Buildings must fall straight down? Nonsense.

[rwguinn]

I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.

Really lousy analogy--because that's exactly what happened to the top 16 storys of the building-with the exception that the remaining 2 legs of your table must be insufficiently strong enough to hold up the weight of the table in total..
Using your buddy Ross' figures--16 storys of the tower failed on one side, falling 3.7 m to the floor below. That is a 3.3 degree angle, which moves the center of gravity of those 16 storeys exactly 6 feet laterally. this is only 96.5 feet shy of allowing the top part to "Topple over".
The angular velocity of any point on any of those 16 floors is 0.041 rad/sec. you can figure the momentum on your own from there.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.

Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side to.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "In it's own foot print" you might ask. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much as a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that
parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

http://www.debunking911.com/7-1.jpg
In the following image the east penthouse falls...
http://www.debunking911.com/7-2.jpg
Now the west penthouse falls...
http://www.debunking911.com/7-3.jpg

To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7_Collapse_P.jpg

This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.

Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f3.jpg

If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.

source

 

[Z]

Edit: Ah, forget it. Someone beat me to the good explanations.

 

[twinstead]

This is the part, truthydude, where you need to answer the points brought up in Arkan_Wolfshade's post before you go off on some other wild tangent.

 

[CurtC]

On the west end of the north face, the windows blow out in an upward sequence.

You're not very good at fact-checking, are you? The smoke being pushed out the windows of WTC7 in that video is in the Southwest corner. And it does look like they go from bottom-to-top very quickly. Here's a link.

You're looking for a plausible, non-CD explanation? The building's collapse point was way down low, so that's the place where the air is being squeezed from. The compression propagates inside of the building from there (therefore upwards), at the speed of sound, slowed somewhat by constrictions in the airflow. So you should expect that the lower floors get the air squeezed out just before the higher floors.

And it's also clear that the smoke doesn't start coming out until after the building has started collapsing! What kind of CD is that?!?

 

[Belz...]

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Yes, yes it would be different. Let's say we have THIS configuration:

A
A
A
A
A
A

And we cut one of the topmost "A"'s legs. What happens ? Assuming that A has enough weight to collapse the other ones below, like a stack of cards, it won't tilt much before it drops straight down. As soon as its weighs bears down on the A just below it, the whole thing crumbles and there's nowhere for it to go but down.

 

[Arus808]

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.

because, the truthers dont want their precious theories be trumped by a few witnesses.

 

[einsteen]

And what about this picture of WTC7 getting hit?

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u33/bankst/large/35931734.91104.jpg

Nothing hit WTC7, because we had a perfect pancaking of wtc1 and wtc2 assuming no mass is scattered away and certainly not a couple of footballfields away.

 

[Belz...]

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

So, now the fact that it falls to the SIDE is suspicious ? Which is it ?

 

[einsteen]

This site http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm does, what I feel, is a good job of showing that WTC 7 did not fall "straight" down, aka symmetrically.

English not my first language but I know the difference between "pull them" and "pull it"

 

[Loss Leader]

That's just ... I mean ... wow ... insane ... totally batguano fruitloop crazy.

1. A plane was supposed to hit WTC7.

Unlike the towers, WTC7 was not a particularly well-known building, well recognized or (as it is set amid other tall buildings) easy to hit with a plane. There are at least five other targets in New York that are tall, easily identifiable and clear of obstructions from the air - Empire State building, Citibank building, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Yankee Stadium, etc. Also, it seems pretty astonishing that the conspirators would believe that they could get a plane over to WTC7 hours after planes hit the towers. I mean, they'd have to know that eventually somebody was going to mount some kind of response or close the airspace or something.

2. WTC7 was supposed to be detonated while the towers were falling.

This presumes that WTC7 was a good idea for a target. It also presumes that someone who was on the switch (which, according to CTists was the FDNY, because they're the ones the owner told to "pull it") messed up. Did this person have an attack of conscience? Did the remote-controlled detonator fail? It's just so ... stupid.

