Not freefall collapse, and not 'into their own footprint'.
The towers
The debris is freefalling. It is closer to the ground than the collapse zone - therefore the collapse zone could not have been at freefall. Note that the horizontal velocity of any debris has no effect of slowing freefall - it falls at freefall regardless of any horizontal speed.
WTC7:
A leaning collapse - therefore not symmetrical, not into it's own footprint and not at freefall. Else there could be no lean.
A leaning collapse - therefore not symmetrical, not into it's own footprint and not at freefall. Else there could be no lean.
It's so self-evidently true that the collapses were not at freefall and not within their own footprint. It's now difficult to understand how the meme ever got started.
More here and here and here
33 comments:
Hey dipshit. Truthers claiming building 7's fall was symmetrical is not even the main point. Whether it was NOT symmetrical does not disprove anything, because MOST actual controlled demolitions are NOT symmetrical, but they ARE freefall speed. Even NIST admitted that wtc 7's collapse was near freefall.
If YOUR theory was TRUE and the building collapsed due to fires, etc...that means there would have been RESISTANCE in the areas NOT DAMAGED by fire, and being that it fell downward very fast, that means there had to be EQUAL weakness ALL AROUND THE BUILDING for it to fall in 6 seconds.
Why did it LEAN, if it was damaged 'equally all round'?
[What's the difference between symmetrical and "equal all round"?]
I meant to say:
"If YOUR theory was TRUE and the building collapsed due to fires, etc...that means there would have been NO RESISTANCE in the areas NOT DAMAGED by fire"...
So, tell me asslicker, how does a building provide NO RESISTANCE in an UNDAMAGED area?
"Why did it LEAN, if it was damaged 'equally all round'?"
The EXACT same way MOST controlled demolitions lean even when the entire building is rigged with explosives.
Here's one that shows leaning:
http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=Buseb-Gqyes
These show leans too:
http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=Xv3E_sS815Q&feature=related
I can show you more and more. The leaning aspect of a collapse doesn't debunk anything. Yes I have made comments in the past that the collapse was symmetrical---but whether symmetrical or NOT doesn't disprove controlled demolition--as evidenced by the videos I just posted.
So, why on Earth do you keep trying to debunk the lean theory when that doesnt even matter? It just makes you look silly.
It's the equivalent of you trying to debunk whether or not a man has died from gunshot wounds by how the man fell after getting shot. Complete insanity.
Well, proving the asymmetry of WTC7 collapse undermines a number of claims:
1) that WTC7 fell into 'its own footprint"
2) that WTC7 fell at freefall
3) that it was symmetrical....or put another way.....that it must have been equally damaged all around somehow.
Leaning undermines all of those claims, and they're the claims most repeatedly made and upon which (supposedly) rests the notion of collapse.
Here's a question for Troofers -
what was the last serious advance in their effort to provide evidence for conspiracy?
You know, what was the last real success, the last real thing they revealed of any worth? [And more widely, what of ANY worth at all have they ever revealed? Nothing? It's all other peoples' work, isn't it? And which they fashion into some conspiro narrative, yes?]
"Well, proving the asymmetry of WTC7 collapse undermines a number of claims:
1) that WTC7 fell into 'its own footprint""
Although the aerial pictures of the rubble DOES show the building in its own footprint!!
"2) that WTC7 fell at freefall"
I just just got down posting a long post showing that ASYMMETRICAL collapses do NOT mean it's NOT free fall. I just posted TWO videos that show ASYMMETRICAL collapses of actual demolitions that had LEANS! And you just REPEAT the same bullshit.
"3) that it was symmetrical....or put another way.....that it must have been equally damaged all around somehow."
And I guess you IGNORED me saying this:
"The leaning aspect of a collapse doesn't debunk anything. Yes I have made comments in the past that the collapse was symmetrical---but whether symmetrical or NOT doesn't disprove controlled demolition--as evidenced by the videos I just posted.
So, why on Earth do you keep trying to debunk the lean theory when that doesnt even matter? It just makes you look silly.
It's the equivalent of you trying to debunk whether or not a man has died from gunshot wounds by how the man fell after getting shot. Complete insanity."
NUTTER!
if it's all freefalling, why does it lean?
