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.

 

WTC Collapse - A Question of Fairness.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71

the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building...>Remember the line I had on gravity? If you take away that simple struture, there is nothing to hold the rest of the building up.


Not true. The central core had it's own lateral supports. This would give the central core way more stability than NIST, FEMA, the government wants us to think. The lateral supports are even shown in NIST's little diagram of a typical floor. There is no way that those columns went 110 stories without lateral support. Which would give the core structure lateral strength.

Meaning that if it was the supports of the floors that failed, the floors would have fallen, leaving most of the core standing. We actually see this in tower 2 (I believe) until something brings the core down after the floors fell around it.



What are you calling “lateral supports?”

If you are thinking that the core had traditional diagonal bracing like so:



then, no, in fact, the WTC core was not latterly braced. The building’s wind resistance came from the stiffness of the exterior walls. This stiffness was transferred to the core via the floor slabs. This is the hallmark of a rigid tube strucutral design.

Besides for the subgrade floors, and the hat truss, the building core was unbraced like so:



With the failure of the floor slabs, the core was susceptible to lateral movement like so:





posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Just so you know, there were also 'controll joints' in the supports of the floors, so lateral forces from elongation would at least have been minimized in my opinion.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Griff]


Are you referring to the truss seat connections?





Based on that, there was only about 3” or so of total leeway for movement.


[edit on 24-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not really, they had transitioned into standard I-beams before the impact floors.


Oh, really? Even in WTC2?

I'd love to see the construction drawings showing that, Howard.


Actually The core columns were in the midst of transitioning from box columns to wide flange I-beams in the midst of the WTC 2 impact zone.

See pages 26 through 28 of NISTINSTAR1-1.

The core columns were just starting the transition from box to wide flange columns at the 80th floor. One of the box columns went up to the 92nd floor, and two went as high as the 95th floor.

My mistake.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Yes, three inches for movement. Is that both sides, making it 6 inches?

Elongation: deltaL = (alpha) (length) (delta temp.)

Alpha = 6x10exp-6 in/in-degreeF for steel
DL = 6x10exp-6 in/in-degreeF (792 in (roughly)) (1472 degreeF)

1472 F is 800C

Elongation becomes around 7 inches in this case.

As far as your drawings, the diagonal lateral supports actually give less resistance in horizontal plane than a horizontal lateral support. I wish I could post a drawing to explain this. If you've ever taken physics, you've learned about vectors right? Well, a diagonal vector (say 45 degrees to make it easy) with say a foot-pound force on it (say 10) will have the components of that force split into 5 foot-pounds for the verticle and 5 foot-pounds for the horizontal. It all depends on the angle how the forces are split. But, if you have the same force applied to just a horizontal, then the whole 10 foot-pounds are on the horizontal. So, saying that your diagonal (rotated truss) would carry more load is not really true. It is true when considering shear though, that is why trusses are used and not just cords with verticle supports. In this case though, the core columns are what held the shearing forces in place, so diagonal was not needed. It gets rather more complicated when you think about bending stresses (torsional), buckling and so on so I won't even go there yet and could have been the ultimate forces that brought the core down.

Also, your diagram shows that the lateral bracing is at the joints. Any engineer would be unwise to place the supports at the joints (connections) of the columns (where they are welded together). The lateral supports were placed every 3 to 4 feet I believe (could be wrong). But I think you have the right idea going.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The ability of the slab to move within the slotted bolt holes is dependent on a lot of factors. In any case, it wasn’t the expansion that buckled the exterior columns inward, it was the sagging of the floors as the trusses failed.

Once a floor slab was no longer effective in preventing the inward movement of the exterior columns, The column length was effectively doubled. This in turn lowered the critical buckling load of those columns by a factor of 4. If two floor slabs failed in this regard, either through impact damage or fire related sagging, then the effective column length would be tripled, and the corresponding critical buckling load would be reduced by a factor of 9.

(yes, I realize that that is somewhat simplistic application of Euler’s law, but the fact is, the loss of the lateral stability provided by the floor slabs was a critical factor in causing the exterior columns to buckle inward.)



