Dr. Strangelove wrote:Junius wrote:Thanks for that, Strangelove! Entertaining, but hardly follows -- now why don't you use that big brain to take a crack at my three (slightly revised) claims:
1. WTC 7 collapsed floor by floor along a vertical axis into it's own 'footprint'.
2. WTC 7 collapsed in just over 6 seconds, approaching free-fall speed.
3. WTC 7's roof bears a 'crimp' just prior to collapse.
I hope you do reply, I'd like to know what you think.
I am not a structural engineer but everything I remember from physics for scientists and engineers, thermodynamics, and strength of materials would point exactly towards that structure falling the way it did. You have to consider the enormous potential energy represented by these structures. Their core frames are designed to align that potential energy along vertical axes rather than vector out in all directions. It certainly would be possible to build structures like that. Like Bucky ball buildings or something. But humans seem to have chosen this vertical structure for a lot of reasons -- the fact that everything that goes up at some point must come down being chief among them.
And don't get me wrong. I will listen to your conspiracy theories. Just don't be mad if I point out the problems.
Your chief problem here is that the potential energy turned kinetic and you have no external force to change that vector to anywhere but towards the center of the Earth. It is just physics. For the building to collapse in another way, you would need either an external force vector of approximately the same magnitude as gravity OR you would need a structure designed to fall sideways by purposely building it with a stronger superstructure to one side. Even in that latter case, the part of the structure that falls would slump. To make the whole thing topple, you would need a particular dynamic that is HIGHLY improbable.
In fact, you have this backwards. It would be suspect had the buildings not fallen the way they did.
Okay, I guess maybe I'm assuming you know more about the alleged reasons for the building's collapse. Do you see any problems with that explanation?
Maybe I'm just not understanding your points in the form that you've put them. Are you claiming that WTC 7 came straight down because it was built vertically?
Wouldn't we need to also take into consideration the alleged reasons for the collapse? I mean the same building would collapse in a different ways if it were leveled in an earthquake as opposed to being leveled by a tsunami, let's say.