"if it's all freefalling, why does it lean?"
OH BROTHER!!!!!
FREE FALLING is NOT the opposite of LEANING. Like I provided links to videos of buildings that show LEANS but they are actual controlled demolitions where the buildings ARE falling free fall.
A LEANING building is not the antithesis of FREE FALL.
Fucking MORON.
why is it leaning if it is all falling at the same rate, L??
"why is it leaning if it is all falling at the same rate, L??"
"same rate" is NOT the same thing as "free fall" which is what you said earlier! Now you CHANGE your term to "rate".
LEANING is not the antithesis of FREE FALL. Even if it fell over, like a cut down tree, it could STILL be FREE FALL. A lean does not subtract from the meaning of FREE FALL.
So, no answer to why it is leaning.
Yes, I know, it **could** lean and yet all be falling at the same rate.
However - and here's the critical part - if it is all falling at the same rate whilst leaning - it means at some stage in the collapse, some parts fell BEFORE others.....
OR, some parts fell more quickly than others. Which means there was resistance somewhere, or a progressive collapse.
The lean is impossible if the building suffered all round catastrophic failure (as is suggested by conspiros) or if it (all) fell at freefall. (also suggested by conspiros)
Neither condition can be true - because of the lean.
Prisonplanet, for example claim that:
"What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse..."
http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm
--------
It was NOT perfectly symmetrical. That much is obvious.
But here's what infowars claim:
"Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity."
---------
Perfectly symmetrical - wrong
Into its own footprint - wrong
No resistance - wrong
-----
Why did it lean if there was no resistance?
How could it lean southwards and yet fall into its own footprint?
How could it be perfectly symmetrical if there was a lean?
The lean proves that
--- the collapse could not be at freefall and without resistance - there could be no lean if that was the case.
IF the building fell at freefall and without resistance, there is no way for a lean to occur.
A lean means part of the building is collapsing more quickly than others (proving some resistance somewhere) - or that some parts collapsed before others - proving it wasn't a simultaneous all-round failure (as you used to like to claim).
If the collapse was symmetrical and at freefall speed it would have to progress in such fashon the top remained horizontal - because it started horizontal.
If all the same conditions are experienced by all the parts of the building it would remain horizontal as it fell.
But clearly there was a distinct lean - southwards - therefore non-horizontal.
Therefore it is impossible that all parts of the building experienced identical conditions of no-resistance / freefall.
So, not symmetrical, not freefall, not into own-footprint.
It's none of the things Troofers have always put forwards as reasons justifying their belief it was a controlled demolition.
Unfounded belief.
BTW - claiming it fell at freefall is saying it all fell at the same rate - freefall. If it wasn't falling at the same rate, it can't (all) have been falling at freefall. If it wasn't all falling at freefall, there must have been resistance.
You used to claim the symmetrical fall at freefall could only be achieved by controlled demolition.
Yet the lean proves that it wasn't symmetrical and that there was resistance - not freefall.
The conditions you gave for positing demolition did not exist - the lean proves it.
Does that change your view any? No.
So, the actual evidence isn't what you're following.....you are following your belief, and then looking for the evidence to support it.
That's been the entire story about 911 Troof. That's why the claims have changed.....why the focus shifted from Towers to WTC7.....why 'super de dooper nanothermite' was introduced....etc
It's looking for evidence to support a hypothesis. It isn't a hypothesis formed upon the evidence. It's prone to cherry-picking, the field of 911 Troof's greatest accomplishment - intellectual dishonesty. They have taken it to new and remarkable levels. Well done.
Not freefall.
Not into own footprint.
Have you ever worked in a warehouse, or somewhere they stack things?
Every item (and shelf) has a stacking limit - beyond which the stack will crush itself. It doesn't have to get very high before this happens, either. And it can happen randomly, on stacks obeying guidelines. It's something that makes warehouses (and shipping-container yards) dangerous.
Just something to keep in mind when considering the forces involved in hi-rise buildings. That's all.
The idea that skyscrapers are invulnerable to fire and collapse a la Truthers is something the builders of skyscrapers and their owners must really appreciate.
I wouldn't go in any anymore.
