Galaxian wrote:Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
[b
5) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell on to their own footprint, despite the fact that natural variability in inter-floor impact & failure would have given them a preferred lateral movement. :
O.k. on to number 5 -- I can go on until Galaxian wants to discuss any of these, rather than merely shutgun out cut and pastes from conspiracy websites and swallow them whole:
The answer here is that the towers fell exactly as one would expect if they fell from catastrophic injury to the buildings most of the way up their height. And, they did not fall at all like we would expect them to fall in a controlled demolition. I'll refer you to the video comparisons above of the WTC towers, and the Hudson's building in Detroit.
In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary. The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?
Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building. Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition.
So, Galaxian, do you still maintain that the towers would not have fallen like they did if they were damaged the way they were? On what basis?
Let's look at it this way - if the towers would have fallen differently if hit by planes sufficient to knock out the supports of the upper floors at the height of the impacts in these cases, what would have happened? Would they have "tipped over?" If you think that, are you sure about your physics? Have you seen any calculations based on the weight of the buildings, the force of gravity, etc.?
And, let me ask you this from a conceptual standpoint - let's assume you are correct, and that buildings hit by airplanes would have not fallen like they did but would have been a lot messier or have fallen "laterally." Why would the government conspirators engaged in that inside job care? They're already blowing up the two towers and building 7 - who would care if a few of the neighboring buildings got damaged in the process, right? In fact, it would have been BETTER for them because the more damage done, the more political capital gained from the event, right? What possible need would there be to to further complicate the conspiracy to prevent damage to areas surrounding the WTC buildings 1 and 2?
