Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Travis]

Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position.

[Travis]

I figured I should get some rolling eyes out of the way early.




There.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Travis

I figured I should get some rolling eyes out of the way early.




There.

Laughing dogs too.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Travis

Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

Personally, most everything I saw that day looked very, very wrong. Somehow, I think the reason I think this is not what you're looking for.

[Oystein]

I think those truthers who agree to the notion that, for example, WTC7 showed

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Symmetrical "structural failure"
3. through the path of greatest resistance
4. landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Should first define the hilited terms such that they are accessible to objective analysis. This means that they must provide objective measurable critera that are able to distinguish

1. Rapid onset from slow onset
2. Symmetry from asymmetry
3. the path of most resistance from any other path
4. a building that landed in its footprint from a building that did not land in its footprint
5. Massive dust clouds from less-than-massive dustclouds

Usually, this would require defining a threshold.
The definitions of the terms would be required to include the following:

1. Rapid onset: Beginning with mechanical penthouse only, followed by several seconds of hardly any visible action, and a fall of the perimeter that begins with a small acceleration that increases during more than a secod before reaching a brief period of freefall
2. Symmetry: Must include a twisting and turning building with a tendency towards north
3. Path of most resistance: must include long spans of floors only designed to carry floor loads
4. Footprint; Must include the roof of tall buildings across the street

After these definitions and thresholds are in, we would have to expect truthers to show that actual measurements have been taken, and that the results fall to their side of these thresholds.


When all this work is done, they then have to show that therse observations and values are even valid and relevant criteria to distinguish between collapse by fire and collapse by demolition devices.

Or maybe they can save themselves a lot of work, try the last paragraph first, fail, and repent.

[Carlos]

Why did the Towers collapsed straight down?

Because there's a huge force that acts in the vertical direction and downward. This force is called gravity, that is proportional to the mass.

It seems to be a stupid answer, but it's the true. The natural way of collapse of everything is downward (at the same direction of the gravity), not toppling over.

To cause a toppling over collapse of a building, for example, it's necessary to cause a rotation on the building or part of it around an axis/pivot. To cause this rotation, it's necessary at least one of the following items:

a) An horizontal force or an horizontal component of a force.

b) An excentric vertical force, that cause an moment of force or torque.

Further, this rotation should be great enough to displace the center of mass out of the pivot to cause the toppling over, so either the force described in "a)" or the torque described in "b)" should be great enough.

[Carlos]

Actually, people are not familiarized with buildings collapses (except controlled demolitions).

How many building collapses have you ever seen? I've never seen any.

[RedIbis]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Have "truthers" ever actually answered this question?

[DGM]

Red:
Maybe you could put the 1600+ engineers on this explanation. You would almost think they would have done this already.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Perhaps not, but what is disingenuous about it? It's a very good question that has never been properly answered IMO.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Perhaps not, but what is disingenuous about it? It's a very good question that has never been properly answered IMO.

That's why they need a "new investigation". To show them what the collapses should have looked like (considering they know they're wrong).

[Travis]

In thread after thread I've seen Truthers cite as evidence the nature of how the collapses looked. I keep asking for them to prove to me that this actually means anything. I keep getting ignored.

And I'm disingenuous for starting a thread to finally get to the bottom of this?

[Oz1976]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Hey, we're "just asking questions"

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

Until one of you actually ANSWERS one of them, yes.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

I for one would love to hear you explain how it is "disingenuous" to ask truthers to substantiate their claims?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Actually, people are not familiarized with buildings collapses (except controlled demolitions).

How many building collapses have you ever seen? I've never seen any.

I've never seen either a collapse or a controlled demolition. I suspect that puts my experience about these things at the level of the average 9/11 Twoof interweb researcher.

[Travis]

Actually my hypothesis is that is exactly the problem. Skyscrapers don't collapse often because they are generally well taken care of. As a result we only have two frames of references for how they look when they collapse: controlled demolitions and Hollywood.

Now the Hollywood collapses are done by special effects firms who don't need what they put on film to have any connection to reality. They just want what "looks cool" and that's why they have all sorts of things regarding building collapses that have no regard for physics. Heck they do that with everything. That's why their explosions are all giant fireballs and tornadoes are harmless to movie stars but fatal to everything else.

And that just leaves the long list of controlled demolitions as a reference.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Travis

Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position.