"OR, some parts fell more quickly than others. Which means there was resistance somewhere, or a progressive collapse."
Which does NOT disprove controlled demolition. The videos I posted show leans and are actual CD's.
So, what's your point?
If anything, you are proving it CAN be a CD by pointing out a lean, because actual LEGAL CD's have leans, showcased in the vids I posted.
So, thank you.
I wasn't buying RTO's argument until he called you an asslicker. That settled the debate for me. TLBL, you never refuted his claim of asslicking. How can we take the rest of your argument seriously?
well, tbh I have licked arses in my time - in bed, you know how it goes.....
Howdy dreamsend333
@RTO/Larry - one is left wondering why you are so convinced of CD.
You're allowed to believe it, of course. You can believe whatever you like. Whether there is any good reason for you (or anyone else) to believe it is another matter.
It seems we are just back to what started it all - an unfounded **belief** that the collapses could not have happened without explosives, or some such external intervention.
Freefall was supposed to signify collapse. But it wasn't freefall at any of the 3 sites - demonstrably so and without any calculation required.
Symmetry was supposed to signify collapse. But there wasn't the symmetry.
Into its own footprint was supposed to signify CD - yet none of the collapses were into the building's own footprint.
etc.
So, we're left to wonder why anyone believes it was CD. You're allowed to believe it.....the important thing is WHY you (or anyone else) would - as there is no evidence for it. After 10 years......
L: Even NIST admitted that wtc 7's collapse was near freefall.
=========
And.......?
"L: Even NIST admitted that wtc 7's collapse was near freefall.
=========
And.......?"
YOU said it WASN'T freefall. NIST DISAGREES with you, and they put out the official report on it, and you DEFEND the official report. You can't pick and choose what part of the official report you want to accept. It's either all or none.
DICK
YOU said it WASN'T freefall.
-----------
I did.
---
NIST DISAGREES with you
---
They don't.
----
L: Even NIST admitted that wtc 7's collapse was near freefall.
----
See.
Near freefall is near freefall - not freefall.
A gravity driven collapse is going to be near freefall - by definition. If a collapse diverges from freefall by a certain amount X - it will stop. That has to be a narrow margin.
The point is, X is very small - and any collapse within the boundary of X will be near freefall. By definition.
NEAR. NEAR FREEFALL. But not freefall.
How could a gravity driven collapse progress over days or even hours?
Impossible. If there's resistance sufficient to prevent collapse at moment 1, then there is resistance to prevent collapse at moment 2, ad infinitum.
A gravity driven collapse would be near freefall.......near the rate of acceleration due to gravity. The rate the falling DEBRIS went at - just a bit quicker than the collapse zone.
You haven't done the least thing to indicate controlled demolition by holding to NIST recognition of NEAR freefall collapse.
"Near freefall is near freefall - not freefall."
Even ACTUAL, LEGAL controlled demolitions are NEAR freefall---because it can ONLY be 100% freefall if absolutely NOTHING was providing ANY resistance at all--like me dropping a brick from a building through just air. NO controlled demolitions will be 100% free fall because ALL of them have resistence in the way---bricks, windows, steel, concrete, etc...
So, what the fuck is your point???
Even if NIST put out a report on a LEGAL controlled demolition, they would say it was NEAR freefall.
Your point asshole???????
Now it wasn't freefall......now even CD wouldn't be freefall.
Then why suggest demolition in the first place?
TELL US? There's no answer. Fine.
here's RTO aka Larry writing back in August 2010
=====
......the old, tiresome, debunked issues, like: WTC 7 did not fall in freefall time; WTC 7’s collapse was not symmetrical [oh really?]; WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint;
=========
In Aug 2010 you were claiming
1) freefall
2) symmetrical
3) own footprint
But now you claim
1) NIST said near freefall - ie NOT FREEFALL
2) symmetry is "not the point"
3) the building leaned, so couldn't have fallen into it's own footprint.
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.......WHICH YOU NO LONGER SUPPORT
Larry aka RTO Sept 2010:
=======
"...collapsed in it's own footprint completely symmetrically just like a demolition"
--------
Now though, in Sept 2011 Larry refutes those facts - he no longer believes WTC collapses were
1) into its own footprint
2) completely symmetrical
Now here's the rub: if falling into its own footprint and being symmetrical are "just like a demolition" then NOT doing those things is NOT like a demolition.
