• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

TC329: If WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, please explain this...

This thread is about it not falling straight down and it damaging other buildings. Now you are claiming gravity made it fall straight down. Which is it?
 
aggle-rithm said:
ETA: I think the problem our truther friends have is that they don't understand how much additional time, effort, and money it would take to construct a building so that it would hold together while tipping at a 15/20-degree angle. It seems counter-intuitive, because we think of buildings as being really solid, but they are built to be vertical, not diagonal.

You know that scene in Cloverfield where one apartment building is leaning against another? It would never happen, at least not in cities like New York that doesn't have the earthquake-proof building codes that the West coast enforces. Any large building leaning at that angle would collapse -- and it would tend to collapse straight downward, since it can't hold it's shape at an angle.
Click to expand...


You mean like these?
 

Attachments

  • taiwan_six_s.jpg
    taiwan_six_s.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 13
theauthor said:
Umm...that was a video of a controlled demolition. Think you just proved my point.
Click to expand...

Oh, you are arguing that they used cables to pull the WTC7 down?

I did notice that truck there. A bit like hitting a larger building with an airliner at full speed, with sequent fires raging removing the stability somewhere in the middle. Or having it endure hits of debris from a falling skyscraper in the vincinity, also with fire raging. The effect is similar... global collapse, from the "cut" down.
 
Last edited:
MikeW said:
I'm not sure this really matters. Next they'll be just telling us that the debris embedded in other buildings couldn't have travelled that far without explosives, and so that's also evidence of CD.
Click to expand...

Exactly no matter what had happened to it someone would have come up with the theory of why that proves CD.
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
Yes, I did notice that truck there. A bit like hitting a larger building with an airliner at full speed, with sequent fires raging removing the stability somewhere in the middle. The effect is similar... global collapse, from the "cut" down.

Or are you arguing they used cables to pull the WTC7 down?
Click to expand...

No plane hit building 7. Is this the best you have to offer. A 40ft silo that is being demolished? LOL
 
theauthor said:
One building suffered slight damage when a 47 storey building collapsed in downtown manhattan. I'd say thats a result. The picture says it all, it's a very neat pile considering.
Click to expand...

A neat pile for a controlled demolition? Too funny. I thought the goal of a controlled demolition was not to hit neighboring structures. If I were Silverstein, I'd be suing the company hired to do it. Maybe he might break even on his losses that day if he did.
 
Regarding the “fell into it’s own footprint” issue. Can one of the truthers here please explain to me how they think the building should have fallen and why. Be sure to include your calculations on how much out of plane the building walls could have rotated before they would have been unable to sustain their own weight and would have started to fall straight down. In other words, you seem to be stating that the building walls should have rotated from 90 degrees (vertical) to 0 degrees (horizontal) without falling apart through the transition. For instance, once the wall reached the 45 degree mark, what would the downward component of gravitational force have been? What would the buckling forces have been from the now eccentric loading on the column from its own weight?

Can you show mathematically that the building should have toppled sideways and not downward?
 
Pookster said:
A neat pile for a controlled demolition? Too funny. I thought the goal of a controlled demolition was not to hit neighboring structures. If I were Silverstein, I'd be suing the company hired to do it. Maybe he might break even on his losses that day if he did.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of a CD of a 47 storey building in the middle of a city? Do you not think such a demolition would cause some damage?
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Which ones of those buildings were steel framed office buildings? They look like concrete apartment blocks to me.
Click to expand...

If you had read for comprehension you would have noticed that I was replying to someone talking about apartment blocks.

They are far closer to wtc 7 than a 40ft silo!

This really is moving the goalposts. I responded to a post that claimed ANY large building wouldnt lean.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
Regarding the “fell into it’s own footprint” issue. Can one of the truthers here please explain to me how they think the building should have fallen and why. Be sure to include your calculations on how much out of plane the building walls could have rotated before they would have been unable to sustain their own weight and would have started to fall straight down. In other words, you seem to be stating that the building walls should have rotated from 90 degrees (vertical) to 0 degrees (horizontal) without falling apart through the transition. For instance, once the wall reached the 45 degree mark, what would the downward component of gravitational force have been? What would the buckling forces have been from the now eccentric loading on the column from its own weight?

Can you show mathematically that the building should have toppled sideways and not downward?
Click to expand...


No, I can't.

now could I have your calculations showing it should fall downward?
 
theauthor said:
I didn't expect it to fall.
Click to expand...


Non-responsive answer.

You claimed that it shouldn't have fallen straight down, not that it shouldn't have fallen.

Please elaborate on why you think it should have toppled.

If you want to compare WTC 7 to concrete apartment buildings that topled in an earthquake, then please describe why you think such a comparison is valid. Please take into account all the similarities and differences in the situations as regards to the design and constuction of the buildings and the circumstances involved
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Non-responsive answer.

You claimed that it shouldn't have fallen straight down, not that it shouldn't have fallen.

Please elaborate on why you think it should have toppled.

If you want to compare WTC 7 to concrete apartment buildings that topled in an earthquake, then please describe why you think such a comparison is valid. Please take into account all the similarities and differences in the situations as regards to the design and constuction of the buildings and the circumstances involved
Click to expand...

Where did I make a comparison? Agglerythm stated that you would never see apartment buildings leaning like that. He said any large building would fall straight down. he even mentioned earthquakes.

I then produced pictures showing leaning collapses that satisfied all his criteria.
 
theauthor said:
Do you have any examples of a CD of a 47 storey building in the middle of a city? Do you not think such a demolition would cause some damage?
Click to expand...

A "controlled demolition" wouldn't cause any damage to neighboring buildings. Words mean things. If it's damaging a neighboring building to the point it has to be demolished at a later date too, then it's a hardly a "controlled demolition."
 
theauthor said:
If you had read for comprehension you would have noticed that I was replying to someone talking about apartment blocks.

They are far closer to wtc 7 than a 40ft silo!

This really is moving the goalposts. I responded to a post that claimed ANY large building wouldnt lean.
Click to expand...
aggle basically said if it would happen it would happen in new york where there are no earthquake codes, all the buildings in your picture appear to have suffered earthquake damage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom