View Single Post
Old 24th July 2011, 03:59 PM   #413
Edx's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Therefore to suggest that the building’s failure was purely asymmetrical is wrong,
You can clearly see floors on the east side collapsed in an upward progression as evidenced by the breaking windows going up and then the penthouse collapses inside it. How is that not asymmetrical?

It then manages to fall across a 4-lane street and critcally damage 30-West Broadway. How is that not asymmetrical?

Truthers like yourself always use words like symmetrical and free fall, but keep talking to you and you'll soon have to expand your definition of these terms to such a degree its laughable. So the WTC1 and 2 towers collapsed at free fall... except they didn't, it was nearly twice free fall... well its still too fast they'll say. One guy insisted it was free fall until he eventually admitted that even if the collapse took 30 seconds it would still be too long. Truthers have even called WTC1 and 2 symmetrical collapses, that is until they want to contradict themselves and say tons of heavy debris was ejected hundreds of feet away from the towers ... but it was still you know... symmetrical ...

not just the north wall, but at least three walls as seen in the available CBS and NBC videos. You need to be more honest here.

Again how can it fall accross a 4 lane street while also fall neatly symmetrically all in its own footprint?

Either its symmetrical or it isn't, why dont YOU be more honest and use words properly? If you were a demolition company and you were tasked with making sure the building came down "symmetrically and neatly all in its own footprint", after the collapse do you think you could use that excuse for causing all that damage to neighbouring buildings?

. In fact they couldn’t even get their own models to fit very well as their simulations clearly show the outer walls starting to deform where as in practice they never did.
You can see the building visbly twist, I'd say thats close enough. Its a massively complex system, you're going to see some differences.

What has the truth movement ever come up with? They claim an explosive was used so secret it can VAPORISE - like Star trek - 8 floors worth of building INSTANTLY without making a sound. And you wonder why real experts dont take you seriously? NIST and others interested in the collapses dont care that it collapsed from fire, they already knew that, they wanted to know exactly why and how in order to best know how to help prevent collapses and structural failiures in the future. What exactly do you bring to the table?

This makes your claim that WTC7 followed the ‘classic’ form of progressive destruction a gross distortion since no high-rise steel building has ever fully collapsed due to fire or damage prior to or since 9/11 making such comparison impossible.
If fire can cause a progressive collapse in a building and verinage shows that given the right circumstances even without weakening lower floors a smaller part of a building at the top can pancake collapse right to the bottom through the building, since we have also historical examples of complete progressive pancake collapses without fire, then what reason do you give for why a building cannot fully collapse from fire?

I would argue that the simple fact the ‘global collapse’ occurred as it did; symmetrically, straight down at free-fall or near free-fall speed and with little or no deformation to the outer walls was because every supporting member of the lower floors had been removed of structural integrity at exactly the same time.
Yes, like Star Trek. They used some kind of phaser that VAPORISED all the floors all at the same time right? How else can you explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall without buckling? Even demolitions arent trying to VAPORISE the contents of the building, yet you think it happened on 911 and not just that happened so quiet that at least 5 or 6 different cameras surrounding it couldn't pick up any sound of such an extreme amount of energy being released.

Had this not happened, the bulk of the building would have rotated and toppled over
Like some kind of loony toons sketch yes...

Only controlled demolition can cause such structural failure across the entire plan of such a massive building so quickly.
Interesting, because I've heard you truthers claim a lot over the years (not exhaustive)...

Pancake collapses cant happen - they can.
That steel floors are practically impervious to fire - they arent
That steel doesnt collapse in a fire - it does
That steel cant warp or bend in a fire - it can
That steel floors cant pancake collapse in a fire - they can and have
Rapid onset collapses only happen in demolitons - They don't.
Free fall proves demolition - 1. demolitions are not free fall. 2. The towers did not fall in free fall anyway
That no one would believe that WTC7 would collapse - Everyone relevant (like firefighters on the scene) knew it would collapse
That no one was conserned about progressive collapse or pancake collapses from fire before 911 - they have.
That reports of molten metal and molten steel are suspicious - its actually completely unremarkable and there's plenty of other similar reports in other fires.
That people reporting explosions is uncommon in fires - Actually its not just common in fires, but even when its not regarding a fire and even when they use words like "blast" and "sounding like bombs" and even when they already know the sounds they are talking about aren't bombs.

By the way, steel I-sections do not snap like sticks.
So under sudden great pressure what do you think they will do? Bend like silly putty? They can bend if exposed to heat of course which is the point, as Chris also tried to explain if the fire then moves away from the location it can then cool but in a less stable condition and also liable to collapse.

Last edited by Edx; 24th July 2011 at 05:17 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top