On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 21:56:35 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2017 12:12 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
The official excuse for WTC 7's symmetrical collapse is that the side of the building /not/ shown clearly in photos was "scooped out" by falling debris. (The photos I have seen do indicate substantial damage to the facade from falling debris.) This is not consistent with a symmetrical collapse as observed - the support columns destroyed by the "scoop" provided no vertical support, so the load was distributed unevenly and the building would have sagged in that direction when it lost global structural integrity.
I have watched videos of the collapse of WTC 7 frame by frame. It did not collapse symmetrically - it sagged on one side. Hence no need for any official excuse.
Funnily enough, even the government psychos clearly admit the nature of the collapse, whereas James takes the trouble to blatanly lie for them. "The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the façade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." "If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field " Oops. So the building imploded eh. But hey, whereas the government psychos do admit part of the truth so that their propaganda is more 'beliaveble', 'libertaraisns' like James lie through their teeth. Cute. Oh, here's the source.... https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf But hey, the real explanation is rayzer's "mud theory" and the evidence that James provided ("I watched it frame by frame" LMAO).
The building looked as if it had been chewed on by giant rats, with great big holes all over the place, and was on fire, hence its collapse is no great mystery.