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.

 

Why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on their own taking WTC 7 without explosives

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
wtc seven fell in the exact fashion of a controlled demolition.
it fell in 6.5 seconds. 0.5 seconds longer than if it were falling through air.
the assymetrical damage should have cause the building to cascade to one side, if it were to break apart, or tip to one side if it stayed in one piece but still collapsed.

there were reports of a shockwave and explosions from witnesses, and the warning that the building would fall came from the office of emergency management inside tower seven. the office of emergency management was a fifteen million dollar blastproof bomb shelter in the sky. a perfect base of operations for remotely demolishing towers one and two, and then a perfect candidate for erasure from history.

It bothers me that they can change their story to what ever.
It was fires(didint work), now it's the impact shock, what will it be next?
So try and try and try till a perfect cover up falls in to place.
Steel columns broke like paper and they all colapsed on each other.
I think in the end they will go with explosives out side the building as the fbi pushes it forward(not inside)not inside because the blame would fall on bush little family member.
SO in the end we are going to have bombs blowing off near the wtc.
It really ameses me they try to defent the fire theory where fire brings the whole thing down, seeing it does not pay results they are saying the sock wave did it

They really have time to build up a mecanism to debunk it all, but there will always be flaws.
This theory with the sock wave is much cheaper than the one with the fire, there is no complex explenation for it, it's pour in iterpretation.
The only explenation is the plane impacted and it colapsed.
No expert opinion.
No scientific evaluation.
No theory, just that the plane hit and it colapsed.
You have to give them credit, the fire theory was much more elaborate and complex.


This is how strong sky scrapers are.


So as we can see it has a hole in it but it's standing.
A small part of the building on the side sustains the uper one.
Big hole, burned for hours and still standing.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why is it more logical to believe a massive conspiracy that laced the entire building with exposives, while no one noticed.


As to the oft repeated "free fall" speed of the collapses here is a beautiful illustration.






The top of your picture labeled "not free fall," is obviously free fall, the fact is the building fell in only a little more than free fall speed. Of course the lower part labeled "free fall," is falling faster than the part you label "not free fall," because it has not started falling yet because the charges had not yet been detonated. The building fell top down exploding outwards. I do not see the point you are trying to make at all, unless people do not subject it to crticial thinking and go "oh yeah that's what happened, end of story." This is not the end of the story here at all, since the data is ostensibly provable to the contrary. What you are looking at is the fact that the building at the top of the picture, above the debris showering below, is going down faster than free fall. That is due to the explosives, and get out your stop watch on any of the freely available videos to prove what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
why does it even free fall from the bottom.
why even free fall at all?
If it's the colapse like a deck of cards one on the other why have free fall at all.
Seeing the bottom go before the top is clear that explosives had to be used.
The bottom go's before the top come's down, I saw that on one of the clips and it all make perfect sence to me.
Something blew up at the base of the building, the flors from half down are moving before the top comes to them.
When the top comes down the bottom half is already down in the ruble.
We all have to agree that explosives were used

I have to agree with you, it's a cover up






[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

No need to quote the entire post directly above you. Thanks - Umbrax

[edit on 28/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
How do you obtain it howard?
Part my sucky english but I think you know what I mean.
Metal turning in to powder, very fine powder, that's what I mean.


No I don't know what you mean.

details please. What powder? Where did it come from, and how do you know that is where it came from?

How do explosives fit into this?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
The top of your picture labeled "not free fall," is obviously free fall, the fact is the building fell in only a little more than free fall speed. Of course the lower part labeled "free fall," is falling faster than the part you label "not free fall," because it has not started falling yet because the charges had not yet been detonated. The building fell top down exploding outwards.




I'm sorry does that make sense to anyone?

Are you saying that the peice of debris in the air hasn't started falling yet?



If the collapse occured at free fall than it would have hit the ground at the exact same time as the first peice of debris.

I am pointing at the collapse, which is falling slower than free fall.

"Near free fall" or "close to free fall" I have no problem with. Free fall speeds, or as you would have us believe faster than free fall, is obviously eronious as is clearly demonstrated in that pic.


Pepsi, the steel was not turned into powder. There are numerous pictures of the steel all over ground zero.






[edit on 27-3-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

This is how strong sky scrapers are.
So as we can see it has a hole in it but it's standing.
A small part of the building on the side sustains the uper one.
Big hole, burned for hours and still standing.




Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical* concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.


www.concretecentre.com...

*Technical floor = Mechanical floor


This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.



Look - - - Steel Gone - - - - Concrete Stay!





posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Just so you know, concrete buildings use something called rebar, and thinner beams of steel in general. The WTC were constructed only of steel, and had much thicker columns. Much more steel in general in those buildings.

The more steel, the more easily heat is wicked away and drawn further away from the heat source. With smaller pieces of steel, especially encased in concrete, steel is nowhere near as effective.

Also, the fires that caused the failure of the much thinner steel beams, often in concrete, were also much more severe than the fires in any WTC building. Burned longer, more floors (obviously), etc.

Just thought you'd like to know.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
" especially encased in concrete "

" often in concrete "


And your point is?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark





If you look closely at that picture....it looks like the outer columns below the collapsed part were steel. Now, why didn't those columns collapse? If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Edit: This picture shows what I think should have happened at WTC. Some of the outer columns and floors collapsing, somewhat, while the inner (much stronger) core stays up. Not a global near free fall collapse. Yes, LeftBehind...I said NEAR free fall not free fall.

