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

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.

[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.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you asserting that an army of 5,000 workers ran wild through the most heavily used office towers in the world, tearing down walls, shredding cieling tiles and carpets, using torches to cut through structural beams and planting explosive charges and then patching it all up again without ANYONE noticing or complaining. Especially after ot all went off on 9-11?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

these guys just fall back on name calling and the like post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917697#post1917697)
Sword was fallacious intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917380#post1917380)
Default you're being silly.post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917143#post1917143)
Default confused intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917128#post1917128)
Ooh, nice picture Default.post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917067#post1917067)
Hello? Is this thing on?post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917037#post1917037)
Andrew, who at the time was using the name Gumboot,intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914834#post1914834)
default propagandized intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914813#post1914813)
Apathoid arguedintentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914798#post1914798)
kc wondered intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914544#post1914544)
Pardalis self-deified intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914357#post1914357)
PM will debate the kids, but have refused to debate grownups post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1913417#post1913417)
That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. ...Anyone else want to embarrass themselves and claim to see falling debris around the south tower flash?post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911809#post1911809)
I'll try again to spoon feed you my point, againpost (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911801#post1911801)
Any of you brave souls want to go on record on this onepost (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911788#post1911788)
apathoid wondered intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911774#post1911774)Again, don't complain, this was hundreds of posts ago. ... Ha, absurd, I say. But NIST says so. And so do you OCTs.post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911774#post1911774)
This is farcical.post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911728#post1911728)

Would you like me to go back further chronologically?

[R.Mackey]

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.
Hmm.

Well, in your brief period here, you've not exactly been a model citizen. For instance, there's this post: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1916542#post1916542)
In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
Or perhaps this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1916203#post1916203) is more insidious, where you begin a new thread as a direct challenge to a fellow forum member, and then subtly alter his quote.

Your little jabs around people's quotes are less than cute sometimes, like here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1914357#post1914357) -- "Pardalis self-deified"?? Are you serious?

In response to me, there's this tidbit: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1911809#post1911809)
Mackey, what's your take on this? More name calling and shouting? Are you still figuring out how the cross bracing got onto the core structure in the rubble after the construction guys removed it 30 years ago?
So go ahead and find me "name calling" and "shouting," if you can. And while you're at it, you never did answer my questions about your picture.

Lastly, this golden oldie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1908927#post1908927), where you baldly attack my "credibility" on your fourth or fifth post.

If you're willing to start an actual debate, I'm perfectly willing to look beyond all of this. Heck, lots of people here toss barbs, and I'm not above it myself. But in your case, the ratio of abuse to content has not been promising. Don't pretend otherwise. mmm'kay?

ETA: EEK! Looks like we're piling on, doesn't it? Darn cross-posts.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

Cite the falsehood.

[Mince]

Anyone care to discuss the topic of this one, which is supporting/debunking the claim that buildings must fall straight down.

Yes.

I say that asymmetrical column loss will cause a building to fall toward that side. I have supplied nice evidence.

This point is not in controversy. What is in controversy, and you have not proven, was that building 7 did not collapse so.

I say the behavior of WTC7 indicates that all of the vertical supports failed at the same time.

A link to another building falling is not proof of this. If I were to treat your thread here hermetically, then all you have proven is that, indeed, buildings fall asymmetrically when they are damaged asymmetrically. You must now prove, within the scope of this thread, that building 7's behavior was consistent with controlled demolition. You must also prove your assertion that all vertical supports failed at the same time. I don't even need a link. Merely give me a reasonable analysis. Prove to me your unqualified understanding of building performances. Support it with links if you must.

[defaultdotxbe]

Cite the falsehood.

the whole PHD thing, its been discussed here

[Sword_Of_Truth]

post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917697#post1917697)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917380#post1917380)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917143#post1917143)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917128#post1917128)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917067#post1917067)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917037#post1917037)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914834#post1914834)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914813#post1914813)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914798#post1914798)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914544#post1914544)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914357#post1914357)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1913417#post1913417)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911809#post1911809)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911801#post1911801)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911788#post1911788)
intentional changing of "quote=" text (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911774#post1911774)post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911774#post1911774)
post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911728#post1911728)

Would you like me to go back further chronologically?

I believe the children on the WoW-OT boards call this "OMGWTFPWNED IN TEH FACE!!!!!1!!!1!ONE".

