Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Travis]

Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position.

 

[Travis]

I figured I should get some rolling eyes out of the way early.




There.

 

[LSSBB]

I figured I should get some rolling eyes out of the way early.




There.

Laughing dogs too.

 

[DGM]

Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

Personally, most everything I saw that day looked very, very wrong. Somehow, I think the reason I think this is not what you're looking for.

 

[Oystein]

I think those truthers who agree to the notion that, for example, WTC7 showed

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Symmetrical "structural failure"
3. through the path of greatest resistance
4. landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Should first define the hilited terms such that they are accessible to objective analysis. This means that they must provide objective measurable critera that are able to distinguish

1. Rapid onset from slow onset
2. Symmetry from asymmetry
3. the path of most resistance from any other path
4. a building that landed in its footprint from a building that did not land in its footprint
5. Massive dust clouds from less-than-massive dustclouds

Usually, this would require defining a threshold.
The definitions of the terms would be required to include the following:

1. Rapid onset: Beginning with mechanical penthouse only, followed by several seconds of hardly any visible action, and a fall of the perimeter that begins with a small acceleration that increases during more than a secod before reaching a brief period of freefall
2. Symmetry: Must include a twisting and turning building with a tendency towards north
3. Path of most resistance: must include long spans of floors only designed to carry floor loads
4. Footprint; Must include the roof of tall buildings across the street

After these definitions and thresholds are in, we would have to expect truthers to show that actual measurements have been taken, and that the results fall to their side of these thresholds.


When all this work is done, they then have to show that therse observations and values are even valid and relevant criteria to distinguish between collapse by fire and collapse by demolition devices.

Or maybe they can save themselves a lot of work, try the last paragraph first, fail, and repent.

 

[Carlos]

Why did the Towers collapsed straight down?

Because there's a huge force that acts in the vertical direction and downward. This force is called gravity, that is proportional to the mass.

It seems to be a stupid answer, but it's the true. The natural way of collapse of everything is downward (at the same direction of the gravity), not toppling over.

To cause a toppling over collapse of a building, for example, it's necessary to cause a rotation on the building or part of it around an axis/pivot. To cause this rotation, it's necessary at least one of the following items:

a) An horizontal force or an horizontal component of a force.

b) An excentric vertical force, that cause an moment of force or torque.

Further, this rotation should be great enough to displace the center of mass out of the pivot to cause the toppling over, so either the force described in "a)" or the torque described in "b)" should be great enough.

 

[Carlos]

Actually, people are not familiarized with buildings collapses (except controlled demolitions).

How many building collapses have you ever seen? I've never seen any.

 

[RedIbis]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

 

[DGM]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Have "truthers" ever actually answered this question?

 

[DGM]

Red:
Maybe you could put the 1600+ engineers on this explanation. You would almost think they would have done this already.

 

[twinstead]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Perhaps not, but what is disingenuous about it? It's a very good question that has never been properly answered IMO.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps not, but what is disingenuous about it? It's a very good question that has never been properly answered IMO.

That's why they need a "new investigation". To show them what the collapses should have looked like (considering they know they're wrong).

 

[Travis]

In thread after thread I've seen Truthers cite as evidence the nature of how the collapses looked. I keep asking for them to prove to me that this actually means anything. I keep getting ignored.

And I'm disingenuous for starting a thread to finally get to the bottom of this?

 

[Oz1976]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Hey, we're "just asking questions"

 

[NoahFence]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Until one of you actually ANSWERS one of them, yes.

 

[Robrob]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

I for one would love to hear you explain how it is "disingenuous" to ask truthers to substantiate their claims?

 

[timhau]

Actually, people are not familiarized with buildings collapses (except controlled demolitions).

How many building collapses have you ever seen? I've never seen any.

I've never seen either a collapse or a controlled demolition. I suspect that puts my experience about these things at the level of the average 9/11 Twoof interweb researcher.

 

[Travis]

Actually my hypothesis is that is exactly the problem. Skyscrapers don't collapse often because they are generally well taken care of. As a result we only have two frames of references for how they look when they collapse: controlled demolitions and Hollywood.

Now the Hollywood collapses are done by special effects firms who don't need what they put on film to have any connection to reality. They just want what "looks cool" and that's why they have all sorts of things regarding building collapses that have no regard for physics. Heck they do that with everything. That's why their explosions are all giant fireballs and tornadoes are harmless to movie stars but fatal to everything else.

And that just leaves the long list of controlled demolitions as a reference.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position.

There is nothing that appeared unusual or out of place in the collapses of the Twin Towers.

100% of the 100+ story skyscrapers that have had 140 ton airliners smash into them at 400+ miles per hour have all collapsed in exactly the same way the Twin Towers did.

 

[dafydd]

Until one of you actually ANSWERS one of them, yes.

I note that Red Ibis has made no attempt to answer.