... i.e., its floors were designed to carry the expected "live load" plus a safety factor, not the impact load of a floor above falling on it, which was the point. You asked for an example of a gravity-driven collapse completely destroying a building and I gave you one, and instead of addressing the issue, you want to say, "Oh, but it didn't bring down the building across the expansion joint, so it doesn't count. Nyah, nyah, nyah." Yes, it certainly does count as an example of the principle of progressive collapse. "Never happened before" is not a technical argument; it's just an ordinary logical fallacy. Since no buildings like the WTC buildings ever experienced anything like the events of 9/11, the uniqueness of the result is meaningless. But following your "logic," since nothing like Skyline Towers had ever happened before (or Ronan Point Apartments, or L'Ambiance Plaza, of Tacoma Narrows Bridge, or a long list of other unique collapses), they all must have been brought down with magical silent explosives.
And after trying to derail any discussion of Chandler's faulty logic and pseudo-physics with that irrelevancy, yet accuse me of not "arguing from sincerity?" You are a hoot, wildbill.
> Over a decade and you've convinced no one yet you tow that line.
Welcome to the first day of the rest of your life. I confidently predict that there will never come a day when "truth movement" bullshit goes unchallenged, whether it's by me or someone else who believes that truth actually matters and that the "truth movement" is an intellectual blight on our society. I continue to trust that, if provided the information, rational people will go beyond that bullshit, look at the actual facts and technical arguments, THINK about what's being said on both sides, and come to the obvious conclusion. Since I don't count "truthers" in that group, I don't expect any of them to change their minds, so your lack-of-progress report is not surprising nor relevant to my personal motivations. Bullshit that's ignored doesn't disappear; it procreates in dark corners. I certainly can't take all the credit, but comparing this board today to what it was in, say, 2006, apparently quite a few people have been convinced that DU is not a dark corner.
That reminds me, did I mention that Chandler's "uniform acceleration" is bullshit? Again I'll ask, does your reluctance to discuss it mean that you don't understand it, or that you do?
= new reply since forum marked as read