Friday, 25 September 2009

WTC 7 - Falling Forwards (Not Symmetrical, Not 'into its own footprint')



22 comments:

Larry said...

Ridiculous. It can still be coming STRAIGHT DOWN while its leaning. The South tower section (above the hole of the plane impact) was LEANING but yet still came STRAIGHT DOWN. Showcased here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/
wtc2exp3.html

It leaned yet came STRAIGHT down while leaning. Because if it HADNT come straight down--it would have crushed and landed on top of the Bankers Trust Building---but, it did NOT.

Debunked AGAIN

the_last_name_left said...

So it leant forwards? Ok.

Why?

Larry said...

I love how you ignored my last post.

A leaning building does NOT contradict a SYMMETRICAL collapse. SYMMETRICAL means leveled or straight down---thats not saying a structure cannot lean a little, but the building can STILL fall straight down----AS I SHOWED YOU IN THE LINK IN MY LAST POST OF THE SOUTH TOWER---which you CONVENIENTLY ignored. The South tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN although it leaned as it first collapsed.

In FACT, that is one of the VERY reasons I believe it was demolished, because the fact that it DID lean as it first collapsed means it should have just rubbed against the undamaged section and fell outward and away [or rolled off] from the tower---BUT, it didnt do that, did it? It leaned as it collapsed and then came crashing down on the undamaged section and leveled the rest of the building under it----even though it was LEANING. The fact that it had LEANED should have created less force and given the undamaged section more resistance---ESPECIALLY on the opposite side of the building. But yet the leaning section came down and crushed the WHOLE tower as if it hadnt leaned at all--with the same amount of force. Thats impossible!

The fact that these buildings LEANED and yet were STILL crushed completely is MORE evidence of demolition! So, in actuality, the leaning issue gives my views more credence!

You CONTINUALLY fail to comprehend that the NIST report said it was FIRE ALONE that caused the collapse. Although I find their report flawed---even THEY acknowledge it was NOT caused by debris---which is the stance you STILL trust in. Fire ALONE could not have caused the collapse PERIOD, let alone would have made the building weak on the lower floors of the south side---especially since we see no major fires in the bottom area of the South side in any of the pictures!

the_last_name_left said...

L: A leaning building does NOT contradict a SYMMETRICAL collapse.

Yes it does.

Of course there are various sorts of symmetry - but the favoured phrase of conspiracism is "perfectly symmetrical collapse".

Here's everyone's favourite source...Infowars:

What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse...
http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

We know what that claim is supposed to imply.

It's supposed to imply that it was a non-organic collapse. Un-natural. (A conspiracy) How could a random catastrophe achieve such PERFECT SYMMETRY?

It didn't.

So drop the claim - a la Infowars - that it was perfectly symmetrical?

It wasn't.

Nor did ANY of the buildings "fall into their own footprint".

There's ALWAYS a dispersion...........

Furthermore.....Mackey claims the dispersion fields are indicative of explosive or kinetic.collapsing force.........

According to Mackey.......explosives would send smaller particles further than heavier pieces of WTC......whereas the actual disperal fields of all WTC showed evidence of large pieces having been thrown a relatively great distance.........something explosives could not have achived.

I think that is powerful evidence.

As the building falls, the downwards movement of the mass of the collapsing tower meets the resistance of the remaining structure. That force shatters the remaining structure, and gives the energy to send LARGE pieces flying off.

Explosives cannot do that. The pressure wave falls off very suddenly........but crucially - large pieces will not undergo large sidewards movements - as they would under kinetic/collapse destruction. Think how far you can flick a stick by bending it......? That's the idea.......and explosives cannot move large pieces like that.

But have I seen any of the actual evidence about the dispersal fields? No. So.....

the_last_name_left said...

missed a word.

it should read:

Mackey claims the dispersion fields are indicative not of explosive but of kinetic/collapsing force.........

Larry said...

Th only thing that contradicts symmetry is "asymmetry"---meaning NOT leveled--which could be a crumbling, or partial collapse. A LEAN is not in contradiction with "perfect symmetry".

AGAIN you CONVENIENTLY IGNORED my last post (last TWO posts now) about the South tower's LEAN and yet fell STRAIGHT DOWN. Hmmmmmm, I DO wonder why you keep IGNORING that, Mr Truth? Are you SCARED to address that? Of course you are!

You also IGNORED me saying that a LEAN actually gives more credence to the demolition view---but you found it unworthy to address that---and why would that be?????? let me guess....not enough time???? LOL

Larry said...

I'll post it AGAIN, because I realize your reading skills are very poor:

"In FACT, that is one of the VERY reasons I believe it was demolished, because the fact that it DID lean as it first collapsed means it should have just rubbed against the undamaged section and fell outward and away [or rolled off] from the tower---BUT, it didnt do that, did it? It leaned as it collapsed and then came crashing down on the undamaged section and leveled the rest of the building under it----even though it was LEANING. The fact that it had LEANED should have created less force and given the undamaged section more resistance---ESPECIALLY on the opposite side of the building. But yet the leaning section came down and crushed the WHOLE tower as if it hadnt leaned at all--with the same amount of force. Thats impossible!