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I am still waiting for someone to show me proof of controlled demolition? Since obvioulsy that is the only other way the towers could have come down if all the people who are in agreeance in this post that there was not significant enough damage to the infrastructure of hte building.

If you would follow the links in my posts and READ the material, it may give you another view as to how this could have occured.

So, where is that demo residue?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So, where is that demo residue?


Where is the high heat residue? Just showing you that just because the evidence has not been found yet, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. By using the same logic, we can ask....so where is the evidence of high heat and more importantly, high temperature?

And Howard. Yes, your correct with Euler's Law. Two things I found in my structures book that it says about Euler's law. It is used for slender columns. The columns at least near the bottom where not slender (which the forces could have been large enough by then to negate the size of the bottom columns). Also, it says that Euler's Law (Equation) may be used if the actual stress is kept less than the yield strength. I think this means that we can not use this equation literally because the actual stresses were obviously much more than the yield strength.

Good conversation guys/girls

edit: I was thinking of the core columns not the exterior...my bad. I'm going to leave the post alone just to show what I'm talking about.

edit: Upon further research, slender column (beam) just means that the length is longer than the width and depth. So, yes the columns would be considered slender.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   


so where is the evidence of high heat and more importantly, high temperature?


How about the raging fires? I have the evidence 2 planes striking the WTC and the ensuing fires.




The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.


This describes what I am attempting to explain, again, with another link.

www.du.edu...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
You are not getting my point. I see your point. What I am trying to say is NIST only found evidence of steel heating to 250C. There is a difference between fire temperature and heat. Now, again I'll ask you, where is the evidence of steel being heated over 250C? Get my point now?

edit: also, your link just states that the fires exceeded the strength of the steel (caused weekening of the steel). I'm asking for evidence the same as you're asking for evidence of explosives.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
bsbray11
Your only arguement is the heat of the steel, which you have no conclusive proof to back.


It's not my job to prove negatives.

It's your guys' job to prove positives; that is to say, it's your job to prove that the steel did in fact reach those temperatures, anywhere in either building before collapse. I'm simply pointing out that you guys have no such evidence going for you.

It's not the only argument I can put forward, as you'd know if you'd been around through very many of these threads. It's just the only one being discussed at the moment.

If you'd like to discuss the physics of the collapse itself, you can try to explain to me how the collapses managed to remain perfectly symmetrical all the way down, despite chaos theory, as well as how the top floors managed to crush the lower floors when they apparently weren't even touching (notice the angular momentum), and the apparent lack of linear momentum as the buildings collapsed without slowing is a pretty big problem with your theory as well.

So, just to start, you can explain how the collapse did not slow despite,

  1. The driving mass (upper floors) disintegrated or fell to the side during both collapses.
  2. 80% of the total mass of debris fell outside of the footprints of the buildings (with the center of gravity still within).
  3. The lower floors had progressively thicker and thicker columns.
  4. The total mass of the caps consisted of much less mass than the total mass of the lower floors, by far.
  5. There was (allegedly) no force in addition to the potential energy of the top floors realized as kinetic energy.

And yet the collapses did not slow. Remained symmetrical, and did not slow, despite a loss of driving mass (that severely cuts down the momentum of the falling floors immediately!), despite falling into thicker and thicker columns, and despite 80% of the total mass (already-pulverized floors and all) being hurled off to the sides.

Unless it's to be believed that the forces involved were infinite, that doesn't make any sense and necessitates additional sources of energy (explosives).

It's silly enough to believe that so few floors can crush all of the floors below into nothing but dust and small shards:



That's WTC1, btw.

And again, the floors were not all the same strength. The further down you go, the thicker the columns, the more resistance, and therefore the more force you would need to overcome this extra resistance.



And yet the collapses don't slow? I would be surprised enough that the building managed to completely collapse in the first place, let alone with an apparently infinite supply of energy, that doesn't diminish until it reaches the ground.


This is not a matter of conspiracy unless you can give me definitive proof of controlled demolition. I have provided more than enough 'credible' links to support my arguement, now it is time for some hard evidence on a controlled demolition.


I have no idea what "hard evidence" you are referring to.

You lack the evidence for sufficiently heated steel. You lack evidence for significant damage to trusses and core columns. The pancake theory lacks reasoning in its implications that the bolts between the trusses and perimeter were preventing the trusses from immediately failing, and yet the same bolts gave absolutely 0 resistance to the falling material once the collapse initiated and the buildings fell in ridiculous amounts of time.

Putting forth potential explanations for the collapses is not proof, by any stretch of the word, let alone when the explanations make absolutely no sense and have no supporting evidence. At least there are clearly unreconciled physics problems with the collapses that give authority to the demolition perspective, even with all of the more circumstantial evidence thrown out completely. There are serious problems the official story doesn't cover, that you fail to accept. It's as if you see things in black and white: official story is right, or demolitions took place. The official story could very well just have flaws that you have yet to reconcile, but try to at least first address the problems we are presenting with it.


And try to realize, Esdad, that all of this crap that you're posting is absolutely nothing new to us. We're familiar with the official story. We're familiar with the NIST and FEMA reports, and etc. We know what they say. Simply repeating them isn't helping defend them from the criticisms being made. I know you may be proud of your Googling skills, but what you're posting is contributing even less to the discussion than the circles we go in.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I won't bite. but you DO have to prove your point. I am giving you evidence,and you KEEP going back to the 'steel couln't have melted" bullS%%t and pancake theory. What you are doing is repeating yourself and attmepting to belittle me into not asking you anymore questions that you cannot answer.

Google skills are good, especially if you read the information, you might want to try it sometime. Also, please do not attempt to question my intelligence or tell me I am rehashing what others have posted.

If you choose not to beleive something, that is perogative. If you choose however to discredit something, back it up with an arguement. You are doing neither and blaming it on' fictitous demolition'.

Again, I ask, where is the evidence to support your claim?




What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost. In fact, an erroneous graphic of floors collapsing on one another successively, "pancaking," was shown, while the collapse of the towers was quite different, the upper floors ending up on the bottom of the pile and the lower floors on the top.


This discredits your pancake theory. Controlled demo brings it straight down, so why would hte top floors be below the bottom? Because it sheared and fell and collapsed.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
That pancake theory is the theory embraced by the government. It's not our theory.


I presented a point in my last post regarding momentum that you're now failing to address, as you continue to post articles on the pancake collapse theories (which, again, just to be clear, are your theories
).



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
You still cannot answer the simple question of where is your proof? Kind of like the guy who makes all the noise and when the # hits the fan he is no where to found.

You can remain ignorant in your thinking. I know what I have read, and what is described, yet you still only repeat the same : the steel was never heated enough". Jesus, it must suck to live in denial.


WTC burned out of control for 7 hours, and thenm there was a decision to abandon, and it collasped, no conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You still cannot answer the simple question of where is your proof? Kind of like the guy who makes all the noise and when the # hits the fan he is no where to found.


I just offered some, but you're ignoring it. There was no loss of momentum in the falling material (actually, it relates more to the physics term impulse, but the idea is the same), even though incredible and increasing resistance would have been present, as the collapsing floors themselves broke up. This means there had to have been another source of energy. Case closed.

But see, when I whip it out like that, you guys get frustrated and make up a lot of bull crap that isn't scientific in the least, or demand mathematical proof of the obvious (which, because of your government refusing to release blueprints, is impossible, unfortunately, though I would absolutely love to prove you wrong mathematically as well as in a logical sense
), and that's why I take it more slowly than that.

I could also make a proof from the angular momentum. If you look at the rate in which WTC2 tilts outwards, it indicates that the connection to the fulcrum of the top floors' tilting has somehow been broken, and that the lower floors are somehow being destroyed while the upper floors aren't even bearing down upon them so that they may act as the fulcrum. That means something else was blowing that lower floor up. Another case closed.

But again, that just frustrates you guys and you make up more nonsense.

But where is YOUR proof?

For the second or third time now, ALL that you've posted so far are theoretical explanations, which we have ripped apart time and again here with physics problems such as the two I just posted above.

