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.

 

Question on WTC collapse according to CD deniers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I have never heard this specifically addressed .. I've searched but no luck.

According to the official story the tower's core beams fell because fire WEAKENED (not melted) them. Everything buckled, bent, and let go at the same time.
This is why the collapse was so fast.

Basically correct so far?

Ok.

So they easily point to the impact floors and the "raging" fires .. and then we get into the argument over the HEAT factor on those particular floors; floors 70-80-90 .. something like that. Right?

Here's the question:
How do they say the steel core beams BELOW those floors fell? Are they saying
that the heat TRAVELLED DOWN the beams .. enough to weaken THEM ?

Sort of like having a giant SOLDERING GUN applied to floor 80 .. and within an hour the heat spreads THROUGH the entire 1000 ft building? .. is that what they're saying?

Since nobody is saying that the beams on floors 50 .. 30 .. or 10 REMAINED intact,
how exactly did all the lower beams fail .. according to the official story?




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
And if they did get hot enough to soften all the way down, why did they "break" as opposed to bend/twist like a pretzel? All the pics I saw showed broken/cut sections of straight beams, not bent.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
bvdd,

Your going to get alot of replies from the apologist of the official story that gravity took over and caused the building to pulvervize themselves and eject steel and concrete 100's of feet from the footprint.

When in fact logic and what you described would have the buildings toppling at the impact zone and leaving a sizable amount standing.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
bvdd,

Your going to get alot of replies from the apologist of the official story that gravity took over and caused the building to pulvervize themselves and eject steel and concrete 100's of feet from the footprint.

When in fact logic and what you described would have the buildings toppling at the impact zone and leaving a sizable amount standing.


Really?...and could you tell us why would that happen exactly?... I guess 12-18 floors with tons and tons of weight falling one floor on top of other floors are suddenly going to be stopped....

There are theories from the official story which do not fit, such as the time it took for the towers to collapse, which was more like 14-16 seconds instead of 9-10 seconds, but claiming that 12-18 floors falling after one or two floors buckling are going to be easily stopped by the floors below is just an asinine statement.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
And if they did get hot enough to soften all the way down, why did they "break" as opposed to bend/twist like a pretzel? All the pics I saw showed broken/cut sections of straight beams, not bent.


i would really like to see evidence of those "cut" sections... and yes there were bent beams, not all of them were broken .


Each end of each horizontal plate had a single row of holes so that the panels could be bolted together with cover plates overlapping the butt joint. Some close up photos seem to show cover plates on both faces of the horizontal plates, but the cover plates appear to be thinner than the plates that they are connecting together. The large amount of material removed by the holes, the thin cover plates, and the use of bolts instead of properly expanded rivets conspired to make the connections quite flexible. Sections of the wall that fell on top of debris piles bent at these connections, whereas they generally did not bend where there were no butt joints.

www.scieneering.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   


Really?...and could you tell us why would that happen exactly?... I guess 12-18 floors with tons and tons of weight falling one floor on top of other floors are suddenly going to be stopped....


Those 12-18 floors and tons and tons of weight are already being held up by the 70-80 floors below so there is no additional weight added to the lower floors.

And if there is no additional weight added to the lower floors what started the collapse sequence?

In fact the 12-18 floors end up being pulverized and ejected from the footprint of the building 100's of feet away once the collapse sequnce started just as the lower floors do.

How could that happen when there is absolutly no additional weight added to them?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join