Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Yes....but I would not describe that as "smelling a rat". It is a publicly and well-acknowledged fact that there was so much foreknowledge about a major incident (quite possibly involving aeroplanes), that the FBI simply could not sort the wheat from the chaff.

I stated that I believed that some people profited from this.

I understand

I understood your posts about pre knowledge as "letting it happen"


I was wrong

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

But have it your way, koman. You and Chomsky are obviously simply in the game of ad hominem attack, simply in the game of dis-information.

Now that is especially funny coming from you.......

I hit the nail on the head.

You have never hit a nail on the head in your entire life.....you probably would not recognize a nail that was begging to be hit.....

You're still playing the ad hominem game,...

Not at all, that's your game. I just join in every once in a while......

The difference is : ENT talks nonsense, trolls and projects, whereas as far as I can see, your posts in this thread are sensible, well-balanced and level-headed.

Originally Posted by koman

You keep referring to lies....what lies? I made one statement about the Hamburg cell which was technically incorrect....actually just poorly worded. I admitted to that and corrected it......how is that a lie?

.

Still digging

Are you related to Piwanoi ?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The difference is : ENT talks nonsense, trolls and projects, whereas as far as I can see, your posts in this thread are sensible, well-balanced and level-headed.

^^

Still waiting for your answer to my question, ENT

Perhaps I should just put those words in my signature

World Trade Center Bldg. 7’s Controlled Demolition:

9/11 Consensus Panel Releases New Evidence from Witness Testimonies and Architectural Drawings on JUNE 2, 2014

The 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel – which includes physicists, chemists, engineers, commercial pilots, attorneys and lawyers – today announced three new studies confirming the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7.

The studies scientifically refute the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claim that, for the first time in history, fire caused the sudden and complete collapse of a large, fire-protected, steel-framed building on 9/11.

(Note that whereas the Consensus Panel uses a scientific methodology to peer-review its work, the NIST report was not peer-reviewed.)

The first Panel study deals with the NIST computer simulations, which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-storey building at 5:21 in the afternoon.

However, a recent FOIA request has produced WTC 7 architectural drawings showing that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.

The second Consensus Panel study deals with NIST’s claim that it did not recover any steel from this massive steel-frame skyscraper.

This is extraordinary, given the need to understand why a steel-frame building would have completely collapsed for the first time in history from fire alone, and to thereby prevent a recurrence.

We know now that some of the steel was recovered. Photographs recently obtained by researchers show the strange curled-up paper-thin WTC 7 steel, with a NIST investigator pointing it out.

The third Panel study shows that on September 11, 2001, many people were told hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next.”

Many members of the New York Fire Department were confidently waiting for the building to come down:

Firefighter Thomas Donato: “We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”

Assistant Commissioner James Drury: “I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to — they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”

Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”

In addition, CNN and the BBC made premature announcements.

This foreknowledge corroborates the evidence presented in previous Consensus Points (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Press Release: World Trade Center Bldg. 7

Oh....right. They decided to demolish it, and told everyone hours beforehand. Then denied it vehemently afterwards.

Brilliant. They say that 1 in 20 people has a mental illness, so I guess the panel must be made up from people like this. They do tend to gravitate together.


What happened is this : hours in advance, they saw the high likelihood of it's collapse...and warned many people. Then it collapsed, just as they said.
Then they denied the looney accusations of demolition.



Still waiting for your answer, ENT.

Originally Posted by helge

Originally Posted by koman

You keep referring to lies....what lies? I made one statement about the Hamburg cell which was technically incorrect....actually just poorly worded. I admitted to that and corrected it......how is that a lie?

.

Still digging

Are you related to Piwanoi ?

Err..no, I'm asking you to point out this lie you keep talking about.

Oh and no, I have no knowledge of Piwanol....

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Oh....right. They decided to demolish it, and told everyone hours beforehand. Then denied it vehemently afterwards.

Brilliant. They say that 1 in 20 people has a mental illness, so I guess the panel must be made up from people like this. They do tend to gravitate together.