The fact that these buildings LEANED and yet were STILL crushed completely is MORE evidence of demolition! So, in actuality, the leaning issue gives my views more credence!

You CONTINUALLY fail to comprehend that the NIST report said it was FIRE ALONE that caused the collapse. Although I find their report flawed---even THEY acknowledge it was NOT caused by debris---which is the stance you STILL trust in. Fire ALONE could not have caused the collapse PERIOD, let alone would have made the building weak on the lower floors of the south side---especially since we see no major fires in the bottom area of the South side in any of the pictures!"

Picture AGAIN of the south tower LEANING, yet still came STRAIGHT DOWN

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/
wtc2exp3.html

socrates said...

I'd like to commend both of you guys for acting like adults. It's a very sad topic to even contemplate. Even if it's never figured out what truly happened, there is a need for a good solid debate where each person's points are addressed. Maybe I can try to help out, but I've never really looked at the specifics. I do believe Bin Laden denied any involvement. I do believe he died a very long time ago. I do find it difficult to believe that outsiders could come into this country and get away with this. I am completely open-minded. One thing you should realise TLNL is that a lot of people have questions, not just nutjob websites like Rense.com. But uhm, that's all I wanted to say for now, that if each of you can keep your cool and treat the other with some respect, it could become an important and good read, and both of you will have another decent opportunity to advance the truth, whatever it truly is.

the_last_name_left said...

L: A LEAN is not in contradiction with "perfect symmetry".


Yes it is!

"Perfect symmetry" must be symmetry in ALL respects.

Else how is it "perfect"?

The building fell and leaned forward - towards its thinner and more damaged side.

NOT perfect symmetry.

L: AGAIN you CONVENIENTLY IGNORED my last post (last TWO posts now) about the South tower's LEAN and yet fell STRAIGHT DOWN.

I take it as a given that S Tower "leaned" before it collapsed. Ryan Mackey explains the process well..........

Once a mass of that magnitude starts moving, there are major forces at play. 12 ft per floor? What is the energy of a mass like that - 30 floors of WTC - falling down through 12ft onto the floor below? A lot, right?

What was it designed to withstand? The energy of 30 floors falling through 12 ft onto it? Hmmmm, I think not. There's the problem.

L: You also IGNORED me saying that a LEAN actually gives more credence to the demolition view

No - demolition rests upon "perfect symmetrical collapse".

Or does it rest on both - perfect symmetrical collapse, and errr.......random collapse?

So what's so definitive about your controlled demolition then?

Nothing, right?

the fact that it DID lean as it first collapsed means it should have just rubbed against the undamaged section and fell outward and away [or rolled off] from the tower---BUT, it didnt do that, did it? It leaned as it collapsed and then came crashing down on the undamaged section and leveled the rest of the building under it----even though it was LEANING. The fact that it had LEANED should have created less force and given the undamaged section more resistance---ESPECIALLY on the opposite side of the building. But yet the leaning section came down and crushed the WHOLE tower as if it hadnt leaned at all--with the same amount of force. Thats impossible!

Errr - no - you're wrong. At least it seems so, judging by a physics explanation of the forces at work.

A very tall building will not topple over, it will more likely totally collapse.

If one storey fell through 12ft likely the building would survive - but if half the building fell through 12ft onto the bottom halve of the building, it would destroy it.

Sure - as the falling part of the building tilted there would be a greater stress on the supports beneath the falling edge.........but as that meets resistance from the intact building.....it transfers the force to the opposite side, via a pivot presumably. That transfer sends the forces to the other side of the falling block........which breaks the supports beneath it, until it reaches a momentary resistance, whereby it transfers the forces back to the other (original) side of the fall.

And on the process goes - down to the bottom. As it must do - unless there is sufficient force to withstand the mass of the falling tower floors - which there wasn't.

Larry said...

"Sure - as the falling part of the building tilted there would be a greater stress on the supports beneath the falling edge.........but as that meets resistance from the intact building.....it transfers the force to the opposite side, via a pivot presumably. That transfer sends the forces to the other side of the falling block........which breaks the supports beneath it, until it reaches a momentary resistance, whereby it transfers the forces back to the other (original) side of the fall.

And on the process goes - down to the bottom. As it must do - unless there is sufficient force to withstand the mass of the falling tower floors - which there wasn't."

Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.

So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.

Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!

the_last_name_left said...

L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.

See my latest post.

It seems exactly what you ask for? Proof the core was still standing following the collapse....at least for a short-time afterwards.

You said it yourself - such a fact would be evidence against controlled demolition.