You said those things were like a demolition, and that's why you believed it was a demolition.
Now you say it wasn't those things.....but you still believe it was a demolition. lol.
Larry back in 2007:
"This building fell COMPLETELY symetrically and LEVELED---meaning ALL 4 sides AND the central core were taken out by explosives! "
------------
Well.......clearly it wasn't symmetrical nor LEVEL
So, adapting your reasoning with the correct info we can rewrite your claim thus: "This building DID NOT fall COMPLETELY symetrically NOR LEVEL...meaning NOT ALL 4 sides and the core were taken out with explosives."
Published at RTO:
"...fire cannot weaken or melt steel to the point where a building collapses at free fall speed into its own footprint, without the aid of explosives."
=======
Well, as the buildings did not collapse at freefall, nor into their own footprint, there's no need to posit explosives. Doh!
Published at RTO:
"....collapsed in it's own footprint completely symmetrically just like a demolition"
===============
Not symmetrical.
Not into its own footprint.
So not just like a demolition then.........
Oh and no apostrophe needed in a possessive "its" btw.
Here's RTO writing in 2009
-------
...any scientist can tell you that if a building falls STRAIGHT down, that means the columns and steel underneath has to be taken out from under it symmetrically----and especially for a free fall speed collapse!
========
But it wasn't symmetric, nor was it freefall.
again from 2009, here's LArry AKA RTO:
----
we all [with brains] know that buildings do not universally collapse into their own footprint
=====
None of the WTC buildings did.
And here's LArry again, 2009:
==========
ANY scientist will tell you that in order for a building to collapse [in a freefall symmetrical universal way] the bottom has to be completely weakened ALL the way around the building [leveled at the EXACT same time]. If a building collapses but its damage is not completely leveled, it will slump over....
===========
TADA!!!!!!!! You had the answer, but you missed it.....because you refuse to believe it. You want to believe differently. So be it.
The building DID lean as it collapsed.
Larry, 2009:
------
Tell me Sherlock, how does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall....in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have their full strength and are intact??
======
TADA!!!!
It wasn't symmetrical.
It wasn't freefall.
It wasn't into its own footprint.
So, Sherlock......reassess your position.
"1) NIST said near freefall - ie NOT FREEFALL
2) symmetry is "not the point"
3) the building leaned, so couldn't have fallen into it's own footprint."
I NEVER said 100% FREEFALL, because 100% FREEFALL is impossible. 100% FREEFALL is whe NOTHING AT ALL is in a building's path in a collapse----in other words ZERO resistence.
I agree with #2. Symmetry is NOT the point in the issue of whether it was a CD---as I have PROVEN in vids I posted, MOST LEGAL CD's have LEANING BUILDINGS. ASSHOLE. Stop regurgitating things I ALREADY addressed!
Building 7 WAS in its own footprint as evidenced by the AERIAL PICTURES of it AFTER collapse.
hahahahah
BRILLIANT comeback, you piece of horse shit.
You VALUE the words of cops and firefighters when they say things YOU agree with, but when they claim molten steel was in the rubble, you give them the finger and call them liars.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.
The word of cops and firefighters on the scene are worth something. There's no reason to assume they are unquestionably right nor honest. But, you know......when experienced firefighters say a certain building was 'fully involved' then.....it takes some rebutting. And that's what 911 Truth has never produced - that sort of strength of evidence. It simply hasn't.
The choice of Bentham over a proper journal is typical of the entire endeavour, and that affair is supposed to be Troof at its most elevated level. That was supposed to be Troofy Academics.....and god what a failure.
Troofyness likes to believe it holds to higher than normal standards. But it can't make first base.
If you can't recognise the failure of it all then you're blinded by .... something. 911, I suppose.
If there was good evidence it would be.....there. It isn't.
I find it very difficult to now see how anyone could fail to recognise the paucity of evidence for grand conspiracy.
I find it even more difficult to understand how anyone who knows anything about this so-called Truth Movement isn't disturbed and offended by what they see. Garbage in, garbage out......
Post a Comment