Yes.
See how easy that was? Try it yourself.
Symmetric or not?
Yes.
See how easy that was? Try it yourself.
Symmetric or not?
its a demolition, how many more times do you want the same answer hannibal
So? Is it symmetrical in its collapse or not? Does symmetry have no meaning for you outside of the WTC buildings and chairs?
Ah, but a chair is! Comparable to a natural collapse of a building... No, that didn't fly the first time.
At this point - for all you know - I believe that all three towers were taken down by preplanted devices. Where have I said otherwise?
or is pretending "Poeing".
Mine on a different "both". :roll:
The objective is not discussion - it's chain jerking. So anything goes and the more nonsensical the better to serve the purpose provided the "victim"/opponent keeps feeding his ego.
Of course. Neither has "free fall". Neither has "in its footprint". Neither has (fill in the canards I cannot remember at this time after a long day.)
Yes BUT...
opcorn2:
<< In order to remove a piece of each specific selected column. NOT to tilt the building. However:
Guess what - cutting columns biased towards one side will tend to tilt the upper bit to that side.
Symmetry as an issue mostly arises in the context of truth movement claims for CD. They use it opportunistically either way to imply something the want to claim - when in reality it does no such thing.
Why chase him down the hole he wants to dig?
This is so true. Continued engagement feeds the ego. Disengagement permits hollow declaration of victory. It's a win-win situation for the chain-jerker, at least in their eyes.
opcorn2: opcorn2:Correct and I should've made that clear. If indeed those are so-called kicker charges (which they may or may not be) as opposed to cutters, their purpose would be to displace the columns to the side, effecting asymmetric damage to the framework (one thing) via an asymmetric action (another thing). The same basic globally asymmetric damage could be achieved with cutter charges only on one side.
Oh ****, I hit reply before reading. Yes. When support is lost on one side, it leans that way. Doesn't mean it's going to topple, or topple exclusively. At some point, with some structures, the descent outpaces the rotation.
To spray the nest.
You are assuming that "they" (not just this example) are interested in truth and/or physics AKA engineering forensics. They aren't and they cannot discuss it at a level "we" would appreciate even if they were
Why the surprise. Few truthers can think - remember that is why many of them became truthers. So far you are the only person with whom I have enlarged on those "Twin Hypotheses" and "in another place". Certainly the ones we see here CANNOT do it. And you have had a privileged experience working elsewhere with some high grade genuine truthers. Don't expect that quality on other forums. :roll:
For some structures, it's not possible for viable load paths to ever develop. For others, it's just the opposite. With the repetitive, tight close-celled structures of diminutive apartment buildings, practically every orientation gives a self-supporting load path. If you see a building roll over onto its roof and survive, then it's true by definition. If the top half of the Balzac Vitry building were displaced a meter laterally, it would in all likelihood just stand there. Condemned, but self-supporting.
They should be. With all the talk about laws of physics you'd think they'd have a degree... you know, by now, if not beforehand. That's a funny thing about 9/11; a couple of planes crash into buildings and somehow thousands of physics and engineering degrees get conferred overnight to random people who never actually bothered taking a course. They were born knowing it, but it took 9/11 to bring out their inner Einstein.
Taking said counsel, again, for the time being.