Aside from you not realizing that you're posting the very things that we've been criticizing, and yet expecting us to take to it like a 5-year old to Christianity, there is absolutely no supporting evidence to the theories of NIST, etc. There's similarly no reason why we should buy any of it. If there were some meat to it, sure. But you've yet to show it, just as everyone else backing the same theory here.

And that doesn't constitute evidence. You wouldn't be fooling anyone but fools with a line calling that a display of "evidence." If it were evidence, apparently all I would have to do in response is come up with an equally baseless, theoretical set of claims and have them posted on the internet by a seemingly credible source as fact.

Hell, we've got you one better there, because Steven Jone of BYU has even put up a paper on the BYU site destroying the official story with actual physical observations of the collapses, such as the two listed above again, that your government isn't telling you about at all. And what does his paper consist of, but the exact same things that demolition theorists have been saying for a while now? Mr. Jones isn't exactly a nut, either, but a very honored and experienced physicist (look up his credentials). For him to acknowledge the sense in our claims took some guts, I would imagine, as hardly anyone wants to hear this kind of stuff.


You can remain ignorant in your thinking. I know what I have read, and what is described, yet you still only repeat the same : the steel was never heated enough". Jesus, it must suck to live in denial.


The implications here are much worse than a band of raggy, half-dead, nomadic terrorists living half across the world, and even then, in caves. I think you may be projecting personal feelings onto me with that denial remark, but that's just me.

Dude, go back and look through some of the bigger threads and you'll see the heating of the steel is a rather minor issue. Nonetheless, you have no evidence of sufficient heating. But it really is one of the more minor issues, and it's rather laughable for you to suggest it's all that I have argued.

If you'd like, I can even go through past postings for you, to present a collage of different angles showing numerous problems with what you have read and fallen for.

But I know you don't really care about that, because you're only accusing me of repeating the same thing over and over out of the novelty it presents in trying to discredit me. I've already brought forth and offered you a singular alternate issue that you haven't even began to address, so now you can drop that 'stop repeating yourself' line and get on with a better point.

You still aren't addressing the momentum problem that directly contradicts official collapse theory.


WTC burned out of control for 7 hours, and thenm there was a decision to abandon, and it collasped, no conspiracy.


Erm, not the Twin Towers. I think you may be thinking of WTC7. And in that case, the "decision to abandon" is rather misleading, as the firefighters never went in, according to numerous, unrebutted passages of FEMA.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   


TextI just offered some, but you're ignoring it. There was no loss of momentum in the falling material (actually, it relates more to the physics term impulse, but the idea is the same), even though incredible and increasing resistance would have been present, as the collapsing floors themselves broke up. This means there had to have been another source of energy. Case closed.
[


I am not ignoring it, becasue you have not presented anything. What proof? I asked, and you cannot deliver. You did not actaully read how the building was designed (you have been corrected by others in the post), or any of the accounts I posted that state there was structural instability, the middle ofthe building buckled, and the top began to come down, THe force of 20 or so floors of a skyscraper have more than enough momentum to begin to collapse the building as occured at the WTC. I like how you close your case again with no evidence, what outside source???




But see, when I whip it out like that, you guys get frustrated and make up a lot of bull crap that isn't scientific in the least, or demand mathematical proof of the obvious (which, because of your government refusing to release blueprints, is impossible, unfortunately, though I would absolutely love to prove you wrong mathematically as well as in a logical sense ), and that's why I take it more slowly than that.



No one is frustrated, although I don't think you would have this bravado at a bar. Prove it then, because you keep telling me everything I state is bull#, but it is explained by professionals with no agenda. Here, you can start with some blueprints of WTC found in Ebay,

cgi.ebay.com...

So don't start that governemt won't release it. Serach hard enough and you can find anything.




I could also make a proof from the angular momentum. If you look at the rate in which WTC2 tilts outwards, it indicates that the connection to the fulcrum of the top floors' tilting has somehow been broken, and that the lower floors are somehow being destroyed while the upper floors aren't even bearing down upon them so that they may act as the fulcrum. That means something else was blowing that lower floor up. Another case closed.



