It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


History Channel program "World Trade Center"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:00 AM
The only conspiracy related to the WTC collapse is the degree that the role that John Gotti's construction company had in installing the fireproofing is being ignored by everyone.

As this picture, which was taken before 9/11 (obviously) indicates, the quality of the installation of the fireproofing is definitely sub-par

Does that look like it's 1.5 inches thick to you?

Actually, looking at that photo, it looks as if the truss seat is not flush to the spandrel plate.


That is consistent with this diagram:

[edit on 9-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
So if the weight of floors falling on lower floors cause the collapse, what bought the collumns down?

If the floors attachments to the collumns failed from the weight, then shouldn't the collumns have remained standing?

Not necessarily. If you say for arguments sake that the first supports were the only ones to fail from the fire, then the others would fail at the other floors collapse upon them. The floors were each only meant to support 1300 lbs. respectively. The weight of just ONE of the floors falling onto another would be more than the load bearing capacity. When one floor hit the next and it gave way, some of the angle brackets may not have given on the floor side, they may not have broken away at all(the ones not damaged by fire and initial impact would still have their load rating and permanent installation.) And if they did not give way at all, then the column itself would give at that particular point, as the brackets were bolted to the columns. It is all just a matter of weak points in the concrete. Sometimes it will be stronger on the floor side, sometimes on the column side, either way, with that much weight and pressure bearing down on everything, the columns could not have remained standing through it all. And you have to consider that it would not just be the brackets pulling on the columns to break them down, but also the debris falling into them. These columns were built to withstand HORIZONTAL pressure, not vertical. At least not beyond their weight rating.

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:38 AM

i was wondering how long is considered free fall, ive always heard the 8 second stipulation

i am confused though, because if you begin keeping count with a watch with this video, you can hear the tower begin to fall immediately in the video, and you count to the point where he turns around quickly and its still falling, until it completely hits the ground it seems like 12 or 13 or so seconds

what does this say about free fall?

just wondering

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Some people only measure the speed of the objects falling outside the building envelope.

These objects are, of course, in free fall.

Due to the dust cloud, you can’t really tell ho long it is taking for a given point on the building to fall.

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Some people only measure the speed of the objects falling outside the building envelope.

Some people also like to quote FEMA's calculation of 8 seconds. So, what does this say about anything? That no-one is certain. If someone is certain and I've missed it, could you please tell us the official times for the buildings to fall. Please include WTC 1,2 & 7. Thank you.

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:46 PM
IMO this argument over whether the buildings fell at free-fall is a waste of time.
I don't think the free-fall comment was never meant to be literal.
Free-fall or 20 seconds slower, so what? It's still too fast, and there was NO sign of ANY resistance AT ALL, no matter what speed they actually fell at.

That IMO is what is important, the lack of resistance from lower stable floors, especially when WTC 2's top started to topple, then changed it's mind?? How does that happen without help? In the normal world inertia and gravity would have caused the top to continue it's path. Obviously the building, the still undamaged part, gave way under the top section. That's impossible without help, i.e. some kind of CD...

The buildings as we know fell smooth uninterrupted and extremely fast, all 3 of them, with the same results, complete destruction in their own footprints. Who cares about free-fall? Do the math!

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in