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.

 

If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Would the building dropping down under the top portion faster than the top was tilting away ......I don't know. I'm trying to remember exatcly what it DID look like in motion while collapsing and working from memory doesn't cut it. Did it actually completely 'right' itself as in its back to plumb?....dial up sucks.




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Did it actually completely 'right' itself as in its back to plumb?....dial up sucks.


No, it just stopped tilting. Started tilting in one direction, obviously massive inertia, and then the tilting stopped and the building fell straight down. Instead of the building failing faster under the sections that were under more stress, everything apparently began failing at the same time, evenly across each floor beneath the cap.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Right, and I'm wrong to say it "righted itself", because it didn't. I just rewatched the Trinity church video and it stays cocked off at a horrendous angle as it falls (as long as you can see it that is). Which helps me accept it a bit more. It's just weird that 30 stories of building can list to a 20 degree angle and not continue to go over the edge.

But, now that I've rewatched a little more careful, it does fall cocked and that makes it make more sense to me. Here's four sequential pics showing the top as it falls.







posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
So, how if all of the KE was totally off set did it manage to crush through the path of greatest resistance?

Shouldn't the building have gotten the proverbial "haircut? Like the MC hammer "tilt fade"?

How did all of the core colums server in order to allow for this angular movement?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
So, how if all of the KE was totally off set did it manage to crush through the path of greatest resistance?

Shouldn't the building have gotten the proverbial "haircut? Like the MC hammer "tilt fade"?

How did all of the core colums server in order to allow for this angular movement?


Yeah, it's hard to picture what the core was doing during that. I have to say (from a personal standpoint) this has been the most helpful thread on the WTC collapses that I've been involved in. Just want to give a big shout out and say THANK YOU to everybody contributing, you're all really helping me a lot.

Okay, so looking at the shots in the above post and the Trinity church video it looks like (as far as tower 2 - this doesn't apply to tower 1 yet) that it is actually the moment created by the upper floors as they tilted out and offset the upper floor cg that actually brought down the building. The NIST theory that the floors all sagged and somehow brought the core down with the hat truss and ya ya ya...I can't see how you can make that theory work for Tower 2.

From the video/pics it appears the mass of the top floors shifted toward the buckling wall and then failed that half of the building and pulled the other half of the building down with it.

But the question unanswered is what the heck was going on with the core when the top floors were cocked 20 degrees from vertical? Was the whole core bending 20 degrees? Was it still some what vertical and the structure bending around it?

That's a mind bender to consider.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Do we KNOW that the side it tilted towards was the side the "showed buckling"?

If, suposedly, the "crushing KE" was from these floors it does not seem at all possible that the buildings would fall straight down. IT seems from a physics standpoint that the vector of the KE produced by this block would either:

1. Pull the whole or most of the structure in that direction if the core was still atached.
2. Miss most of the building and leave a lot of it standing. "Shaving" off that side of the structure.
3. That block should have fallen to the street below and remained in LARGE pieces (flattened) totally missing the existing intact structure.

To me, this series of photos totally dismisses the pankake theory because the KE vector was not in the right place/direction.

It kills the truss failure tehory for the same reason.

My final question is, why did this massive block seem to "vaporize" mid flight and not land partially intact (yet flattened" in the street below. If it did, why does it not appear in any photos. We are talking about 10% of the structure here.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
But the question unanswered is what the heck was going on with the core when the top floors were cocked 20 degrees from vertical? Was the whole core bending 20 degrees? Was it still some what vertical and the structure bending around it?


Or... was it totally disconnected somehow?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Do we KNOW that the side it tilted towards was the side the "showed buckling"?


That was mostly WTC1 (which, ironically, barely tilted at all). The only buckling photos of WTC2 I've seen were after the collapse had already started, and the tilting was causing perimeter buckling.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

But the question unanswered is what the heck was going on with the core when the top floors were cocked 20 degrees from vertical? Was the whole core bending 20 degrees? Was it still some what vertical and the structure bending around it?

That's a mind bender to consider.


