Quote:
Sorry, but there is nothing here that even hints at a controlled emolition.
Could it be any more obvious that he has no plans whatsoever to be reasonable? If you have ever seen *any* controlled demolition you will see that all of the WTC buildings collapses look like one. He's got one thing going for him though, I've ever seen a controlled demolition look quite as perfect as WTC7 falling. But hey, that's my idea of perfect, not a demolitionist. It's dangerous to let the entire building fall straight down. It's safer to pull it into the center. But saying this looks nothing like a controlled demolition is flat out fucking asinine.
Quote:
Yes, they do. Everything that fails catastrophically collapses at free fall speed. This is the result of a “Law of Nature” called universal gravitation. Otherwise it is not considered a "catastrophic failure." It would instead be a "progressive collapse."
That is not the definition of catastrophic failure, but he's making progress and filling peoples heads with misconceptions. But he is making the assumption that every single building that fails catastrophically falls straight down into it's footprint at free fall speed? If that were the case, we wouldn't have such thing as controlled demolitions.
Examples of buildings don't doing this nonsense that he is suggesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2h8qZRhekshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=217FEAWgfMAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0C1IGSMNkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RMhttp://www.affordablehousinginstitute.o ... _small.jpghttp://www.insurancebroadcasting.com/082806-p10.jpg(no thorough research here. Just quick youtubing)
I guess those aren't catastrophic failures? These are progressive collapses? If buildings were so weak that they would fall from part of the upper NON FOUNDATIONAL SUPPORT sections of the building failing, then the building wouldn't stand in the first place. The first high winds would probably collapse it. And no, it wouldn't fall into it's footprint like mr 6th grade engineer is talking about. It would tip over. Anyhow I can't wait to hear someone explaining away these examples as not part of the very clearly intentionally unqualified statement he repeated in bold red letters later in his post.
Quote:
Sadly for you however, WTC 7 was not one of them. It was in progressive failure for more than two hours before its final collapse. That was why we were able to get all the firefighters out in time.
Ok this makes zero sense. I doubt this person is even an engineer, but honestly, being an engineer doesn't really mean anything. Being a particular kind of engineer can though.
Is he honestly suggesting that the fire fighters knew the building was collapsing and we sent fire fighters into a collapsing building? Fire fighters are ont in the habit of going into progressively collapsing buildings. If he honestly wants to come back and say "no no, I mean that is why the building didn't collapse on them," then what is the fucking point? Couldn't you just say "that is why we were able to evacuate the buildings" in the first place?
Quote:
Further, the final collapse commenced some 8 seconds prior to the fall of the building seen here. This can be seen in the other angles where the East Penthouse collapses into the building long before the rest of the building goes. That eight seconds accounts for the time necessary for the penthouse debris to fall to the 5th floor (which was designed differently from all the floors above because WTC7 was built on a preexisting power substation) and vector the vertical wave horizontally, blowing out the other support beams at that level.
LOL
Do I seriously have to respond to that?
The final collapse... LOL
Quote:
Further... how exactly has anyone calculated a "free fall speed" from these films? You cannot even see the ground level. How would anyone have been able to count how long the collapse took?
For 1, we know how tall the floors are, how tall the building is, and honestly don't even need to know where the ground is to see that the floors are falling at *NEAR* free fall speed. But even given that, we can still estimate where the ground is AND we have the seismic data.
Again, SEISMIC DATA.
Quote:
Again, none of those three buildings collapsed in a “free fall”. All three buildings suffer progressive collapse followed by a final catastrophic failure. All took longer than free fall time to complete their collapses.
Ok first off, the person was saying that steel buildings have never even collapse from fire. Not to fell into their footprints because of fire, or as quickly as these. He is dodging the question. But he is also just being repetitious about the buildings not falling straight down at free fall speed just like they were demolished. Show him a controlled demolition and ask if it looks like free fall speed. He would only be able to say, the buildings fell progressively and then suffered catastrophic failure. LOL. Really, catastrophic failure just isn't the term he is abusing it to be. Too much pride here I think.
Quote:
1) The collapses do not commence from the top of the WTC towers 1&2, but from the points of impact. So that is the height from which the collapses must be measured. Not the full height of the towers.
This is utter nonsense. You can clearly see the top of the building turning into debris as it falls to the point of impact. He's suggesting that the top of the building fell, destroyed itself all at the point of impact, then the rest of the building start falling straight down. That is more than ridiculous. That is clearly wrong.
Quote:
2) The last several seconds of the collapses are completely obscured by smoke, dust and the debris cloud. There is no obvious place to stop counting.
Seismic data.
Quote:
The seismic evidence is a more accurate way of measuring the speed of the collapses. Guess what?
No “free fall.”
The seismic data does suggest freefall. But he is cleverly discounting it eh?
Quote:
And here is the most stunning display of your total ignorance regarding engineering. I will put this in bold and red so it is easy to read:
It is physically impossible for buildings that size to collapse in any way other than straight down into their footprints.
Seriously do I have to tell you how stupid this guy is or can I just let it go this time? What does "that size" mean? The taller a building is, the more structurally sound it has to be. You can't just stack shit up and pray. If anything the building would fall apart in pieces. Not straight down. No one designs buildings to fall straight into their footprints because who wants to be in a building that is designed to give you absolutely no chance whatsoever if there is a catastrophe? Who would insure this?
Quote:
For them to have done otherwise would violated the laws of physics.
Aww
someone just doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Quote:
As to the small explosions, they are merely windows blowing out caused by the pressure from above. It's like sitting on a balloon until it breaks. No explosives necessary.
What a retarded analogy. So the windows are being blow out, with debris, just like squibs.. OH THAT MUST BE COINCIDENCE RIGHT THERE!
Quote:
I would love to go further into details regarding the idiocy of even attempting the sort of controlled demolition that would have been necessary to recreate what we actually saw that day. Are you up to it?
Like this guy knows what the definition of details is.
,