How can you explain the phone call form an employee on the 105th floor who calls to report that the floors located below him have fallen?

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

This information was never provided to the Police or FDNY. but at 9:47 AM it is telling us that the structure is failing. This was 12 minutes before the South tower collapsed.





]But again, that just frustrates you guys and you make up more nonsense.

But where is YOUR proof?

For the second or third time now, ALL that you've posted so far are theoretical explanations, which we have ripped apart time and again here with physics problems such as the two I just posted above.

Aside from you not realizing that you're posting the very things that we've been criticizing, and yet expecting us to take to it like a 5-year old to Christianity, there is absolutely no supporting evidence to the theories of NIST, etc. There's similarly no reason why we should buy any of it. If there were some meat to it, sure. But you've yet to show it, just as everyone else backing the same theory here.



No one else here has ripped anything apart, and I don't expect you take anything or buy into anything, It is fact bud, plain and simple. You can paly your government conspriacy card, but it gets old real quick. My proof is available in a 4th grade Science book. gravity bought down the towers after structural integrity was lost.




And that doesn't constitute evidence. You wouldn't be fooling anyone but fools with a line calling that a display of "evidence." If it were evidence, apparently all I would have to do in response is come up with an equally baseless, theoretical set of claims and have them posted on the internet by a seemingly credible source as fact.

Hell, we've got you one better there, because Steven Jone of BYU has even put up a paper on the BYU site destroying the official story with actual physical observations of the collapses, such as the two listed above again, that your government isn't telling you about at all. And what does his paper consist of, but the exact same things that demolition theorists have been saying for a while now? Mr. Jones isn't exactly a nut, either, but a very honored and experienced physicist (look up his credentials). For him to acknowledge the sense in our claims took some guts, I would imagine, as hardly anyone wants to hear this kind of stuff.



So, you can refer to expert, but I can't. How childish. You are stating a guy had guts to stand up for your theory? The firefighters who died on 9/11 had guts, this guy had free time. I am not trying to fool anyone, I am just restating truth, and you cannot accept it because you want conspiracy.




quote: You can remain ignorant in your thinking. I know what I have read, and what is described, yet you still only repeat the same : the steel was never heated enough". Jesus, it must suck to live in denial.

The implications here are much worse than a band of raggy, half-dead, nomadic terrorists living half across the world, and even then, in caves. I think you may be projecting personal feelings onto me with that denial remark, but that's just me.

Dude, go back and look through some of the bigger threads and you'll see the heating of the steel is a rather minor issue. Nonetheless, you have no evidence of sufficient heating. But it really is one of the more minor issues, and it's rather laughable for you to suggest it's all that I have argued.

If you'd like, I can even go through past postings for you, to present a collage of different angles showing numerous problems with what you have read and fallen for.

But I know you don't really care about that, because you're only accusing me of repeating the same thing over and over out of the novelty it presents in trying to discredit me. I've already brought forth and offered you a singular alternate issue that you haven't even began to address, so now you can drop that 'stop repeating yourself' line and get on with a better point.

You still aren't addressing the momentum problem that directly contradicts official collapse theory.



I am not accusing you of repeating the same thing, I am pointing it out. big difference. and no, i don't need you to review any threads for me, I have read them. but where is your proof? It is not laughable, it is the truth. You bring nothign to hte table except to say it was NOT bought down by the planes and the ensuing fire. What was it? please for the love of god try and answer that question?




Text
quote: WTC burned out of control for 7 hours, and thenm there was a decision to abandon, and it collasped, no conspiracy.

Erm, not the Twin Towers. I think you may be thinking of WTC7. And in that case, the "decision to abandon" is rather misleading, as the firefighters never went in, according to numerous, unrebutted passages of FEMA.



Sorry, the 7 was missing from my post, but you were so quick to point it out..a typo hunter who repeats himself in circular logic and delusions of granduer. Your only defense is another post on ATS where other agree with your theory. That is laughable.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

Read this article, and it shows a picture of the south tower, tilting over and then collapsing, upon itself, creating the momentum to take the rest of the building down. In this article, as the others, nowhere does it state that the steel melts, it softens.