3. It took seven hours to decide to detonate the building.

Why did it take so long to fix the explosives? Why did they only detonate it after the FDNY saw cracking at the foundation? Why, after killing so many firefighters earlier in the day did they wait for the FDNY to evacuate WTC7 before blowing it up? Certainly seven hours was more than enough time for firefighters to discover that the building was wired with explosives, that the columns had been cut or that there was detcord everywhere. Not all of those firefighters could have been part of the conspiracy. I mean, the main conspirators would never be able to know exactly which firefighters would go in to WTC7 ahead of time.

4. The owner of WTC7 is the person who decided to detonate it.

So much for the government false flag operation to incite hatred of Muslims, I guess. Now, a landlord brought down the building for ... um, insurance money I guess. Which was it - government conspiracy or landlord insurance scam? They can't both be true. Can they?

5. The people who detonated WTC7 were the FDNY.

These are the people to whom the owner said, "Pull it." Aren't they? What possible reason could the New York City Fire Department have for agreeing to such a plan. Especially after hundreds of its own had been killed earlier in the day.

6. The owner conspired to destroy his own building with the help of the fire department in the biggest cover-up in history and then messed the whole thing up when he told a reporter that he had said, "Pull it."

Silverstein must be the dumbest Illuminati in history to just admit that to a reporter like that. I mean, his out of context quote combined with Rumsfeld's out of context "missile" statement are really damning evidence of ... well, of something.

You can see, Shmendrick1234, why some people might not hold with your theory.

Thanks for ignoring all this Shmendrick. You're a credit to your race, whatever it is.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thanks for ignoring all this Shmendrick. You're a credit to your race, whatever it is.

I'm giving 5 to 1 odds on "human".

Any takers?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm giving 5 to 1 odds on "human".

Any takers?

whats the spread on inter-dimensional lizard man?

 

[apathoid]

I'm giving 5 to 1 odds on "human".

Any takers?

3:2 it's a spambot.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm giving 5 to 1 odds on "human".

Any takers?

regardless, I'm giving 1:1 that he will change his race, his spots, so to speak when things get "dicey"

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackie relied upon

I don't feel that WTC 7 fell all that symmetrically.

Just to make a point, when you least expect it, in another thread, I am going to say "I don't feel that . . . " I predict that a batallion of JREFers will jump all over that and say "science isn't feelings" or some such. Just a heads up. I've already given it away and it will still work. Watch.

 

[CptColumbo]

Is there a better way to maintain ignorance ?

I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.

Just to make a point, when you least expect it, in another thread, I am going to say "I don't feel that . . . " I predict that a batallion of JREFers will jump all over that and say "science isn't feelings" or some such. Just a heads up. I've already given it away and it will still work. Watch.

Bingo!

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackie relied upon

Just to make a point, when you least expect it, in another thread, I am going to say "I don't feel that . . . " I predict that a batallion of JREFers will jump all over that and say "science isn't feelings" or some such. Just a heads up. I've already given it away and it will still work. Watch.

Congratulations, you can mine quotes and take them out of context.

Why would you respond to this brief sentence, and discard the entire rest of my post?

Never mind, no answer is forthcoming. Carry on, I'm sure the momentary thrill of victory you must feel is profound relief under the shelling you're taking.

ETA: By the way, that's not even the whole sentence. The original post is here. You still haven't addressed it.

 

[Belz...]

Just to make a point, when you least expect it, in another thread, I am going to say "I don't feel that . . . " I predict that a batallion of JREFers will jump all over that and say "science isn't feelings" or some such. Just a heads up. I've already given it away and it will still work. Watch.

Huh. How's this one for you: "WTC7 DIDN'T fall symmetrically."

Thank you.

 

[Blackadder_no]

You're looking for a plausible, non-CD explanation? The building's collapse point was way down low, so that's the place where the air is being squeezed from. The compression propagates inside of the building from there (therefore upwards), at the speed of sound, slowed somewhat by constrictions in the airflow. So you should expect that the lower floors get the air squeezed out just before the higher floors.

What I've always assumed, was that the building warped as it collapsed, and that this caused the windows to break. Could be wrong, though.

Silverstein must be the dumbest Illuminati in history to just admit that to a reporter like that. I mean, his out of context quote combined with Rumsfeld's out of context "missile" statement are really damning evidence of ... well, of something.

Larry's brain: "Don't say you pulled it. Don't say you pulled it."
Larry: "Uh, we pulled it?"
Larry's brain: "That's it, I'm gettin' outta here!"