It was appropriate given the circumstances. ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the whole PHD thing, its been discussed here

Ah, obviously we need to get the definition of libel into this thread then:
In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, esp. speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, esp. writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel is defamation that is published, but can also happen in other forms, such as effigy, a motion picture, or a statue; slander refers to any verbal, unpublished, defamation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

The correction made to the article which erroneously removed Jones' PhD, and has since been corrected, is not libel.

Additionally, you suggestion that this is ground for dismissing the entire article is a form of ad hom.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I believe the children on the WoW-OT boards call this "OMGWTFPWNED IN TEH FACE!!!!!1!!!1!ONE".

It was appropriate given the circumstances. ;)

You forgot "BBQ"

[MRC_Hans]

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.


A building must not fall straight down. A building has a strong tendency to fall straight down, because, gee, that's the direction gravity is pulling it. For a building NOT to fall straight down, sufficient force must be acting to divert the movement of its mass to a sideways motion. Such a force must have something to act on, some sufficiently strong structure to transfer a force that can divert the thousands of tons of mass in a direction different from that of the pull of gravity.

In a controlled demolition, it is possible to make the building fall to one side, by carefully designing the sequence of blasts to weaken the structure sequentially without weakening it so much that it cannot deflect the vertical pressure of gravity.

It is not a necessity for a building, that is for any reason collapsing, to fall straight down, but it is the default scenario. Since it is also the desired result in most demolitions, the actual collapse of a building will be usually be sililar to a controlled demolition, but that is not a sign of a demolition.

The signs of a controlled demolition are:

1) Somebody has a reason to make it.
2) Somebody has to prepare for it. This involves machining of structual elements to pre-weaken them. Positioning of numerous (often hundreds of) explosive charges. Wiring of detonators.
3) Somebody has to detonate the explosive charges. This requires the wiring to be intact and functioning. The detonations will create noise, flashes, and squibs in a regular pattern prior to the collapse.
4) If the demolition is to look like a spontaneous collapse, somebody has to dig through the wreckage and remove remains of charges, detonators and wiring. They also have to remove such parts of structural elements that show signs of machining to weaken them.

Now Truthseeker1234, please answer the following questions:

1) For what purpose would perpetrators demolish WTC7?

2) Which signs, apart from the building falling stright down, and a couple of squib-like appearances after the collapse had started, point to the collapse of WTC7 being a controlled demolition?

Hans

[TruthSeeker1234]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is symmetry which requires skill and special circumstances. Asymmetrical behavior is always more likely than symmetrical. WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern. An asymmetrical failure of columns, by whatever etiology, will produce either

1) part of the building remaining standing
2) the building toppling to the side, as observed in the demolition linked at the top of the thread.

Hans asked 1) For what purpose would perpetrators demolish WTC7?
Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way. Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing. Plenty of super-secret stuff in there, with the CIA, FBI, and Giuliani's command center.

2) Which signs, apart from the building falling stright down, and a couple of squib-like appearances after the collapse had started, point to the collapse of WTC7 being a controlled demolition?

That's kind of like asking, "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play??"

WTC7 dropped in about 6.5 seconds.

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

THere is a tornado like plume of smoke and debris that exits the top of the building.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.

Other than that, (and the Silverstein quote), not much.

[gumboot]

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.

And with this comment you confirm yourself to be certifiable. Bravo.



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


Tell that to the owners of 30 West Broadway. Your continuing refusal to look at reality is pathetic.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.


Hah!

Certain European football stadiums have a tendency to fall straight down when they collapse due to over-loading. The Kader Toy Factory fell straight down (fire).



Other than that, (and the Silverstein quote), not much.

The other day I overheard a dancer talking to a reporter.
"I was talking to my shoe-maker the other day," the petite dancer explained to the reporter. "He wasn't sure my ballet shoes would be ready in time for the final night of the competitions.
"I told him, I'd earned so many points already, maybe the best thing was to just go ahead and do the tango."
The reporter scrawled rapidly.
"And so we went, and we did the tango."

Later that night it finally hit me. to "do" is slang to kill someone. And "Tango" is of course slang for a terrorist. It was all so clear. The dancer had been involved in the assassination of a suspected terrorist. I never visited that dance hall again.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*deep breaths*

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


It looked exactly like a controlled demolition

It did not, quit lying.

which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever, unless they were struck by thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete.

Correction provided free of charge.

[R.Mackey]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Eh, no. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states (among other things) that it is reversibility that is special, not symmetry. Symmetry is omnipresent thanks to Newton's Third Law.