There is nothing that appeared unusual or out of place in the collapses of the Twin Towers.

100% of the 100+ story skyscrapers that have had 140 ton airliners smash into them at 400+ miles per hour have all collapsed in exactly the same way the Twin Towers did.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Until one of you actually ANSWERS one of them, yes.

I note that Red Ibis has made no attempt to answer.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I note that Red Ibis has made no attempt to answer.

So? He attempted to troll and succeeded. You know Red's reply was not aimed at constructively coming to conclusions. Why feed the troll?

Why don't we all just patiently wait for any truthers to accept the challenge posed by the OP, bump it now and then maybe, and simply ignore all replies that do not attempt to answer the OP?

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Robrob

I for one would love to hear you explain how it is "disingenuous" to ask truthers to substantiate their claims?

Cause everyone knows they can't.

[Travis]

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Travis

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

If they knew enough to know why they were "wrong" they wouldn't be twoofers because they would know they look right. Its catch 22....by saying they look wrong means they cannot tell you why.............

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Travis

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Granted for them to apply this rule now to hide it all is too late.

Actually I agree with redibis on one thing, the threads' a waste of time calling out on "truthers." For one, the attempt you made with the molten steel showed beyond any doubt that even when you make clear you're willing to let them lay everything out they'll find ways to either derail or evade pulling every other poster with them.

Secondly, this subforum has such a polarized attitude anyway since genuine skeptics are a rarity these days that it's difficult to maintain anything on topic whenever anyone strays off. (Yes I know I deserve to have my face smacked for helping out on that in your other thread).

Personally, I think that thee OP question is a valid one; but I tend to decide against making threads when I have a strong feeling the underlying question I want to posit isn't going to be answered sufficiently or at all. Don't get me wrong, I know you're trying to be practical and have them lay it out which in turn demonstrate these very points, but I think the answers are already all too apparent IMO.

[Travis]

And, perhaps, this can serve as a demonstration to others how hallow the movement is. That when I create these threads that give them golden opportunities to lay out their case they avoid it.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Travis

And, perhaps, this can serve as a demonstration to others how hallow the movement is. That when I create these threads that give them golden opportunities to lay out their case they avoid it.

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Not to me. I have come to expect a kind of "movement" as a response from Truthers.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

You took that completely out of context, the question is a legitimate question that truthers as a whole seem to avoid? I.E. what you're doing right now. Instead of answering the questions you hijack it.

Give reasonable and factual evidence that the collapses of the World Trade Centers did not look right.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Why did the Towers collapsed straight down?

Yeah, "down" is where every thing goes. It may get a jerk from left or right, but down always wins. Watch the collapses: almost immediately they consolidate on "down."

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Putting the responses made to you another way, remove "truther" from the question and you have a something which simply asks any skeptic to outline what constitutes "the collapses don't look right."

Would that have made any difference at all if he'd left the label out? Obviously not since the label in of itself is the only reason you've given any consideration to the thread at all.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

They've outlined their "reasons" why the collapses "don't look right" for years. What the skeptics claiming this lack is the competence to support those reasons - another thing I suspect your OP sets out to challenge. They'll ignore the OP, or when they respond, they'll exploit any legitimate chance they can find to avoid questions offering them the opportunity to elaborate. In this case, the respondents in a position to address the OP question are using your "truther" reference as a reason to ignore the broader question. If it weren't the "truther" label, it would have been something else. Something all too common when one tries to make a scientific argument into a political matter.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

Cripes Red, just answer the question or don't. Stop thread jacking with your whining about the monolithic movement crap.

It is getting boring.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

redibis, there is a thread or two already where you can levy you're complaints about people's treatment of the "truth movement". If that's the only reason you're even in this thread then neither you, me, or anyone else has any business derailing this thread with petty cherry picking.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Cripes Red, just answer the question or don't. Stop thread jacking with your whining about the monolithic movement crap.

It is getting boring.

I don't get the point of the whining. If you want to make change, you have to have a movement, don't you, like the Tea Party or OWS?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

So, you're finally admitting that the Truth Movement is dead?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

How terrible of me to think that people who cite the collapses "looking" wrong should know what they really ought to look like.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Travis

"Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position. "

Okay.

Quick answer, gravity.

What goes up eventually has to come down.

Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time.

Eventually gravity will have its way.

The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration.

Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings.

Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern.

Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern.

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it.

All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM