Buildings must fall straight down? Nonsense.

[CurtC]

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.

Not really. Whether you call it "very symmetrically" depends on what those words mean to you. It obviously was not perfectly symmetrical. We can see how asymmetrical it was, and R.Mackey was simply stating that what we see doesn't meet his personal opinion of what he calls "all that symmetrically." It's a word connotation thing, not a science thing.

 

[Hellbound]

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.

Do you even read people's responses to your questions, or do you just post the question then run around insulting everyone?

No one made that argument.

 

[einsteen]

Do you even read people's responses to your questions, or do you just post the question then run around insulting everyone?

No one made that argument.

Ever heard of the [irony mode]

 

[Hellbound]

Considering you made the argument about ejected debris earlier, I couldn't tell you weren't being serious.

It sounded about as reasonable as your other arguments.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

"It" = "the firefighting team" or "the firefighting operation".

 

[Bell]

"It" = "the firefighting team" or "the firefighting operation".

Please, not that discussion again

I'll bet if Larry had said "decision to evacuate the firefighters" the deniers would respond "so that teh j00ws could silently sneak in and plant atomic bombs"

 

[Hellbound]

Well, since we're discussing it...

"Pull" = "Pull it down", even in demolition speak, not "Blow it up".

Pull is often used as a short form of "Pull out", as in cease, desist, quit, come back, regroup, etc.

ETA: Although, to be fair, he could have also meant "Launch into the air", as in skeet. But I don't recall him standing outside with a shotgun or WTC 7 flying out over the Atlantic...so I think we can assume it wasn't this meaning.

 

[Belz...]

Well, since we're discussing it...

"Pull" = "Pull it down", even in demolition speak, not "Blow it up".

Pull is often used as a short form of "Pull out", as in cease, desist, quit, come back, regroup, etc.

ETA: Although, to be fair, he could have also meant "Launch into the air", as in skeet. But I don't recall him standing outside with a shotgun or WTC 7 flying out over the Atlantic...so I think we can assume it wasn't this meaning.

Didn't he actually say "pull them out" and "pull them out of there" ?

 

[Loss Leader]

Although, to be fair, he could have also meant "Launch into the air", as in skeet. But I don't recall him standing outside with a shotgun or WTC 7 flying out over the Atlantic...so I think we can assume it wasn't this meaning.

You just expose your own ignorance, Huntsman. The Atlantic Ocean is at least twelve miles from 7 World Trade Center. It's far more likely that Silverstein meant that he wanted 7 WTC launched over the Hudson River which is a scant 2,000 feet.

I know of no skeet-shooting-launchy-thingy that can fling a skyscraper twelve miles. On the other hand, it is well known that the government has been developing a super secret skeet-shooty-thingy that can fling a building up to 3,500 feet at this secret base.

 

[CurtC]

Didn't he actually say "pull them out" and "pull them out of there" ?

No, he said "pull it."

It's a rough world out there, you use the wrong pronoun and people accuse you of mass murder.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Didn't he actually say "pull them out" and "pull them out of there" ?

he said "pull it" but it was on a TV interview, im not sure if he actually said "pull it" to the fire captain or if he used the work pull at all

ETA: if you want to get really into context, i asked a rather promiscuous friend of mine what "pull it" means, and can only conclude larry wanted the fire captain to give him a handjob

 

[einsteen]

To be honest I really don't care about the whole "pull it" movie, it is very short and vague, it even can be cut and paste work.

But what I personally don't understand, the guy is still alive, what kind of journalists do they have in the USA ?(Here we call criticless journalists whorenalists) Just ask them what he means ad what he has to say about it. Apart from this the damned thing collapsed, a proper fact, buildings don't lie.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

To be honest I really don't care about the whole "pull it" movie, it is very short and vague, it even can be cut and paste work.

But what I personally don't understand, the guy is still alive, what kind of journalists do they have in the USA ?(Here we call criticless journalists whorenalists) Just ask them what he means ad what he has to say about it. Apart from this the damned thing collapsed, a proper fact, buildings don't lie.

well the thing is everyone smart enough to know what research is is also smart enough to know what larry meant, so they dont need to ask him for clarification

 

[Dog Town]

well the thing is everyone smart enough to know what research is is also smart enough to know what larry meant, so they dont need to ask him for clarification

Well stated! Love the new Av as well.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

To be honest I really don't care about the whole "pull it" movie, it is very short and vague, it even can be cut and paste work.

But what I personally don't understand, the guy is still alive, what kind of journalists do they have in the USA ?(Here we call criticless journalists whorenalists) Just ask them what he means ad what he has to say about it. Apart from this the damned thing collapsed, a proper fact, buildings don't lie.

They have. He answered. It's ignored.

 

[Architect]

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.

Toof, mate: can I see your calculations for the bending moments on the table leg joints, and then your comparison and calcs for the twin towers steelwork?

 

[Dog Town]

Toof, mate: can I see your calculations for the bending moments on the table leg joints, and then your comparison and calcs for the twin towers steelwork?

Still trying to pretend to be an architect I see! Trooftweaker1234 will surely see through this. You are asking for math, everyone knows arch's know nothing about that. You guy's make neat models though./sarcasm

 

[rwguinn]

Toof, mate: can I see your calculations for the bending moments on the table leg joints, and then your comparison and calcs for the twin towers steelwork?

Now waitadangminit!
I always thought of Archetects as the guys who kept hanging parasitic weight on those buildings just to make 'em look good- and to make the Civil Engineers have to work harder!
Kinda like the designers in automotive work who are actually "stylists" to make it look pretty.

You mean I was wrong?