View Single Post
pyramid's Avatar
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
that never shows a video of the building collapsing

and even if it did. In the picture you present, theres two chunks of it that didn't even collapse.

It collapsed for completely different reasons. My initial point was that you are trying to compare a unique collapse event to those which have come before and there is nothing even close to the events of 9/11 in recorded history making any comparison of preceeding events almost meaningless. Still I was able to find two instances of building collapse and the aftermath does look like a demolition because fallen and destroyed buildings look like fallen and destroyed buildings...

The Sampoong Store collapse would be an example of controlled demo gone wrong if it had been a controlled demo.

That is quite a bit different than an entire building, considerably larger than that one collapsing COMPLETELY EVENLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS ALL AT ONCE
One was a five story mall that collapsed due to shoddy construction and building practices and the other was a modern 110 story steel framed building that collapsed from being hit by an airliner and the resulting damage and fire. Again the point here is that there are no comparable events to 9/11 to draw conclusive arguments from about what buildings do or don't do when suffering unprecedented catastrophic failures from unprecedented initiating factors.

Do you know what the official WTC7 story is for the collapse?
Yes, I have read all the NIST/ASCE/ETC reports on the matter.

That debris from the main tower collapse shot through WTC7 weakening its structual supports. I mean don't you think debris bombarding one side of a building should make that side of the building a little more prone to some sort of collapse, or collapse first. Rather than the entire thing collapse completely evenly into it's own footprint all at the same time.
The same thing that happened in the south tower collapse happened here. You don't need to weaken or even destroy all of a buildings support structure to have it fail like WTC7 did. When one part of a building of that size starts to fail it creates a cascade of failure as adjacent members to the ones that failed are overcome with the increased force from the loss of support from the failing members.

Have you ever formed a human pyramid? When one person on the bottom gives way due to the stress of the weight of the people above the increased strain of trying to hold the load coupled with the failing sections of the structure causes pretty much everyone else to fail/fall as well.

I mean does it honestly seem plausible to you that concrete and glass can shoot through an entire building, weakening it's structural support, all the way through, completely evenly?
See my picture of the south tower and its lean angle upon failure. That is, as I explained, indicative of a progressive cascading failure. One section lost integrity and as the rest of the building attempted to compensate, eventually the forces were too much and there was nothing else that could possibly happen but total and complete failure of the structure once that process was initiated. Buildings are not built with the idea in mind that some day part of the structure might have to arrest the catastrophic failure of the rest of the building above that point. And it is questionable whether skyscrapers, who's purpose is to maximize floor space in the smallest amount of base square footage, could even be built in such a way to make this possible.

Also, If the building had been explosively demolished with precise timing to cause a simultaneous failure across its entire square footage then there would have been no lean angle at all. The top would have moved straight downward into the floors below initiating the catastrophic failure of the remainder of the building. Of course you can time explosives to create lean angles but then we are back to the fact that there is no sound of high explosive cutting charges on any recording of any building failure from that day. This would seem to rule out the use of explosives completely.

And really this argument is somewhat silly because it hinges on the idea that if you smash a building into the ground floor through controlled demolition that you will get a substantially different result than if a building comes down through a progressive cascading failure. The acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same regardless of the initiating factor. Smashed concrete, glass and steel all look pretty much the same after the fact. The only difference in result between a controlled demo and the aftermath of a catastrophic cascading failure is the spread of the debris pile. In a controlled demo the building breaks up upon impact with the ground floor and any debris piled up there already. In the WTC towers the failure occurred further up and the upper floors of the building were smashed against the remaining, undamaged structure below starting above the midpoint of the buildings resulting in a much more chaotic event and a much more dispersed debris pile.

and I know I've posted it many times and I don't mean to make it ridiculous. But honestly, just watch this video over a few times. Really pay attention and think about what exactly would have to happen for a building to collapse just like a controlled demolition, but not be a controlled demolition.
I mean think about how many different ways buildings can collapse, how many different ways a building could have collapsed if the cause was being blasted by debris from one side, then look at how it actually did collapse. Not one floor before another, not one chunk and then another. All floors, all areas of the buildings, all at once, completely evenly.
The physics of trying to arrest the weight of a section of 30 stories or so of building with 70 stories or so of building made of the exact same strength dictate that this is so. Once a collapse has been initiated, the initial reason for the collapse is somewhat of a moot point. You still get a collapse...

And pyramid, I know you of all people posting in here are quite aware that the government makes shit up for the convenience of their agenda.
Correct, I understand this fact even better than many but in this instance I still do not think the government is actively complicit in the destruction of the towers. If they had any foreknowledge or involvement of any kind I believe it is far more plausible that they merely allowed the attacks to be carried out as they were planned without interceding as they should have or with the full force they could have.

Last edited by pyramid; 06-14-2009 at 10:20 PM..
Old 06-14-2009, 09:57 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote