OK, I'll byte, exactly what "dishonest" bit from Chandler?
You explain in detail what you mean.
Why should I jump to your bidding. you show zero commitment to reasoned discussion. Examine for yourself the history of the NIST attempt to assist Chandler and Chandler et al's subsequent dishonest misrepresentation of the events.
Remember that to prove "lie" or "dishonest" requires two elements of proof:
1) that the fact asserted by the claimant - in this case Chandler - is untrue; AND
2) That Chandler when making the statement knew it to be untrue.
"1)" By itself proves "untruthfulness"; AND "2)" Proves intent therefore, when combined with "1", proves liar or dishonest. What more do you want?
Whilst we are at it I also will not continue to fall for your burden of proof confusions. I have made a statement which prima facie is correct. If you want to dispute it then prove it wrong or prove the converse to be true. I care not which.
Now that disposes of "dishonesty" in the context of the single issue of the interaction with NIST over WTC7 collapse - until you or some other member rebuts the claim.
Judge for yourself whether or not Chandler is dishonest or merely untruthful out of ignorance of physics with his other claims. Post your findings of (say) his truthfulness in one other claim and we can see if you get it right.
And I have no intention of spoon feeding you the answers at high school level until you decide to engage in rational honest debate.
Why not start with the false claim you persist in making about "Global collapse" I have spoon fed you a first stage argument -- start there.
...Also, WHY should I believe YOU
on the subject of "Free fall not being important"...
You should by now be aware that I am not easily distracted by nonsense claims, evasions, snide insults or any other form of debating trickery. The issue is not about believing me although on matters of engineering and physics that would be a good starting point until you comprehend the issues.
The real point is that I have posted a reasoned explanation in response to your request. If you disagree then enter debate - prove me wrong and we can both learn. You asked a question. I responded. The opening words of your post should be "Thank you....":roll:
the fact is that in order to achieve free fall acceleration ALL of the resistance would have to be removed out from under the falling structure.
That is near enough and sufficiently ambiguous for our current purposes - so until we get above Grade 1 physics I will ride with it. Though I would have more fun explaining it at Grade 2-3-4 level where it is not true...but....
HOWEVER I will not fall for the evasion. The point of my previous post was explicitly clear:
Free fall occurs in both CD and so called "natural" collapses: AND
(Therefore) free fall is not a proof of CD.
Just exactly how is that done by "OFFICE FIRES"
Where in my post did I mention "OFFICE FIRES"???