Having said that, few things in Nature, especially something as complex as a major building collapse, will be truly symmetric. It just depends on how symmetric we need it to be.

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern.
There's a real danger of this becoming a semantic argument. While it didn't topple over, I don't feel that WTC 7 fell all that symmetrically. The NIST Interim WTC 7 report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) which I imagine you've seen proposes a mechanism which, due to the building's construction, leads to an implosion-style collapse that might be interpreted as somewhat symmetrical. Seems to make sense to me.


WTC7 dropped in about 6.5 seconds.
Check my NIST reference, page 27. Your number is off. They give a detailed sequence of 8.2 seconds from first signs to initiation of global collapse, so perhaps 15 seconds for the whole thing to come crashing down.


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

THere is a tornado like plume of smoke and debris that exits the top of the building.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.
Please cite these, I haven't heard such claims. Not saying you're wrong, just I don't know where you got this from.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.
If you're referring to the FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf) steel observations, I addressed this for another newcomer in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907756&postcount=605). There is unarguable evidence that the melting point of the mixture was not reached, and the "eutectic reaction" (that's not standard terminology) was a chemical one. While interesting, there's no way this was a deliberate act.

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.
It didn't look like a controlled demolition to PROTEC (http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf). Nor to me, either. And need I point out that the firefighters standing near the building heard it crack, watched it lean, and even measured it over the course of several hours?

Other than that, (and the Silverstein quote), not much.
This one always cracks me up. Look, even if Larry Silverstein had said "Hey, guys, get the heck away from that place, because I've got bombs rigged on every floor -- here goes!" and pulled out a doohickey, pushed a button, and the whole tower instantly collapsed, it still wouldn't prove that the place was demolished on purpose. Though I would be somewhat suspicious.

There's simply no evidence of bombs. There is, however, evidence of massive impact damage, huge unfought fires, and gradual material weakening leading to what NIST calls "classic progressive collapse" (page 6 of the interim reports).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Just because I like to watch Lieteller squirm, here's a great (by that I mean high quality) shot of WTC7 getting smashed by a debris plume weighing thousands of tons:

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

Please tell us your thoughts on this photograph wich proves your entire theory about WTC7 wrong, Lieteller?

[LashL]

Poor little troofseeker.

Same M.O. as always.

Still no facts or evidence.

Still not a single indication that s/he has any scientific (or reality) grounding whatsoever. Notice that as much as s/he pretends to have a clue and pretends to be an expert on numerous subjects, s/he is incapable of responding to any questions whatsoever that involve details, facts or evidence? Notice that even though s/he pretends to have expertise, s/he skillfully skates away when asked what expertise s/he has (because s/he has none)? Notice how s/he operates on the "Killtown" method of post ****, pretend knowledge and run away to start another thread without answering any questions in the previous thread?

TroofinessSeeker is naught but a troll spouting the same tired and long debunked conspiracy theories that s/he is probably too embarrassed to even admit s/he believes her/himself. More likely, this is her/his only way of feeling as though s/he's part of "something", even if it means being part of a lunatic group of "troofers".

[qarnos]

But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern. An asymmetrical failure of columns, by whatever etiology, will produce either

1) part of the building remaining standing
2) the building toppling to the side, as observed in the demolition linked at the top of the thread.


I have an experiment I would like you to try, TS.

First, take a large, heavy object, such as a shipping container, and suspend it from a crane so the bottom of the container is just above head height.

Now, stand under the container, but as far away as possible from the centre.

Finally, on the count of 3, have an assistant cut/release the cable suspening the container.

Observe: Does the container tip over before crushing you to a bloody pulp, or does it fall flat?

You may need your assistant to write the report for you.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Check my NIST reference, page 27. Your number is off. They give a detailed sequence of 8.2 seconds from first signs to initiation of global collapse, so perhaps 15 seconds for the whole thing to come crashing down.

The demolition happened in stages. First the one penthouse,then the other. When the main roofline begins dropping, it is 6.5 seconds. See Legge, see Kutler. How much time elapsed between stages is irrelevant. They could have waited an hour after dropping the penthouse. By plotting individual times and distances all the way down, and comparing that to free-fall, Legge shows that the building went into free fall.

Please cite these, I haven't heard such claims. Not saying you're wrong, just I don't know where you got this from.


The swiss cheese and eutectics and partially evaportated steel are from the Jonathan Barnett Metallurgical study, one of the only (the only??) peer reviewed paper in the whole mess. Unless you count the Scholars for Truth in-house review.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

There's simply no evidence of bombs

I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out. While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast. How on earth could the floors be pancaking upwards? Unlike the twin towers, this is much more of a classic controlled demolition, with a demolition sequence proceeding upwards, slicing the the vertical columns floor by floor, proceeding upwards.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Did you see my picture, Lieteller?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics), about entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Third law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics), about absolute zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero) temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature)As a system asymptotically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically) approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate) and negative temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature).

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And what about this picture of WTC7 getting hit?

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

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is symmetry which requires skill and special circumstances.

I appreciate the respect. I was hoping for you to merit some in return. Are you aware that we usually (but not necessarily justly) take it as a sure sign of woism when people invoke the the 2nd law of thermodynamics ;) ?

And when people also apply it wrongly, well, you can fill in the blanks (on second thought, maybe you can't).

OK, let us look at entropy. Of course, WTC7 is not exactly a closed system, but there is some entropy at play. The reduced entropy, and the assymetry, in WTC 7 is, like in all buildings, the fact that thousands of tons of building materials (+ furniture etc.) have been hauled up to various elevations over ground level, against gravity. This act required lots of energy. Energy which (minus losses) has been stored as potential energy, and which is retained so for as long as the supporting structures are able to withstand the pull of gravity. The moment the supporting structures fail, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the direction of the excerted force. The excerted force is called gravity, and the direction of that goes under the popular term "down".

Now, if any object in the process of increasing the local entropy by going "down" is to change its direction, you must excert a force vector on it that is of comparable strength to the "down" vector, and in a different direction, which ...... mmm, I sense I'm going over your head.

Let me try this: If you have a 100,000 ton building, 100,000 tons of force says it wants to go straight down. If it is to go elsewhere, you need to apply some force that is a significant fraction of 100,000 tons, in a different direction. OK?

Asymmetrical behavior is always more likely than symmetrical.
Yeah? Try this: Take a suitable object, say, a coffee mug (hey, NOT with coffee in it, OK?). Tie a few feet of string to it (yes, the handle will do great). Hold the other end of the string and let it hang. Which way does it hang? Yeah, right? That is the direction commonly termed "down".

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern.

No, it just requires enough of them failing that the remaining cannot support the building. Then the weight of the building will cause the remainder to fail in such a short time that there is little chance of imparting a sideways force.

Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way. Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing. Plenty of super-secret stuff in there, with the CIA, FBI, and Giuliani's command center.

In other words, you don't have a good reason.

WTC7 dropped in about 6.5 seconds.

And?

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

Before or after the collapse started?

THere is a tornado like plume of smoke and debris that exits the top of the building.

Yeh, you see, some 80% or more of any normal building is air. After all, that is what buildings are for: To provide some protected space of air. When the building collapses, that air has to go somewhere else. Thus, windows blow out, roofs blow up, dust and debris is thrown around.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.

Which part was recovered? The evaporated part? No, I'm not joking; when metal evaporates, it will immidiately condense on its surroundings (which, compared to evaporated metal, is always cold). The layer of condensed metal is very characteristic.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.

That building was on fire, remember? Is initiating a eutectic reaction normal procedure when doing a controlled demolition? .. No, because it cannot be timed or controlled with any kind of precision. So, assuming such a reaction happened, how is it evidence of a CD?

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before,

As I just showed you, the only resemblance was that the building fell down.

Hans

[qarnos]

TS, it's nice to see you know how to use Wikipedia.

Now, is there any chance of this discussion returning to the collapse of WTC7? Are you going to answer any of the questions posed to you or will you just run off and start a new thread about your next piece of irrefutable evidence?

Any luck with the experiment I proposed earlier? It has also occured to me that you could time how long it takes the container to crush you and see if that time is consistant with free-fall acceleration. You may need access to an atomic clock to obtain the required resolution. I guess you could also film it with a grainy video camera and then use a stop-watch from arbitrary start and end states. That wouldn't provide anywhere near the required accuracy, but is fully endorsed by DylanCo., so it might be worth a look.

Hey, I think I hear the sound of ice cracking... That must be the 2nd law of Thermodynamics undermining your hypothosis.

[qarnos]

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before,

As I just showed you, the only resemblance was that the building fell down.

Hans

Hans, you are forgetting one important thing:

Since X has happened before, Y must be X.