While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.


I can only respect your theory with a shread of proof, of which none has been provided. C'mon, where is the proof of demolitions?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
People seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar here and hurling accusations. Chill, people. Reasoned discussion beats petulant name calling any day.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
esdad,

Did you even read the e-bay link about your so called blueprints? It is one page and it's a blueprint of the restaurant. A set of construction documents that does NOT make. If you find anymore though, please let me know because I'm very interested in getting my hands on some of the construction documents so we can figure some of this stuff out.

edit: Also, most of us don't have $1200 to spend on one page of drawings. BTW, that guy is trying to make money off of the tragedy. I don't trust anyone who tries to make money off of this. That includes Silverstein, 911eyewitness, and this guy from e-bay.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I did read the ebay link, and I know what it is. However I am trying to make a point that they are available and that the government is not 'hiding' them.

We all do have an idea how large and expensive a copy of the blueprints would be, correct? I remember in college having to create a one story floor plan for a home and another for a small business, and there were close to 45 pages each for my finished project. I have seen blueprints for large buildings, and they are massive.

Besides, ture blueprints are not needed as there are pictures of them in the other lnks that I have provided which explain the unique structure of the WTC.

My issue is the fact that conspiracy theorist are jsut that, theroists, who attmept to create an alternate to what happened. I know we are all looking for the truth.

We should have heard the term Occams Razor used before in some context, and i think it applies here. Sometimes, the simplist answer to 2 theories or questions, even if we do not want to believe it, is the truth.

1. Plane hit building, intense fire begins
2. Skyscrapers are designed to wihstand a few hours fo fire with fireproofing, and if you think fireproofing means nothing, look into the new WTC 7 that is bieng built, it uses over 5x the required amount. No fireproofing or sprinklers, and fire rages out of control.
3. Heat weaknes structure, strucutre begins to collapse, falls upon itself and the design, made to balance load among floors, fails.
4. South tower falls to side, and top of building actually hits ground before the middle.

The only physics law to apply is gravity.

In your theory
1. The government planed a demoltion to get us to go to war
2. They somehow got explosives to all the needed floors of the WTC with no notice.
3. There is no footage of simultaneous explosions, which occur doing building implosions
4. Why wait a predetermined amount of time, why not knock a plane into hte building and then hit the switch and bring it down.
5. Why use planes, why not another truck bomb. Easier to write off as a explosion in the sub levels which caused the collapse. This would be a much more feasible solution for a black op. Remember, the WTC survived a bombing in 93.
6. There is no evidence of controlled explosives in ANY of the wreckage.
7.

Now, common sense tells us which one is more feasible, and in using Occam Razor, we have an answer.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Jeez, I'm fed up with the notorious misrepresentations of Occam's Razor. It does not say "the theory with fewer assumptions is generally correct", it says "don't make more assumptions than necessary". The first interpretation (yours) would make theories like "god did it" superior to all others, rendering science practically useless - all you'd ever need were 2 assumptions: god exists and god arbitrarily makes things work the way they do, hello intelligent falling.

Let's have another look at WTC7: Its collapse looked extremely similar to controlled demolitions, or "implosions". To explain it, we have those two proposed theories:

-It was a controlled demolition
-Non-uniform fires somehow managed to weaken the entire loadbearing structure uniformly and simultaneously, causing symmetrical collapse

The first one is simple and straightforward, the second makes wild, unneeded assumptions. Of course the first comes with wild political consequences, but that's outside of the domain of science and therefore Occam's Razor, which in this case says: the first theory is most likely correct.

Get over it.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
all you'd ever need were 2 assumptions: god exists and god arbitrarily makes things work the way they do, hello intelligent falling.
[edit on 25-1-2006 by Lumos]


Jees. Not be out of thread topic, but what are they feeding these people in 'Jesusland'? Intelligent falling? What next Itelligent Gaseous Expellation? And God said "let there be farts"


edit: spelling

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join