What happened is this : hours in advance, they saw the high likelihood of it's collapse...and warned many people. Then it collapsed, just as they said.
Then they denied the looney accusations of demolition.



Still waiting for your answer, ENT.

If you read this latest blurb, it' just more of the same old thing. It again talks about the only steel framed building ever to collapse because of fire. The same misstatement that has been repeated over and over.

Just totally ignores the fact that the proximate cause of collapse was low level structural damage and secondary fires cause by debris falling from the towers, with weakened support beams on the higher levels being the secondary cause.....sigh.....it really is like talking to a fairly stupid untrained dog......

You won't get any answers from ENT or any of these other guys. All they can do is post bollocks from loon websites and stick their tongues out like pre pubescent school girls.....

I must confess : I'm rather mystified about these lies too.

Originally Posted by helge

Originally Posted by koman

I can waste loads of my time cutting and pasting all kinds of counter opinions from blogsites too.....but I choose not to. It's only people who actually know nothing about 9/11 and the subsequent investigations and research that need to do that.

Liar

But Helge misunderstood my position and was humble enough to say he was wrong (though it was just a misunderstanding).
Perhaps he will in your case, too. I remember that he's a nice guy. Perhaps he's having a difficult time in his personal life.

Originally Posted by koman

You won't get any answers from ENT or any of these other guys. All they can do is post bollocks from loon websites and stick their tongues out like pre pubescent school girls.....

True. Some of ENT's past posts caused me to wonder if he is in reality like this :



though I suspect he is actually like THIS :




Still waiting for your answer to my question, ENT.

Originally Posted by koman

All they can do is post bollocks from loon websites and stick their tongues out like pre pubescent school girls.....

I think it only fair to publish a picture of Koman.

Originally Posted by ENT

The 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel – which includes physicists, chemists, engineers, commercial pilots, attorneys and lawyers – today announced three new studies confirming the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7.

Where are the firemen that actually worked on the building, pulled their people out because they thought the building would collapse (and warned everyone), and saw the support beam buckle before it collapsed?

Oh that's right, they're not there.

Because they'd basically just be singing to everyone, wouldn't they?

Unfortunately, a lot of them are dead, from cancer or other complications due to the toxic smoke & dust. Just by coincidence, 3 died on the same day not long ago.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29381978

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Oh....right. They decided to demolish it, and told everyone hours beforehand. Then denied it vehemently afterwards.

Brilliant. They say that 1 in 20 people has a mental illness, so I guess the panel must be made up from people like this. They do tend to gravitate together.


What happened is this : hours in advance, they saw the high likelihood of it's collapse...and warned many people. Then it collapsed, just as they said.
Then they denied the looney accusations of demolition.



Still waiting for your answer, ENT.

Not to mention with a dangerously damaged and leaning building that had an out of control fire blazing through it, some hero's risked their lives and went in and managed to professionally and painstakingly lay out EXPLOSIVE charges (that's highlighted so the connection between the fire and the explosiveness of the charges can be made) as to take down the building safely in it's own shadow? And for WHAT purpose since it was going to come down by fire anyway?

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Oh....right. They decided to demolish it, and told everyone hours beforehand. Then denied it vehemently afterwards.

What happened is this : hours in advance, they saw the high likelihood of it's collapse...and warned many people. Then it collapsed, just as they said.
Then they denied the looney accusations of demolition.

It again talks about the only steel framed building ever to collapse because of fire. The same misstatement that has been repeated over and over.

A mis-statement as you say, as WTC 7 was not the only high rise, nor the only steel framed building, but it was the only steel framed high rise tower ever to collapse due to fire.

The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

The mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 – a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper adjacent to the Twin Towers that fell suddenly into its own footprint at 5:21 PM on September 11 – was officially claimed to have been brought down by fire alone.

... all previous collapses of steel-framed buildings involved controlled demolitions using explosives, the unprecedented sudden collapse of WTC 7 should have precipitated an intensive investigation .....