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, you are forgetting one important thing:

Since X has happened before, Y must be X.

Ahh, yes, thanks for reminding me, I forgot this:

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.Ignoring the term "exactly", with which we have already dealt sufficiently: No, so far such collapses have only been observed after large airliners have been deliberately crashed into buildings. Which has so far happened ..... only on 9/11. ...And let us hope that state of affairs does never change.

So, in your way of reasoning, we can equally well say: In all instances in history, where large airliners have been flown into buildings, the buildings have subsequently collapsed.

Hans

[shuize]

[Post]

Awsome.


My favorite part:

The moment the supporting structures fail, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the direction of the excerted force. The excerted force is called gravity, and the direction of that goes under the popular term "down".

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics), about entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Third law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics), about absolute zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero) temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature)As a system asymptotically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically) approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate) and negative temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature).

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

Totally Irrelevant as the collapse of the structure is controlled by the structure itself. The collapse of the towers was a result of the funnel effect of the outer columns expanding outward as the debris rained down on them

Entropy did increase but the structures themselves and the damage to them limited the way that the energy from Gravity effected the structure.

The argument you made was fatally flawed, because you do not understand the structure of the building en ought to understand the argument, you yourself presented.

In other words the way the building is designed and built plays a key part in the way it Collapses once the point of structural integrity is compromised.
By not understanding how much the structure controlled the collapse you totally blew the argument.

[NDBoston]

Truthseeker:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

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.

[Oliver]

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


Hello Truthseeker1234:

You obviously have a problem with the controlled demolition
stuff. It seems, that you don´t understand why the buildings
fell. So i also think, that you have a problem with the official
story. On the other hand it brings me to the conclusion, that
you might believe in an involvement of the government.

So let me ask you:
What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really
want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question
you have.

Regards,
Oliver

[juryjone]

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end.
(bolding mine)

So it looked exactly like a controlled demolition, until the point when it didn't.

Contradicting yourself within the space of a sentence. That's a work of art, that is.

[CurtC]

And what about this picture of WTC7 getting hit?
You keep posting these words, but there are no pictures.

[kookbreaker]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

TS, with no due respect you seem to get all your information about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from Stephen Jones. He's very wrong, BTW, and so are you.

[CurtC]

TS1234, how do you fit the collapse of the East part of the mechanical penthouse into your CD idea? It falls a full six seconds before the building itself starts to fall. Isn't that right there evidence that it wasn't CD? I've never seen a CD where they take out one piece, wait several seconds, then the rest of it. CDs usually try to remove all the supports right about the same time (possibly with small timing differences to direct the fall).

[Belz...]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

What does entropy have to do with this ?

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern.

Contradiction. You just said it fell south, as others have mentioned, then go back to the "straight down" strawman.

Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way.

HA! Hilarious. How could someone justify this ? Why would terrorists target WTC7, of all targets, with an airplane ?

Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing.

So it's impossible that the damage it sustained was insufficient to bring it down immediately ?

Plenty of super-secret stuff in there, with the CIA, FBI, and Giuliani's command center.

I'm sure there's super sekrit stuff in other buildings that DIDN'T fall down that day.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.

Evaporated ? I can't begin to imagine the temperature needed for that.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.

Contradiction, again. Controlled demolitions use charges, not chemicals to melt steel.

Other than that, (and the Silverstein quote), not much.

Silverstein said "pull them out of there". I hardly see how this relates to destroying the WTC. Plus he was beign recorded, and "pull" is not a demolition term.

[Bradk3]

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

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.
Oh, but it's so much easier to say "they (teh globalists, apparently) could have installed the explosives at night and covered them up in the morning" rather than actually find out if it would have been possible. As you point out, there were people working in that building 24x7. Any attempt to wire the building at any time would have been consipicuous. It's so incredibly obvious to everyone except the CTists.

Duh! :bwall

Thanks for the contribution.

Glad you made it out all right.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Excellent, since you recognize implosionworld.com as being a relevant[fixed spelling], 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

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.

[kevin]

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.

How many buildings have you seen fall by non-explosive means? If the only valid proof is things you've seen before then you need to go watch other buildings fall in the same manner before deciding what is the truth.

[R.Mackey]

The demolition happened in stages. First the one penthouse,then the other. When the main roofline begins dropping, it is 6.5 seconds. See Legge, see Kutler. How much time elapsed between stages is irrelevant. They could have waited an hour after dropping the penthouse. By plotting individual times and distances all the way down, and comparing that to free-fall, Legge shows that the building went into free fall.
No evidence provided, just a pile of speculation.

