Being my first post here, I suppose I should mention I found this thread by searching Google for forums discussing the Natural Geographic program. I had hope that as a forum dedicated to critical thinking their would be more discussion about the absurdly of their "experiments", such as the lame attempt to "prove" thermite won't melt steal by placing lose bags of low grade thermite around a beam. However, having skimmed though the thread without finding much discussion about arguments presented by program itself, I'll move to the topic at hand. But before I do, I implore you all to please take my words only for what they say and do your best avoid reading else anything into them.
He is trying to say that in order for the collapse to be "even" that the center of mass must be not only over the lower section (which is what his words actually state) but I believe that he is also saying that it must be centered along the long axis of the structure as well.
I'm fairly sure he is saying; as the mass goes off center from the structure bellow it, more pressure will be applied to the side the structure which the mass above is tilting towards, leaving less force pushing down the other side. Such crumbling of one side as the top portion continued to pivot would leave more of the other side standing as the top eventually came to a rest, either prior to it's center of mass moving outside the structure, or otherwise after tumbling off to the side.
For a simplified example; imagine taking a milk carton and flatting down the top, and then dropping a brick on it. Assuming the brick came down perfectly centered on the carton, that carton could conceivably crumple down fairly evenly to some extent or another. However, far more likely is the possibility that variations on the structural integrity of the carton would cause it to give way towards one direction or the other, resulting in the brick sliding off towards the weakest side. The only way you are going to crush the whole carton down into it's footprint is by dropping the brick perfectly square on top of it from a massive height, or wetting the carton down to the point of almost completely compromising it's structural integrity.
Again, please do not mistake my statements to mean more than they do. I am not claiming the government planned 9/11, there were no-planes, or any other such crackpottery. I am simply pointing out the the physical evidence of destruction of the towers is not consistent with the official story of progressive collapse, but rather is indicative of some means of controlled demolition. Also, while I would prefer to sick to strict discussion of the available evidence, I would be willing to provide a plausible theory as to how the buildings could have become rigged to blow, if others insist.
