It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: sg1642
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist.
Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
The one part of my post that can be confirmed with the ubiquitous video and a stopwatch is what gets slammed.
originally posted by: largo
a reply to: hellobruce
THe entire building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY.
brucey mate you may well be correct, I may be correct. We could both be wrong. Who knows. Regardless of any of that it was a tragic event and good people lost their lives. It should never have happened. I'd like to think we have learned from it and the aftermath but I don't think that we have.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: sg1642
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist.
Only for 7 WTC, and that was due to its construction, being built over a substation.
Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.
According to who exactly?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: largo
a reply to: hellobruce
THe entire building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY.
Not really, but how else could it have collapsed other than straight down? Or do you think it was strong enough to have toppled over?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: largo
And they're thin enough that if you step in the wrong place you can put a foot through the skin.
The engine struts play no role in anything dealing with wing strength. A wing is stressed so that it's very strong flexing up and down, but not as strong back and forth. Even full of fuel they're still fragile and aren't going to do much damage to a concrete building.
originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Zaphod58
THe wings have engines attached to pretty substantial struts. They are also loaded with fuel, which at speed act just like battering rams.
As an example take a gallon of water in a plastic jug spin it around your head on a rope at several hundred miles an hour and hit a 4x4.
Broken 4x4.
Inertia and mass makes liquids equivalent to battering rams.
No mention that those building were in fact designed to take the damage from an airliner strike, albeit not as large as a 767.
We build Skyscrapers to withstand hurricane force winds and earthquakes.
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint, other than controlled demo.