IMO, the core was severed very close to impact.....remember in my scenario the core was severed at the base, 1/3 and 2/3 mark. 2/3 of the building puts it at around floor 74. Isn't that the floor/floors that were hit by the plane....74-78? I can't see 47 columns bending to that degree with them being intack. Remember that there was no sign of buckling of the exterior columns before this happened....meaning the exterior columns would have given some rigidity to the cap if the core was intack IMO. I also believe if the core columns were intack that there would have been some sort of rotation of the cap because the columns wouldn't all buckle nice and neet and in the same direction?

Valhall, Do you think my scenario is plausible? BTW, about 1/3 of the building is around 37. I think close enough to that is floor 22. Kinda fits in with what you found out about floor 22?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   


It's just weird that 30 stories of building can list to a 20 degree angle and not continue to go over the edge.


But did it stop tilting?

Is it possible that the rate that it was tilting over was visually overwhelmed by the rate that it was falling and it just appeared to stop falling over the edge?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
But did it stop tilting?


If it did not stop tilting... where is all of the KE coming from to crush the intact and strong untouched floors?

You are killing a lot of your own arguments if you conceede it did not stop tilting as there would have been no M x G = Focre to crush the building. The downward force vactor would be off center at best (re: not able to crush the core) and not even over the building at all in a worst case.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I can't see 47 columns bending to that degree with them being intack.


It is not possible. Steel does not posess the elasticity to stretch like that.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


If it did not stop tilting... where is all of the KE coming from to crush the intact and strong untouched floors?

You are killing a lot of your own arguments if you conceede it did not stop tilting as there would have been no M x G = Focre to crush the building. The downward force vactor would be off center at best (re: not able to crush the core) and not even over the building at all in a worst case.


Intact and strong floors? The building was collapsing.
What does the 'tilt' of an object have to do with the crushing force of its mass? Besides it wasn't just the top falling...the entire building was collapsing.
"crush" the core? Once the bracing system of the trusses was in the process of failing, how much force would it take to turn the core into a pile of pick-up sticks?

How much KE would it take to crush the floors? How much do you think it would take?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Intact and strong floors? The building was collapsing.


Circular logic. For the collapse to continue, according to the official line, there needed to be DOWNFORCE. Since the center of gravity of the mass that would provide this downforce was not centered above the UNDAMAGED floors, there would be no or far lessened force to maintain the collapse. Do you have any formal physics training?


Originally posted by Vushta
What does the 'tilt' of an object have to do with the crushing force of its mass?


It changes the direction/location of the downward force that supposedly was used to pancake the building... NO DOWNFOCR IN THE CENTER = NO PANCAKE COLLAPSE. How do you crush the core if the only avaliabe mass providing the crushing power is NOT centered over the core? OR even close for that matter. Again, do you know ANYTHING about physics? Moments? Vectors? Force? Work?


Originally posted by Vushta
Besides it wasn't just the top falling...the entire building was collapsing.


The official story requires the force of these floors to CRUSH the intact structure below. If the top is not providing the evergy to crush the building there IS NO ENERGY to crush the building and the collapse sequence ceases and part of the building stays intact.

You can't have it both ways. You are describing a CD if you maintain that the force of the top block of floors was NOT NEEDED to demolish the building.


Originally posted by Vushta
"crush" the core?


Yes, the pancake theory.


Originally posted by Vushta
Once the bracing system of the trusses was in the process of failing, how much force would it take to turn the core into a pile of pick-up sticks?


A very large amount of force would be required as the entire support structure below the tilting mass was basically intact. Now you are claiming that the building self destructed without cruching force?


Originally posted by Vushta
How much KE would it take to crush the floors? How much do you think it would take?


It is not my theory that the building pancakerd itself. It is the gov'ts theory. I obviously cannot do the actual calculations for a flawed theory. Without enough KE the "crushing" or failing would have been arrested by the intact support structure. Since the only availble mass to generate almost ANY KE for this crushing is basically unavailable... Where does ANY of the KE required come from.

Do you even know what KE, PE, vectors, force, work, inertia, momentum, fulcurm, elasticity, tensile strength and rotation are? Becasue these are the words that are needed to describe whta is happening here.

what is shown in these four pictures alone eliminates the pancake theory from the realm of reality.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
There is absolutely no possible chance that a collapse could occur. This is a LIE
It has never happened in the history of the earth. Furthermore the statistical probability of this event occurring in the manner it is presented to the public is something like 1:100000000000000000000000 Yea that's 24 0's. That number came from my statistics professor. So the WAR CRIMINAL Bush will be impeached, it's just a matter of time!



