Hi Rob. We had this exchange a while back.

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry wrote:

>> Apparently, your "expert" Thomas Eagar "thinks" that if
>> supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed,
>> the building would still drop straight down, because - get this
>>- that's the direction gravity is pulling. For your sake, I really
>> hope you don't believe that sort of complete idiocy. Do you? <g>

> Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it at
> an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or does it
> travel straight to the ground at the same angle ?

You never did explain how your falling blocks and sticks
"prove" that a tall building won't topple sideways if
supports on only one side are destroyed. I asked for
clarification several times. Let's forget that for now,
though. It's clear that you are in agreement with Eagar,
which is basically this - since gravity pulls straight down,
that's the only way a tall, heavy structure can collapse,
regardless of how it's damaged.
Please watch the short video linked here.

http://tinyurl.com/yuaxsp

Notice how most of the buildings toppled sideways for exactly
the reason I and al the credible experts say they would - asymmetric
damage to supports. Is it your belief that gravity must have been
pulling sideways in order for these building to topple the way they
did, or would you say the video is faked?
Have you ever seen a tall, heavy object topple sideways rather than
fall through the path of most resistance - through itself? If so, did
you think the force of gravity changed direction at the time?


--



http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

On Sep 24, 5:42 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> Hi Rob. We had this exchange a while back.

> > Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it at
> > an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or does it
> > travel straight to the ground at the same angle ?
>
> You never did explain how your falling blocks and sticks
> "prove" that a tall building won't topple sideways if
> supports on only one side are destroyed.

I pointed you multiple times to "soft story collapse"
explanations. These are extremely common in quakes.

My understanding of soft story failures is as follows:

A storefront or garage creates a weak spot in the
structure. When the soft spot fails, the structure will
initially tilt a little as the load is distributed to the
remaining undamaged supports. With the increased
load, the remaining supports also fail, causing
the tilted structure to drop straight down.

This is different from dropping a tree, where a
"hinge" is left in place for the tree to pivot on.
Buildings are designed to distribute load as
evenly as possible to their vertical supports,
so it's not that uncommon to see near simultaneous
failures of additional supports after the first few
go out.

I work in a different field of engineering, so I suggest
you ask one of these many structural engineers
you say you are in touch with why so many buildings
in a quake drop straight down after an initial failure
on one side of the building enev when there are
large horizontal seismic motions.

You're welcome for the explanation. Just about any
Californian could have explained this to you.

Won't it be nice as you, your so called truth movement
and Bush grow irrelevant together over the years ?