on both sides. I'll bet you $200 if you watch it objectively you will AGREE with me. GUARANTEED. Stop making excuses and do some research. DENIAL does NOT change the fact that the truthers have won on this issue. If you don't watch this then you don't care about truth and prefer to be in denial. Trust me. This is a clincher and will settle it in your mind too.
Also see this one by AE911Truth.org. It has 50 top notch experts that explain why the official government story is 100 percent impossible. It is also guaranteed to settle the issue in your mind IF you watch it with an unbiased objective mindset. Stop making excuses. Just watch this and I guarantee you will agree with me. For sure.
Just because the government denies something doesn't make it unproven. Anyone can deny anything, but if the evidence prove that something is true, then it's true. End of story.