That's one story. Another story is the one given in the NIST prelim report. Their story has the advantage that it didn't rely on explosive charges for which you've provided no shred of evidence, that nobody saw or heard, and that would have been totally unnecessary as the structure had been burning and leaning for hours.

Support your argument, or abandon it.

The swiss cheese and eutectics and partially evaportated steel are from the Jonathan Barnett Metallurgical study, one of the only (the only??) peer reviewed paper in the whole mess. Unless you count the Scholars for Truth in-house review.
I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
Um... this is the same paper I was talking about. Just reprinted with a CT address. You didn't even check, did you? Minus ten points for you!

I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out. While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast.
I asked you to tell me where you got these, not just repeat them. Please do so or drop it.

How on earth could the floors be pancaking upwards? Unlike the twin towers, this is much more of a classic controlled demolition, with a demolition sequence proceeding upwards, slicing the the vertical columns floor by floor, proceeding upwards.
Ah, is that so? Well, if it's "more like" a "classic" controlled demolition, then you should understand why the NIST hypothesis makes sense. They propose a major failure of a central column on the 6th floor, which was cantilevered over a ConEd substation. A failure here would literally pull the floor out from under the upper structure... leading to precisely the behavior you describe.

And I put "more like" in quotes, because like I already said, demolition experts say it is not like a controlled demolition.

You haven't even addressed, let alone refuted, the comments I made in my post. Thus it still stands. You need a do-over.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here
I made no error, I asked you to explain (1) what bracing you mean, (2) how you know that bracing was permanent rather than temporary support for the kangaroo cranes and such, and (3) what its composition is. I asked several times. This is deception on your part.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round
sigh.

My comments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics are the relevant ones.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to "symmetry" on a scale small compared with phonon wavelengths. Not with the approximate distribution of such a large and uneven object as a falling building.

If that building suddenly became "symmetric," as in one pile of pure concrete here, another pile of pure steel there, yes, that would be a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If a building more-or-less at rest collapses, leaving a more-or-less balanced pile of debris, that is not only consistent with the Second Law, but with the far, far more relevant laws of mechanics.

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?

[CptColumbo]

I can't help but notice the way that when TS's questions are answered with evidence in another thread he abandons it, without admiting his error, and starts a new thread with equally flimsy evidence.

[Regnad Kcin]

My demeanor? I've said controversial things, i realize, but i've not called anyone any names, or been disrespectful in any way...Repeatedly comparing those who consider the official story quite accurate to Holocaust denial? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1913935&postcount=46) Yes, yes, you've been mommy's little angel.

[Kent1]

No evidence provided, just a pile of speculation.

That's one story. Another story is the one given in the NIST prelim report. Their story has the advantage that it didn't rely on explosive charges for which you've provided no shred of evidence, that nobody saw or heard, and that would have been totally unnecessary as the structure had been burning and leaning for hours.

Support your argument, or abandon it.


I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.


Um... this is the same paper I was talking about. Just reprinted with a CT address. You didn't even check, did you? Minus ten points for you!


I asked you to tell me where you got these, not just repeat them. Please do so or drop it.


Ah, is that so? Well, if it's "more like" a "classic" controlled demolition, then you should understand why the NIST hypothesis makes sense. They propose a major failure of a central column on the 6th floor, which was cantilevered over a ConEd substation. A failure here would literally pull the floor out from under the upper structure... leading to precisely the behavior you describe.

And I put "more like" in quotes, because like I already said, demolition experts say it is not like a controlled demolition.

You haven't even addressed, let alone refuted, the comments I made in my post. Thus it still stands. You need a do-over.

The insides were collapsing first. When the penthouse collapsed it was because of a progressive internal collapse. Then as the penthouse fell the debris continued to wipe out the interior of the structure. As you watch the penthouse fall in the videos you can start to see light coming through the windows because the area was gutted out.

NIST states possibly a pressurized fuel line feeding a generator on the fifth floor started the collapse.
The damage to the building didn't help either causing the load to be redistributed to other areas. Pictures of the southside show the some of the outer wall detached.

Currently NIST states:

An initial local failure at the floors below floor 13 due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet (190 m²).
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below it.
Collapse of the interior structure first, pulling the outer structure down and inward.
Horizontal progression of the failure across the floors in the region of floors 5 and 7, much thicker than the rest of the floors, triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in the disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

[Kent1]

I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.


