Since you still think a building can't fall - more or less- straight down, I'll quote myself a third time - I hope you start to understand
Physics says that gravitational force points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0.
Also, you still are thinking your "free fall argument" holds any validity, when it has been shown multiple times it does not.
NIST says gravitational acceleration, I am sorry for using official sources and information, perhaps you would like to re-write the NIST report, as you don't seem to want to use its conclusions.
My answer, quoting it so you can read it again, slowly, and perhaps start understanding:
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing. How would you take parameters for air resistance of the collapsing part? How would you make sure you actually observe the real acceleration of the falling part since for that you'd need to know its centre of gravity AND observe that. If you focuse on any outer part inaccuracy would have to be taken into account (additional to the air-restistance-guess used to calculated supposed free fall rate)
Considering that at the early stages the lines obviously are very close (since it starts to fall with v=0 at t=0) a realistic error rate probably discards all conclusions you think you could make expecially in the first moments of the collapse
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values. I seriously fail to understand how you could misinterpret that.
__________________________________
I am not the one being irrational, I know this is hard to think about but I will ask that we don't debate by covering our eyes and ears.
For you, thinking in general seems hard, doesn't it?
10 years experience working on buildings.
All structural engineering.
All mechanical engineering.
Ah, the fitter that thinks he's an engineer
Yeah, when reading your posts and how much you actually understand of what you've been told it sure is better you're working as a fitter and not as an engineer. Well, considering the amount of time you spend in here, you're probably hardly working at all anyway.
Can you cite where you showed how fire could cause the reinforced concrete core to fail to the extent of a 2.25 second free-fall of the entire building?
See, your cognitive dissonance is so advanced that you just blank out the
plane-thing and the
rubble that fell on the building.
Overall, you're the perfect proof of the statemet I made:
It seems like you (and most of the flatties) cannot live with that there are other points of view and that their (yours/the flatties) opinion is not "the truth".
That's what makes debating you (or flatties/ conspiracy theorists in general) really annoying and pretty pointless. That's also why people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion.
Poll