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I've made these two drawings to show what is involved in getting the top 30 floors of WTC 2 to list 20 degrees: EDIT: Fixed first pic...had a typo.





[edit on 8-1-2006 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Sorry….BUT If you think for a second you can use physics to prove that they fell because of fire. GO BACK TO SCHOOL! Maybe even ask a welder what the properties of steel are? Ohh wait I am a welder and I know this isn't possible. Like I said there is no argument here. lol it's kinda scary that people can be fooled like this....wow

And for those who don't know yet. You would need a plasma cutter and it still wouldn't even come close to cutting those steel beams. lol it would take you a week! With a PLASMA cutter.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
But did it stop tilting?

Is it possible that the rate that it was tilting over was visually overwhelmed by the rate that it was falling and it just appeared to stop falling over the edge?


No. We're talking roughly 17 degrees outward in about 2 seconds, mostly before vertical collapse begins. Then, straight-down collapse begins. Collapse goes on and we stay at roughly 17 degrees until the cap starts breaking up into chunks and falling off the sides.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   


Circular logic. For the collapse to continue, according to the official line, there needed to be DOWNFORCE. Since the center of gravity of the mass that would provide this downforce was not centered above the UNDAMAGED floors, there would be no or far lessened force to maintain the collapse. Do you have any formal physics training?


What an odd assumption.

If you look at the pics that Valhall posted you can see this huge chuck of the building falling. This has no 'downward force'???



Since the center of gravity of the mass that would provide this downforce was not centered above the UNDAMAGED floors, there would be no or far lessened force to maintain the collapse.


Source?
You know there is a vast difference between no and lessened.



It changes the direction/location of the downward force that supposedly was used to pancake the building... NO DOWNFOCR IN THE CENTER = NO PANCAKE COLLAPSE. How do you crush the core if the only avaliabe mass providing the crushing power is NOT centered over the core? OR even close for that matter. Again, do you know ANYTHING about physics? Moments? Vectors? Force? Work?


Yeah..yeah..yeah. But you are implying degrees of these forces and specifically stating that the degee of change in downward force was sufficient to cancel the possibility of collapse.
Source?




How do you crush the core if the only avaliabe mass providing the crushing power is NOT centered over the core?


There were other things going on during the collapse. Are you assuming that the only way for the core to have failed is by a straight down brute force crushing of the structure..like flattening a can with your foot?



The official story requires the force of these floors to CRUSH the intact structure below. If the top is not providing the evergy to crush the building there IS NO ENERGY to crush the building and the collapse sequence ceases and part of the building stays intact.


Well..no.
The official story requires that enough force was achieved to fail the connections and it just basically fell apart for lack of a better phrase.




there IS NO ENERGY to crush the building and the collapse sequence ceases and part of the building stays intact.


Source?



You can't have it both ways. You are describing a CD if you maintain that the force of the top block of floors was NOT NEEDED to demolish the building.


Thats not what I'm suggesting.



Yes, the pancake theory.


Pancake theory = crushed core theory?....Source?



A very large amount of force would be required as the entire support structure below the tilting mass was basically intact.


How much force do you calculate would be needed to fail the connections?
"Basically" intact?



It is not my theory that the building pancakerd itself. It is the gov'ts theory. I obviously cannot do the actual calculations for a flawed theory.


Then how are you arriving at the conclusion that the KE was 'not enough'?



what is shown in these four pictures alone eliminates the pancake theory from the realm of reality.


Only in your reality.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
Sorry….BUT If you think for a second you can use physics to prove that they fell because of fire. GO BACK TO SCHOOL! Maybe even ask a welder what the properties of steel are? Ohh wait I am a welder and I know this isn't possible. Like I said there is no argument here. lol it's kinda scary that people can be fooled like this....wow

And for those who don't know yet. You would need a plasma cutter and it still wouldn't even come close to cutting those steel beams. lol it would take you a week! With a PLASMA cutter.



Ignorance must be bliss. Plasma cutter a week to cut through these steel beams (I'm assuming you ment columns)?. So, it takes a plasma cutter a week to do what you are saying it took an hour for fire to do? Yeah, that makes sense?




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join