Jonathan Barnett's Metallurgical study is not the only study done on the steel.

This was the study done by the Materials Science & Engineering Program, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Worcester Polytechinc Institute
Authors:
R.R. Biederman, George F. Vander Voort, Erin Sullivan, R.D. Sisson, Jr.

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

[NobbyNobbs]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is symmetry which requires skill and special circumstances. Asymmetrical behavior is always more likely than symmetrical.


Aside from your total misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermo, I call bullsh*t.

Perhaps you'd like some examples in nature where symmetry is common?

How about this? (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/wihort/Phenology/OxeyeDaisy.html)

Or this? (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060902.html)

Or this? (http://www.poster.de/Da-Vinci-Leonardo/Da-Vinci-Leonardo-Il-Corpo-Umano-2400664.html)

If these don't convince you, I'd be happy to post hundreds more. Asymmetry is not the same as chaos. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with chaos, not symmetry.

[LashL]

You [Troofseeker] don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?

Bingo.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Or this? (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060902.html)"... [The] beautiful spiral galaxy M66, a mere 35 million light-years away. About 100 thousand light-years across with striking dust lanes and bright star clusters along sweeping spiral arms..."

Things like that never cease to amaze me. A "mere" 35 million light-years away. We're seeing an image generated that long ago, never mind the measure of its diameter. And it's fairly close to us, comparatively. Man!

[twinstead]

I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out. While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast. How on earth could the floors be pancaking upwards? Unlike the twin towers, this is much more of a classic controlled demolition, with a demolition sequence proceeding upwards, slicing the the vertical columns floor by floor, proceeding upwards.

How do you explain the eye witnesses and firemen who saw the building bow long before it fell, measured it, and came to the conclusion it was going to fall at any moment?

[Kent1]

How do you explain the eye witnesses and firemen who saw the building bow long before it fell, measured it, and came to the conclusion it was going to fall at any moment?
The WTC7 squibs are also a long debunked myth.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Jones was also flat out wrong when he said:
"The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos."
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html

[Belz...]

I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out.

Link please. I never saw that.

While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast.

Of course they fall together, the whole structure failed. Perhaps you didn't notice that 20 floors were missing from the south side.

[Belz...]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics), about entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Third law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics), about absolute zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero) temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature)As a system asymptotically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically) approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate) and negative temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature).

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

What in ed's name does this have to do with 9/11 ? WTC7 was not a closed system by any stretch of the imagination!

[Belz...]

How many buildings have you seen fall by non-explosive means? If the only valid proof is things you've seen before then you need to go watch other buildings fall in the same manner before deciding what is the truth.

Holy smoke, Kev. Some avatar change!

Also, if you look at my sig, I am now also "irrelevant".

[Belz...]

I can't help but notice the way that when TS's questions are answered with evidence in another thread he abandons it, without admiting his error, and starts a new thread with equally flimsy evidence.

Is there a better way to maintain ignorance ?

[Loss Leader]

Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way. Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing.

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.

[TruthSeeker1234]

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.

[WildCat]

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side.
Congratulations! You now are qualified to teach mechanical engineering at Clemson U.!

[kookbreaker]

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.


A table is not a skyscraper. That is your explanation


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?


My money is on the guys who do this for a living over the crank.


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

If you can't take the heat...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

Quit misquoting Prof. Eagar, he said (the buildings) referring to the twin towers only, not buildings, and he did not accuse the CD profession of being Frauds, you simply did not understand what he was saying about gravity and the design of the buildings good grief it is like trying to explain something to a two year old on a sugar high from two much candy.
In other words if you know what you were talking about you would understand what Prof. Eagar was saying.

[Loss Leader]

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side.


This is Shmendrick1234's pattern. When confronted with overwhelming evidence, he makes an unwarranted analogy. Then he demands that we defend his whacked-out acid-trip analogy in a massive strawman feint. Next, he'll abandon the thread.

[Loss Leader]

Congratulations! You now are qualified to teach mechanical engineering at Clemson U.!

Ha ha! Go Georgia Bulldogs! 2-0, baby. 1-0 in conference.

[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. (http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html) 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 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)

[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. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm)

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1918069#post1918069). 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!"

[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 :boggled:

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 (http://www.furryconflict.com/tech/technopedia/governments_and_fleets/starfleet_headquarters.gif) 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? :D