To believe three large buildings collapsed perfectly symmetrically into their own footprints on the same day and within hours of each other really does seem crazy to me. Those kinds of collapses are unheard of except in cases of controlled demolitions. Yet we're supposed to believe that type of unheard of collapse took place three times on the same day and within hours of each other? That's just not possible. So call me a 'Crazy Twoofer",but i still believe the Government's story on 911 is an awful conspiratorial deception.
bullshit! :The “symmetry of collapse” argument (in the September 2007 slide show)
I’ll now look at a portion of Nobles’s review of the older (September 2007) version of the slideshow dealing with the “Straight Down Symmetrical Collapse” argument.
# 020 – “Straight Down Symmetrical Collapse” Orientation
Nobles says:
This slide is headlined: “Straight Down Symmetrical Collapse with all Columns Cut at Once.”
What a foolish claim for GageÂ’s first point. All I have to do is show that all columns were not cut at once, and the point is denied.
It is true that the core columns failed before the perimeter columns. However, Gage could correct this simply by changing “all columns cut at once” to “all perimter columns (except a few damaged earlier) cut at once.” If the outer wall of a building is falling more-or-less straight down, as a single unit, then, clearly, all the perimeter columns (except the few that were broken earlier) are all breaking at once.
But I can do better than that, and you would expect me to. The collapse didnÂ’t happen symmetrically, not at all.
It didnÂ’t quite go straight down, either. Yes, there are many videos that make it appear to have done so. It is one of the more remarkable features of this collapse that during the last stage of its progressive collapse, it dropped down in some ways similar to a controlled demolition.
But there is an explanation for this. Because of the immense size of 7 World Trade, it could have done very little else. Without a sufficient amount of resistance below, the mass of 7 World Trade could go nowhere else but as straight down as possible.
And no such resistance would have been found in the lower structure of the building. Even without the damage done by the falling debris of the North Tower and the failure of a crucial core column, the buildingÂ’s structure could not have resisted the momentum of the building falling.
IÂ’ve seen it claimed elsewhere that a falling skyscraper canÂ’t tilt, for the above reason. However, letÂ’s look at the the worldÂ’s only other examples of falling skyscrapers: the Twin Towers. The top 30 floors of WTC 2, tall enough to qualify as a skyscraper in its own right, did tilt over quite a bit, more than 20 degrees, at the very beginning of its fall.
Furthermore, the global collapse of WTC 7 started at the bottom. That being the case, the fulcrum for any tilt was the ground beneath WTC 7, a much better fulcrum than the bottom part of WTC 2. So, I see no reason why WTC 7 couldnÂ’t have tilted quite a bit at the beginning of the global collapse.
Of course, once the collapse of the outer wall picked up sufficient momentum, that momentum indeed would, then, overwhelm any gravitationally-induced torque, so the building would not topple all the way over like a tree. But it seems to me that it could tilt pretty far during the first couple of seconds or so of the global collapse, as the top part of WTC 2 did.
Admittedly, I’m not sure exactly how far WTC 7 should reasonably have been expected to lean, if indeed the collapse was purely “natural.” And the video which I’ve referred to as the “northeast video” (in my blog post Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?, and in comments below my earlier post Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew) does show a greater lean than I was previously aware of before seeing that video.
Richard Gage
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNM-YRaE9gQ]WCBS Raw Tape, NIST FOIA release 25, 42A0116 - G25D26 - YouTube[/ame]