You now have that fact. :)

L: How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers???

Because it fell through 12 feet. That increases the force massively. It isn't the same as the static weight. The towers could support more than the force of the static weight of the top 30 floors - but not the force of those floors falling through 12 feet.

Watch the videos of the collapses again........particularly the initiation of collapse.

Collapse starts exactly at the point of the plane impacts - where the fires were greatest. TWICE - THE SAME PROCESS.

Once collapse is initiated, the top parts of each tower fall.....but they remain intact. Until they start to smash into the building underneath them.

Worth having a look at Ryan Mackey's model of the collapse, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

His mathematical model is simply to calculate the basic forces.......the forces downwards always exceed the resistance. That's because of the huge mass of the falling structure, being accelerated by gravity.

The simple explanation being "Try balancing a brick on your head - easy. Now lie on the floor, and let someone drop a brick on your head.......fractured skull."

That's the difference falling 6 feet makes to the forces at play.

Larry said...

See my post on your most recent post-----DEBUNKED. Oh and by the way, THIS is why I have to keep REPEATING things---you IGNORE them!

You didnt address this [in my last post] at ALL:

"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.

So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.

Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!"

I realize you have reading comprehension issues---if you can get someone else to read the above portion of my last post to you, I'd really like a response----AND a response to my latest refutation!

Larry said...

OK--I see my above post [from 2 posts ago] is going to be CONTINUALLY ignored. Easier to just ignore than to muster up a bullshit answer, huh?

Larry said...

and yet, STILL ignored. THis is from the same guy who claims I lie, lie, lie---yet he continually IGNORES questions. Hmmmmmm.

Larry said...

You commented in the other thread just this morning and I see you left this thread UNTOUCHED. I wonder why you cannot answer my post. What precedence do you base your critique on about how and why the towers fell????

I do wonder why you keep ignoring me. Hmmmmmm.

the_last_name_left said...

fuck off, arsehole.

Larry said...

"fuck off, arsehole."

BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT refutation. You should write a "debunking" book called "Fuck off arsehole". It can be page after page of truthers asking you BRILLIANT questions and your ONLY reply is "Fuck off arsehole".

I realize panic has set in because you cannot give me an answer to the question I asked 6 times that I had to re-post due to your reading comprehension defects. Is it because the webpage you copied and pasted your synopsis [of how the towers collapsed] did not offer the answer as to HOW THEY WOULD KNOW THAT SINCE A STEEL FRAMED HIGH RISE BUILDING HAS NEVER SUUFFERED A UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE BEFORE IN HISTORY, or is it because you have no brain to give me an answer on your own??

I say it's a little of both. This is EXACTLY why you wont debate me in real time. You would have NO time to run to a website and copy and paste your response. This is the VERY reason I see [on my sitemeter] that you visit my website WAY more often than you post comments. I suspect many, many times you come to my site---see my questions and then say "oh shit--how do I answer that?" and run off to a website a copy and paste and come back hours later and post your C & P answer.

How accurate is that?

the_last_name_left said...

not accurate at all. unsurprisingly.

now, fuck off, arsehole?

Larry said...

Yep, I'm WAYYYY off----but yet I have ZERO pictures from YOU of the WTC cores remaining standing after the dust and smoke cleared so we can CLEARLY see them. I have ZERO pictures from YOU of other examples of steel framed univeral collapses due to fire [you previously claimed the McCormick Center in Chicago in 1968 was an example---but it was NOT a universal collapse---I schooled you on that, that's why you have IGNORED EVERY SINGLE TIME I'VE MENTIONED IT since you gave me a INVALID link to it--LOL].

I have ZERO proof from YOU Willis Carto is associated with Alex Jones. You CONTINUALLY ignore my question to you about what precedence did you base the intricate details of the collapses of the towers on. You CONTINUALLY provide ZERO evidence for your claims and I constantly provide links, sources, evidence, names, dates---and you blow it off like its unimportant. You dodge, deflect, ignore my excellent points and questions---OVER and OVER. You omit giant chunks of my questions as to take them out of context and not ven address the MAJOR point of the question. And the fact that you resort to calling me "cunt" and saying "fuck off" continually is testiment to your extreme panic and lack of intelligence and debating skills.

I would DESTROY you in a live, real time debate. COMPLETELY DESTROY you---and you fucking KNOW IT! That's why you are chicken shit to debate me. YOU are afraid of ME---ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I love it.

by the way----why dont woodstoves melt?

Larry said...

My post above-----IGNORED......shocker!

ANOTHER reason youre too chicken shit to debate me real time---you wouldnt be able to IGNORE me and just walk away from the keyboard.

Larry said...

Ignored AGAIN! And I KNOW youve been to your site, because you replied to the other post---despite the fact that you are STILL ignoring questions. LOL

CHICKENSHIT

Larry said...

Why dont woodstoves melt?