Buildings must fall straight down? Nonsense.

[TruthSeeker1234]

CT's point out that WTC7 fell straight down. CT's say that for a building to go straight down, all vertical supports must fail at the same time, or at least a majority must fail in a symmetrical pattern. If column failure is asymmetrical, the building will fall toward the side of the failure.

OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".

Who's right? Consider the demolition of the Ford building. In this one, the engineers wanted the building to fall to one side, to avoid damage to the building close by. Go to this link, and click the 2nd thumbnail on the bottom row.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

 

[Dog Town]

OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".

*buzzer sound* Wrong again! Over sub station burned for hours, not in own foot print, etc...

 

[DarkMagician]

OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".

The offical version says nothing of the sort. It fell to the south. Nice job arguing a point your opponent doesn't make.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Just for our enlightenment, wich of the other threads are you conceding defeat in so that you can start this one?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

CT's point out that WTC7 fell straight down. CT's say that for a building to go straight down, all vertical supports must fail at the same time, or at least a majority must fail in a symmetrical pattern. If column failure is asymmetrical, the building will fall toward the side of the failure.

OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".

Who's right? Consider the demolition of the Ford building. In this one, the engineers wanted the building to fall to one side, to avoid damage to the building close by. Go to this link, and click the 2nd thumbnail on the bottom row.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Excellent, since you recognize implosionworld.com as being a relevent, authoritative source of information regarding building demolitions then I highly recommend you closely examine this paper by them:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

It's not about defeat, it's about learning. I seek the truth. I've already stood corrected on a few points, and I say so. I've also pointed out some errors of others.

Here's Eagar

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif] Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down.[/FONT]

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Then why do you insist that the towers fell to controplled demolition when it's been shown that is impossible without some sort of sci-fi technology or even magic?

 

[hellaeon]

the fact you start and dont finish multiple threads to me is a sign of what goes on inside your mind and probably how messy your residence is.

Id suggest one thing at a time, accept the evidence even if you dont agree, not coincidences and other such anecdotal rubbish, but the facts. Thats how real research and science is done...isn't that what you want to be? a real investigator of things? You guys remind me of the witch trials.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's not about defeat, it's about learning. I seek the truth. I've already stood corrected on a few points, and I say so. I've also pointed out some errors of others.

Here's Eagar

well, the towers did fall outward, they damaged and even destroyed several surrounding buildings, there was nothing "controlled" at all about the way they fell

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I read the linked ImplosionWorld PDF. No learning there. First, they punted on WTC7. Then they said twin towers were top down, not conventional, which we all know. Then they libeled Dr. Jones. No comment on the squibs, the molten metal, the symmetry, and , well, just like NIST were WAITING on WTC7.

Sweet.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

you obviously didnt read the paper, assertion #3 deals with your "squibs"

assertion #7 (points 4 and 5) deal with the severe damage to WTC7

 

[R.Mackey]

It's not about defeat, it's about learning. I seek the truth. I've already stood corrected on a few points, and I say so. I've also pointed out some errors of others.

Really?? I must have missed them, could you give me an example?

How about the threads you've abandoned without comment? Ever come to any decision there? If you are willing to learn, then perhaps you deserve more credit than your demeanor suggests.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

well, the towers did fall outward

This thread was about WTC7. But yes, the towers appeared to explode outwards in all directions, very similar in appearance to a picture of a nuke I've seen. Mushroom cloud and all. Mushroom cloud would be a nice thread now that you remind me of it. Interesting physics. How the extremely high pressure pushes everything outward, then leaving extremely low pressure in the middle, which then causes air and smoke to run back into the low pressure, and then upwards in a column, then finally spilling outwards and down.

But I digress. This is about how WTC7 went straight down, with almost perfect symmetry, despite random fires and asymmetrical damage.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

My demeanor? I've said controversial things, i realize, but i've not called anyone any names, or been disrespectful in any way. The same cannot be said for many of you guys, but that's OK, I have a thick skin. Let me find the places where i stood corrected.

 

[Mince]

CT's point out that WTC7 fell straight down. CT's say that for a building to go straight down, all vertical supports must fail at the same time, or at least a majority must fail in a symmetrical pattern. If column failure is asymmetrical, the building will fall toward the side of the failure.

OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".

Who's right? Consider the demolition of the Ford building. In this one, the engineers wanted the building to fall to one side, to avoid damage to the building close by. Go to this link, and click the 2nd thumbnail on the bottom row.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

If building 7 was so obviously brought down by controlled demolition, why didn't the engineers responsible for its destruction consider before hand that people might know it was a controlled demolition event unless they make it look otherwise...and not make it look otherwise?

Why didn't they consider that surely the event would be recorded, especially when they waited eight hours (eight hours!), and not worry that the squibs might give away their ploy?

Why would they give a known physicist and chemist, Steven Jones, access to condemning empirical evidence?

Why would they use a missile to pierce the pentagon when it is reasonable, on an early morning working day, at the Pentagon, in the nation's capital, crossing one of the busiest highways on the East Coast, to expect that hundreds of witness would see the missile and testify accordingly, then fabricate a story that is was not a missile?

Why, if all of this evidence is so grossly overwhelming, cannot you find one judicial body willing to indict one person on at least one point of fact?

How much longer do you plan on convoluting this forum with nonsensical threads that contain nothing but half-truths, misinterpretations, fake science, unprovable claims and unsupportable evidence, while, instead of resolving any of the issues in any of the other threads, you start another thread?



Just confirming I can now post URLs:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dolt

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why you're right. They do mention squibs. I stand corrected. The pages in my PDF viewer were not displaying correctly. I could only get to that page by searching for the word squib. Still no learning there, just assertions. A little hard to take seriously a pdf that just fabricates falsehoods about Dr. Jones.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

But I digress. This is about how WTC7 went straight down, with almost perfect symmetry, despite random fires and asymmetrical damage.

when 7 fell it severely damaged 30 N Broadway (and a few others) i recall gravy saying it is still under scaffolding to this day, hardly "straight down"

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

resolving any of the issues

Come on, I can't resolve any thread. When is a thread over?

 

[Mince]

My demeanor? I've said controversial things, i realize, but i've not called anyone any names, or been disrespectful in any way.

A lot of what you post here can very well be interpreted as disrespectful, since most (all?) of it is spurious allegations supported by nothing.

The same cannot be said for many of you guys, but that's OK, I have a thick skin. Let me find the places where i stood corrected.

You misspelled skin.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Anyone care to discuss the topic of this one, which is supporting/debunking the claim that buildings must fall straight down. I say that asymmetrical column loss will cause a building to fall toward that side. I have supplied nice evidence. I say the behavior of WTC7 indicates that all of the vertical supports failed at the same time.