MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC does not Collapse into its own Footprint
They simply tip over as we can see here:
Prof Kausel demonstrates buckling columns when spoorted along their length and unsupported along their length, and I am sure without realizing also proves that buckling columns tip over and do not fail straight down into the path of most resistance.
The debunkers claim that the columns were overloaded and buckled which as we can see causes the block to tip and it does not fall into the greatest path of resistance but instead, as expected, it tips and falls over as that is the path of least resistance.
Neither have debunkers shown how asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical failure.
Other debunkers claim that the columns all somehow (
by some unaccounted unknown force) became misaligned claiming that the joints are not strong enough to keep them aligned despite there was no known force to misalign so many columns but in all cases have not supported any of it with evidence.
So debunkers have contradictory theories both of which appear to be patently imagined on its face, however they deserve the benefit of a doubt and the opportunity to prove either or both theories.
That said Truthers would like to examine the 'evidence' debunkers have to support either or both of these claims and that would reasonably result in a tower falling into its own footprint.
Thats part 1.
Part 2 is if the floors collapsed they would simply break the connections all the way down that attached them to the columns both core and perimeter. The breaking connections if by overloading since they are cantilever mounted would tend to pull the perimeter inward, yet we see the perimeter columns being ejected several hundred feet when both the core and the columns are connected tubes and should have stayed connected and standing.
To the debunkers who would do anything and everything in their power to derail the points to be discussed in the OP, as they did in the previous thread with their red herring trash arguments
even after being told its intended meaning, the following definitions apply to this thread, the terms:
"In its own footprint" is defined as "
did not tip over" and are not subject of or to this debate
"Straight down" is defined as "
did not tip over" and are not subject of or to this debate
Any attempts to derail this thread with frivolous red herrings as was done in the previous thread will be reported.
rebuttals
