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.

 

Order of Impact and Collapse

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
According to the timeline of events here:

www.emporis.com...

WTC 1 was hit at 8:45 and then WTC 2 at 9:03. By the time Tower 2 was hit, the jet fuel fires had been burning in Tower 1 for 18 minutes.

At 10:05, Tower 2 collapses. Its fires had been burning for one hour and 2 minutes. Tower 1 takes another 24 minutes to collapse (at 10:29), by which time its fires had been burning for 1 hour and 44 minutes.

Assuming that jet fuel fires did indeed burn hot enough to melt steel, and caused the collapse of the towers, then why didn't Tower 1 fall first, since its steel had been subjected to the heat for the longer time? Surely Tower 1 would have at least shown some sign of its weakening supports, well before Tower 2 collapsed. If this is the case then I apologize, but in all the videos I have seen, Tower 1 looks solid as a rock, even as Tower 2 collapses right beside it.

As 2 comes down, does the shock wave cause 1 to sway or bend in some way, indicating weakened support structures? In my observation it does not. How can this be?

If anyone has an explanation of this anomaly that I may have missed I'd appreciate a link.




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This really is an oddity considering that

  • WTC2 had less severe fires than WTC1.
  • WTC2's fires lasted for a shorter period of time.
  • WTC2 lost less perimeter columns during impact.
  • WTC2 lost less core columns, as it was hit at a sharp angle, avoiding a direct impact with the center of the building.
  • WTC2 was impacted lower, where columns were stronger, and thus would take longer to heat.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
More suitable post:

Furthermore from BsBray11's brief analysis, I've seen the argument arise from people not familiar with the 9/11 Conspiracy or the NIST report, that because the airliner impact was so low on World Trade Center 2 and that "there was more mass on the weakened" area, it caused the collapse to happen a lot sooner than that of World Trade Center 1.

Contrary however, the building's structural redudancy was built into proportion to how much was directly above it and how much it had to support and how much it could support. So the beams weren't necessarily experiencing anymore greater of a load, then say the perimeter columns above that on World Trade Center 1. Not by a huge margin at any rate as some may lead you to believe.

It is rather suspicious as to how World Trade Center 2 fell so quickly as compared to World Trade Center 1. The angular momentum:



Seen in this picture of World Trade Center 2 is also suspicious as it apparently somehow brought the whole building symmetricy with a different vector of momentum than that of World Trade Center 1. It was not directly down but moreso focused off center, yet the building fell down perfectly fine and near the same rate and type of collapse as World Trade Center 1.


[edit on 9/7/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Masisoar, it seems you think that I believe in the official story. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I started the thread to invite possible explanations of how this anomaly occurred, supposedly from believers of the the official story, or a government report on the matter. I don't expect to see either.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Hahaha, to the contrary, I didn't impose that
Just helping with BSBray's post
nothing directed at you my good friend


Edit: Look above - totally more revised and laid out.
sorry man.

[edit on 9/7/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I figured there would be no explanations for this. I guess that puts to rest the notion that the fuel fires caused the collapse.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I think it's a bit beyond the capabilities of the jet fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel, or anything in that building's ability to burn hot enough to melt steel.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

As 2 comes down, does the shock wave cause 1 to sway or bend in some way, indicating weakened support structures? In my observation it does not. How can this be?

If anyone has an explanation of this anomaly that I may have missed I'd appreciate a link.


It shouldn't as the buildings were built to withstand extreme lateral forces such as wind from a hurricane contacting an entire surface area of one side of the World Trade Center.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join