..crucial...an examination of recovered steel from the collapse, to see if the quality of the steel had been inadequate,... or whether WTC-7 had been brought down with the use of explosives....crucial for the report of the investigation to be peer-reviewed.


The Official Account

No steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the collapse site, as NIST reports have repeatedly pointed out.[1]

... no reference to recovered WTC 7 steel in NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 ... also no reference to the building or recovered steel in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Because no steel from WTC 7 was recovered, it was impossible to carry out any metallography.[4]

Accordingly, it was impossible for NIST to make any statements about the quality of WTC 7’s steel in its investigations.[5]


The Best Evidence
....refuting NIST’s claim that no steel was recovered from WTC 7:

1. Early evidence of WTC 7 steel recovery was reported in a 2001 letter to JOM[7] written by three professors from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, entitled “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel WTC Building 7.”[8]

2. In 2002, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) published a report by the same professors describing the strange thinning and corrosion of World Trade Center steel.

Sample 1 was a beam which “appeared to be from WTC7,” although “the exact location of this beam in the building was not known.” [9] When asked about this, a Senior Communications Officer for NIST said: “It was not possible to conclusively link” that steel sample to WTC 7.[10] But a statement like this from a communications officer cannot cast doubt on the evaluation of three scientists.

3. That the steel appeared to have come from WTC 7 was confirmed by Professor Jonathan Barnett, lead author of the FEMA study, in a 2008 BBC documentary.[11]

4. Appendix D of the same FEMA Report notes that “pieces that were searched for and inspected include…burnt pieces from WTC 7,” and a photo of a “WTC 7 W14 column tree with beams attached to two floors.” Another photo showed a “seat connection in fire-damaged W 14 column.”[12]




5. Figure-C1 It is clear from a 2005 damage study that NIST knew about the FEMA report, for it referred to “the steel from WTC7 (Sample 1 of Appendix C, FEMA/BPAT study).”[13]

6. In 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by researcher David Cole produced several photographs of John Gross examining the WTC 7 steel in a scrap yard. Gross was the Co-Project leader on NIST’s Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis.[14] He had responsibility to “determine and analyze the mechanical and metallurgical properties and quality of steel, weldments, and connections from steel recovered from WTC 1, 2, and 7.”[15]

These photos were obtained by NIST FOIA #12-057, February 7, 2012, and are available in an online dataset.[16]



Figure-C2

Notice the curled up Swiss-cheese steel similar to that pictured in the 2002 FEMA Report above.[17]

II. The examination of steel from WTC 7 was also covered in various news stories, including two from the New York Times and one from Worcester Polytechnic Institute:

1. A New York Times article of November 2001 cited Dr. Jonathan Barnett of Worcester Polytechnic Institute as speaking about “steel members in the [WTC7] debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”[18]

(The presence of inexplicably intense heat is corroborated by Consensus Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel Or Iron in the WTC Buildings.[19])

2. A 2002 New York Times story noted: “Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.”[20]

3. A story in the official publication of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute stated: “A one inch [steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.”[21]

Conclusion

More than ample evidence shows that NIST’s claim – that no steel from WTC 7 was found – is false. By denying this evidence (which was even cited in one of NIST’s own reports[22]), it could claim that there was no evidence that the building had been brought down by explosives.

By denying the availability of WTC 7 steel, moreover, NIST positioned itself to explain the collapse by resorting to a computer simulation into which variables could be inserted at will – given the fact that there was to be no peer review[23] – and which has been shown to be false.[24]


References for Point WTC7-6
[1] The following statements were made in: NIST, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory. NCSTAR 1-3, “Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” September 2005:

1. “Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.” p. iii

2. The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered. p. xxxvii

3. No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels. p. xliv Ibid.

4. Since no steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the site, the steel used in the construction of this building is described based on data from the literature of the period. p. 1.

5. 7.7.2 Mechanical Properties of WTC 7 Steel Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. p. 114.

6. 7.7.3 Physical Properties of WTC 7 Steel

“No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.“ p. 115.