I mean obviously that steel had to loose half it's strength from the fires but didn't globaly collapse.

Because according to NIST, once collapse is innitiated, global collapse is inevitable right?

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I'd like to see video of that collapse if anyone has it. I'm betting it wasn't symetrical. Like should have happened at WTC.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The design of that building is nothing compared to the WTC. Are you stating that they are of similar design?

The WTC was created with inner columns, that evenly distributed the weight across larger than normal steel girders. There was NO fireproofing in the WTC, but that to me is what we see in that picture. The WTC was 5% total struture, the rest was empty space. Every square inch that could be carved out for commercial use was.

As the steel heated, it lost it resistance that was created by the design, and weakened under the weight of the upper floors and the damage to the inner core columns, of which half of each towers supports were damaged. (FEMA,NIST,9/11 commission and Silverstein properties along with numerous industry experts have come to the same conclusion that is stated in the title of the post.

The WTC was also 3 times the size of the building in the picutre...

I edited damaged for destroyed, sorry emotions....


[edit on 28-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Okay esad
Why dont you make a elaborate theory.
The columns colapsed from the shockwave in your opinion.
How did it hapen step by step.
Did the columns colapse from the bottom?
Did they colapse from the top?
Did they colapse from the middle?
Did they fall on each other?
Did they all break to the bottom and in what order?
Did they colapse on each other and break?

You do not make things very clear.
You do not offer a theory.
All you are sayig is that the plane impacted and from the shockwave it colapsed.
To see if your theory is valid in any way you must offer a guide to the whole thing, else I dont think any one can take it in consideration.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The design of that building is nothing compared to the WTC. Are you stating that they are of similar design?


No, I'm not stating that at all. What I'm trying to say is according to NIST once collapse initiated, the steel that now has lost it's strength should have fallen the whole way to the ground just like in WTC. But, it didn't. Why? I'm not positive on the construction of that tower but, it looks like the inner column structure was the only concrete and the outer columns were steel. According to you and others, the steel should have fully collapsed. That's what I'm saying.


The WTC was created with inner columns, that evenly distributed the weight across larger than normal steel girders.


No. The steel girders distributed the weight to the inner columns. Or are you saying that the floors are what was designed to hold the weight of the buildings?


There was NO fireproofing in the WTC, but that to me is what we see in that picture. The WTC was 5% total struture, the rest was empty space. Every square inch that could be carved out for commercial use was.


First, yes there was fireproofing. It may have been struck off but it was there. Don't bother showing me those pictures of the fireproofing again Howard. Those were isolated and we even don't know if they are from the floors that the fires were on.

The volume of the towers was 5%...not the total mass. There's a huge difference.


of which half of each towers supports were destroyed.


Proof please. Half of each towers supports were destroyed? Is that a floor or the entire tower? BTW...even NIST doesn't say half the supports were severed. If they were...the buildings would have come crashing down when the plane hit....well at least a few floors worth.


The WTC was also 3 times the size of the building in the picutre...


This has no significance whatsoever when talking about one floor collapsing. The potential energy of 12.5 feet (I'm assuming that is what the floor height is at the Madrid building..I really don't know) is still the same in Madrid as in NYC.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If you look closely at that picture....it looks like the outer columns below the collapsed part were steel. Now, why didn't those columns collapse? If I'm wrong, please let me know.



I believe that there is a concrete framed mechanical floor at that point.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I believe that there is a concrete framed mechanical floor at that point.



Ah, that would be the reason then. Thanks Howard.

Now, another question. Did the mechanical floors of the WTC have any concrete in them...i.e. concrete framework? Probably not, but still need to ask. Still learning about the construction of the buildings.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I am restating things that are already included in the post. Take the time to read it.

Griff, I am talking only about WTC 1/2 at the moment, and i was not describing the struture of WTC 7. They are completely different.

WTC 1/2 DID not have proper fireproofing, and it was only after the 93 bombing did they attmept to retrofit and if memory serves correct, they only got into the mid 30's as the last floor applied.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, another question. Did the mechanical floors of the WTC have any concrete in them...i.e. concrete framework? Probably not, but still need to ask. Still learning about the construction of the buildings.


No, but they were framed (underneath) with I-beams instead of trusses, due to the higher weight loads & vibrations from the fans, pumps, elevator equipment, etc.

There are details in one of the NIST reports. Don't remember which one, though.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

There are details in one of the NIST reports. Don't remember which one, though.


That's why I asked. I knew you'd know off hand rather than me having to sift through the NIST report again. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11
" especially encased in concrete "

" often in concrete "


And your point is?


Wow.

Selective quoting, anyone?

He couldn't even include a whole sentence on this one.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay esad
Why dont you make a elaborate theory.
The columns colapsed from the shockwave in your opinion.
How did it hapen step by step.
Did the columns colapse from the bottom?
Did they colapse from the top?
Did they colapse from the middle?
Did they fall on each other?
Did they all break to the bottom and in what order?
Did they colapse on each other and break?

You do not make things very clear.
You do not offer a theory.
All you are sayig is that the plane impacted and from the shockwave it colapsed.
To see if your theory is valid in any way you must offer a guide to the whole thing, else I dont think any one can take it in consideration.




I'm with you man on this one. Let's have the debunkers explain to us how the buildings fell down in scientific detail so that we can pick apart their story. It is about time that they came forward and explained everything especially the steel going to China asap after the collapse.

It is time for them to go on the hotseat.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join