In the Metro Section of the May 30, 2007 New York Times, in Jim Dwyer’s column “A notion from 9/11 is kept alive”, he has deluded himself into thinking that he has debunked alternate theories regarding WTC 7. He writes in his column, “...a comprehensive study by Popular Mechanics magazine concluded that along the bottom 10 floors, a quarter of the south face was knocked away.”
If the south part of the building had “a quarter of the south face” of the building knocked out, then the building would topple over, not collapse straight down into its own base. (The website whatreallyhappened.com first pointed this out)
There is a website that is dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, and it does the same thing. In attempt to disprove those who say not much damage was done to the WTC 7 building, it unwittingly goes on to reveal a flaw in the “official” explanation of why the building collapsed. ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html ) The website repeatedly makes reference to the damage on the south side of the building. There is a quote from Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years), “...at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.”
Would a building that was heavily damaged on one side collapse straight down into its base or would it topple over?
Here is a compilation of video clips showing WTC 7 collapsing
"Would a building that was heavily damaged on one side collapse straight down into its base or would it topple over?"
ReplyDeleteI guess that depends on whether its structural support came from the walls or the core. I guess that depends on whether three load bearing walls would be sufficient to keep it standing. I guess you'd better ask someone qualified to hold an opinion on the subject.
Grumpy
Hello Grumpy,
ReplyDeleteSo why didn't the 9/11 Commission Report mention the collapse of WTC 7, that way we could have gotten some expert opinion about it?