The following statement was made in NCSTAR 1-3D, “Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels,” September 2005. (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf...ub_id=101021):

7. “Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality,” page 273.

The following statement was taken from NCSTAR 1-3E, “Physical Properties of Structural Steels,” September 2005:

8. “These analyses were made only for steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 as no steel was recovered from WTC 7,” p. 1.

The following statement was taken from a NIST June 2004 Progress Report:

9. “No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST’s possession… Properties were estimated from available test data in the literature.” (Volume 1, Page 17)


[2] “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster,” NIST NCSTAR 1A, November 20, 2008.

[3] “The 9/11 Commission Report,” 2004.

[4] NIST, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory. NCSTAR 1-3, “Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” September 2005, p. 115.

[5] “7.7.2 Mechanical Properties of WTC 7 Steel Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. p. 114.” NIST, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory. NCSTAR 1-3, “Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” September 2005.

[6] NIST, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory. NCSTAR 1-3, “Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” September 2005:

1. “Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.” p. iii

2. The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered. p. xxxvii

3. Since no steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the site, the steel used in the construction of this building is described based on data from the literature of the period. p. 1.

[7] JOM is the member journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society.

[8] J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel WTC Building 7,” JOM , 53(12), 2001, p. 18.

[9] Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C.

[10] Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer, NIST, letter of June 24, 2010. The FEMA Report is by Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C.


[11] Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, reported, “It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn’t use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that’s why we know its pedigree. It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab.” BBC, “The Third Tower,” 2008 (48-minute mark).


[12] Ramon Gilsanz and Audrey Massa, “WTC Steel Data Collection,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix D.

[13] NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, “Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components,” September 2005, p. 233. This reference was cited in: Andrea Dreger, “How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel,” n.d.

[14]World Trade Center Investigation Team Members; “Dr. John L. Gross”.

[15] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” November 2008, xxviii.

[16] NIST FOIA 12-057 Feb 07 2012. The name of the WTC 7 photographs file is FEMA Photographs of WTC7_Beam_Photos_Scrap_Yard_OCT_2001.rar – RAR archive, unpacked size 11,280,860 bytes. David Cole wrote in an email to Elizabeth Woodworth dated April 4 that “that while these [photos] were obtained from NIST, they are actually FEMA created records.”

[17] This Iwankiw (photographer) photo is taken from NIST FOIA Request #12-057, February 07, 2012. It’s file number is DSCN0397_Iwankiw, from file WTC7_Beam_Photos_Scrap_Yard_OCT_2001.rar. It may be found online, buried in the dataset at SFolder:WQEO747PTQ6JALMVDD5HYIWULETIKJ2H - 911datasets.

[18] James Glanz, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” New York Times, November 29, 2001.

[19] 9/11 Consensus Panel.

[20] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues In Towers’ Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards,” New York Times, February 2, 2002.

[21] Joan Killough-Miller, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.

[22] NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, “Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components,” September 2005, p. 233.

[23] In failing to seek peer-review from the scientific community, NIST had ignored the recommendation of Dr. James Quintiere, a professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland and a member of the advisory committee for NIST’s WTC project.

In a lecture on the WTC investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, Quintiere said: “I wish that there would be a peer review of this.… I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

Speaking directly to a NIST representative, Quintiere said:
“I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions."

"And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things…, I never received one formal reply.”

Alan Miller, “Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation,” OpEdNews, August 21, 2007.

[24] See Consensus Point WTC7-5: World Trade Center Building 7: NIST’s Analysis of
the Collapse Initiation Is Not Valid.

Point WTC7-6:[at] The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis | Consensus 911

Hi found this photo of the wall columns of wtc 7 leaning against the verizon building where it landed as wtc 7 fell at freefall speed and leaned
back just hitting the verizon building causing some structural damage to the other building as it fell now look at the cut column with the molten
metal iron slag covering part of the top of the building as it fell, i dont know whether this is demolition cut by as thermite demolition charge because
of the molten metal that was produced when it was cut ot whether it is part of a clean up cut, what kind of torch used for cutting steel would produce
so much heat that it would leave messy iron slag dripping down the top of the column where it was cut if it was done by a clean up crew?
The funny thing i dont understand about all of this is if you look at the column which have been cut by clean up crews at ground zero and even
the columns that where cut up after they where removed is that none of them except for one of them a core columsn at ground zero appear to have
and molten metal slag where they where cut during the clean up process, so what kind of torch would leave such a messy cut? And would they use such a torch to make this kind of cut? I am interested to hear what you all have to say about this piece.



Wtc 7 Leaning Against Verizon Building - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

^

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Not to mention with a dangerously damaged and leaning building that had an out of control fire blazing through it,

Any other evidence of WTC & leaning,....?

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Not to mention with a dangerously damaged and leaning building

If it was leaning then it would have fell towards the leaning, wouldn't it? WTC 7 collapsed on to it's foot print, indicating it was leaning straight down.

The use of the word disintegration of building materials in the text should be described. Material volumes of the debris pile would indicated that much of the building mass was in fact disintegrated to the point that it blew away in the form of dust.

By NIST’s own admission, the modeling is an approximation only. While it may simulate some observed features of the destruction, it does not explain the resulting status of Building 7. NIST limited its analysis of hypothetical blast events that are not only nonexhaustive, they are, indeed, extremely limited. NIST is informed that its work in this respect will be challenged as being fraudulent.

Full analyses of the mass remaining in the debris pile should be compared with expected mass and corresponding volume considering the amount of steel and concrete. That very little intact concrete existed in the debris pile and the unusual organization of the steel that remained in the pile should be documented and modeled. That the word disintegration was used in this context, full descriptions should be made and any variances from expected mass and volume of debris remaining should be explained.

The report should explain how it is that surrounding buildings were not damaged or the fact that debris in the pile did not even cross the streets, fully remaining with a few feet of the footprint of the building itself. New analyses are required which explain resulting debris pile as well as speed and nature of destruction.

Also, sound analysis required. NIST's acknowledgment of disintegration of steel columns, beams and girders that are as massive as those contained in WTC 7 is both accurate, as to what actually happened, and simultaneously, a description of an event that is inconsistent with office fires.

Hence, a more complete explanation of how disintegration of so much massive material could have occurred is mandatory.

NIST_WTC7_comments2

More masses of cut-paste ....never respond to a question except to post little smiley icons and then try to switch to a different subject.

Now we're back to well rusted cut steel beams ....and you expect somebody to tell you who cut them, when, and how. How the fuck would any of us know that and why would you expect us to? Why don't you contact the NYC fire department.....maybe they can help you.

Speaking of the NYC fire department....while your at it, maybe you could ask them why they were issuing warnings about the impending collapse of that building for some time before it finally came down. Did they have some part in the "controlled demolition" or were they just using their training to figure out that the thing had been seriously damaged and weakened by certain events going on across the street, and being concerned about it coming down on them....

No amount of explanation will satisfy conspiracy freaks so what's the point of trying to answer anything, when it's all be done a thousand times and they still keep asking.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Not to mention with a dangerously damaged and leaning building

If it was leaning then it would have fell towards the leaning, wouldn't it? WTC 7 collapsed on to it's foot print, indicating it was leaning straight down.

Misperception on your part and where most uneducated go awry.. Like the towers which also leaned to one side before they began to collapse, when one side gives it will begin to fall in that direction and then the weight is transferred to other places and it comes mostly straight down, that's how their engineered so that if a failure does happen say for example in a earth quake, (you did know that New York also has earth quake codes in place as it is a zone even if not highly active) it doesn't take out an entire city block of buildings with a domino effect.

Anyway, I'm not going to be drawn back into this debate I'm just going to make an occasional comment against the imbecilic assertions being made and leave it at that. I'm not one who enjoys banging my head against the wall or wasting my precious time on lost causes.