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.

 

The South Tower

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I've been asking this a lot in other threads without much response.

So I thought I'd see if anyone will respond to an actual thread. We'll see.
I'll admit I'm not a physics expert but this stuff is basic high school, or used to be...


First look at this...

911research.wtc7.net...

I want to know how you explain the top rotating, breaking up and starting to topple before the collapse began? Then I'd like to know how it had the energy to crush the rest of the undamaged building under it?

It is obvious from just these pics that the top could not have crushed the building in a pancake collapse. The top section itself is crumbling and breaking up as the collapse initiates. How did this have enough mass to crush undamaged floors and steel columns that were stronger as they went down?

For a complete vertical collapse the columns would all need to be compromised at the same time, otherwise you would get a chaotic partial collapse. How did this top portion, that was rotating and leaning over, manage to compromise all the columns equally enough to cause a complete vertical collapse?

How does aprox 20% of mass overcome and destroy the other 80% by gravity alone, especially when it wasn't sitting true at the start of the collapse?

The top should have continued it's motion, as in Newtons 1st laws of motion (Inertia) and the law of conservation of angular momentum.


Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed.


What caused the angular momentum to stop and transfer it too vertical momentum?



A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it...An object that is in motion will not change velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.


What was that external unbalanced force? Gravity isn't the answer. I think we can all agree that the lower undamaged floors had the energy to hold the mass of the top. From what I've read the WTC was designed to take 2.5 times it's own mass. So what force caused the top, which was in motion, to change it's velocity?

IMO the only conclusion is there must have been another energy force acting on the building, other than the damage it had already suffered. What was that energy?




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I want to know how you explain the top rotating, breaking up and starting to topple before the collapse began? Then I'd like to know how it had the energy to crush the rest of the undamaged building under it?

It is obvious from just these pics that the top could not have crushed the building in a pancake collapse. The top section itself is crumbling and breaking up as the collapse initiates. How did this have enough mass to crush undamaged floors and steel columns that were stronger as they went down?


This has been discusseb before in several threads. Here is one I started:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I totally agree with you that it is not possible to have the top twist and turn the way it does and still have a totally symmetrical "global collapse". If you study the video you can actually see the whole top pulverize in mid air. It dissappears behind some smoke and comes out as rubble. There was no force working on it that could account for this destruction. I'm leaning heavily towards controlled demolition in this case...



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Thanx I forgot about that thread, I even posted in it a couple of time.

Sry I'm getting old...lol

But I started this mostly for certain prominent and regular 9-11 posters, who will remain anonymous, who I have asked this question recently, and keep dodging it. I was hoping they would at least make an attempt to de-bunk this. They didn't post in your thread either, I wonder why? Just like I wonder why this isn't covered in any of the official documentation??

Your post stopped at 2 pages with mostly only a small group involved, yet we have posts pages long arguing over stuff that can't be proved either way, and don't really matter if they can, and full of every member on this board who are still in denial. As I've always said the proof is in the physics and the deniers run like lemmings to the sea when presented with real questions that they can't answer cause it's not covered by their, 'government 9-11 handbook for agents of deception'.

Their predictable responses along with the inability, or refusal, to discuss and offer personal opinion on the harder questions, mark them for dis-info agents imo and I think people need to be aware of who they are arguing with.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Yeah, I totally hear you... It's like that 757 Did/Did not hit the pentagon threads. They have 4000 posts discussing everything from the alloy of the casing of the engine that might have been installed on a plane that might have crashed into the building and whatnot. Serious derailment in some cases, and in others we just get caught up in the details without looking at the big picture.

The explanation I got from some of these people when asking to explain how the top 20 floors could just pulverize in mid air was that it "bounced off a million pieces" or something similarly stupid. Hundreds of tonns og building doesn't just bounce around
and if it did, i think we would have seen it on the tape. Instead it starts tipping over, before suddenly dropping straight down and exploding in a million pieces. Somehow we are lead to believe that this is due to the "hugeness of the building" as if the laws of physic suddenly change for large objects


If you dig around a bit you'll find talk of a 1975 fire somewhere around the 11 floor that burned for several hours on almost the entire floor, yet after the cleanup they didn't even have to replace the floor trusses. In other words they stood up to the heat of the fire (which would be the same as the heat on 9/11) AND the weight of more than 90 floors above it WITHOUT failing even an inch. I think that says enough about this buildings ability to withstand fire, and that ther would have to be other forces involved on 9/11 than fire to cause such a devastating collapse.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Valhall's posted about this before even with at least one diagram showing why it won't work, too.

All that tilting upper "block" has momentum, and a lot of it because it has a lot of mass, relatively speaking (not a lot of mass compared to the rest of the building, obviously), and momentum is a product of mass and velocity. The momentum here also happens to be angular; that's to say that it's rotating around a fulcrum instead of traveling in a straight line, but it's momentum nonetheless.

Angular momentum is a conserved force, just like regular linear momentum. That is to say, it will never just disappear, vanish in thin air, stop tilting without a resistive force acting back upon it (in this case that would represent some super hero or Allah pushing back on the building invisibly, because all I see out there is air, and also in this case the other force would have to be equal AND opposite to just nullify the rotating), or being compromised some other way. And that "some other way", I think at least, is the next phase of the collapse being initiated with symmetrical floor-by-floor detonations below the rotating cap, destroying the fulcrum and causing the top floors to fall in on themselves (my best guess anyway).

If the building was collapsing under gravity alone, then guess what? The top part of the building would have kept rotating in that direction, putting more and more stress on the side being tilted into, and taking (vertical) stress off of the other side, ripping it from the truss connections or what-have-you.

For no reason should ALL of the columns and trusses under the tilting cap suddenly break up simultaneously, so the building just starts dropping straight down, which is exactly what happens the insant the cap loses its tilt and begins its ride downward into its footprint.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Watching this live on sept 11 was when I first began to question how this could have happened.
The reason so many people reacted with shocked disbelief is because they all knew on some level that the physics didn't add up.

Adding to the scientific functions already noted is 'the path of least resistance'.
There's no way that the top would have settled back down like it did. The weight had shifted to a point where gravity should have pulled in down into the street - sheering off more of the tower and the sides.

Every person I know of who has questioned my belief in some kind of conspiracy being present here shuts their mouth when I present them with those photos - they just don't have any explanation. Some then continue with blind denial, others have begun to help search for the truth.

I think that history will eventually uncover that truth and the people will come to wonder how anyone was ever so gullible as to buy the full official story.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Well i prefer this quote from the 911 commission report since its form the fire chiefs on the scene.


None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.


[edit on 15-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Thanx for the replies guys.

But just as I thought none of the people I really wanted to hear from have posted.

Where is the official story answer to this?! Because if their isn't one isn't it all over?

If this cannot be explained with the official story then why are we bothering to argue all the other little details (even though we will and I will too...lol).

I want to hear from Howward Roark, Snoopy, ajpsk8, Defcon5, Swampfox, MooneyBravo (who didn't answer this question in another thread, even though he claims to be a structural engineer) and of course CameronFox who also claimed to have an answer, but never coughed up even when pushed to do so.

Where are you guys? This is your chance to prove you are looking for the truth like the rest of us, and not just shills who can only repeat the official story. I'm challenging you to prove us wrong...

[edit on 15/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   


If you dig around a bit you'll find talk of a 1975 fire somewhere around the 11 floor that burned for several hours on almost the entire floor, yet after the cleanup they didn't even have to replace the floor trusses.


And yet, you forget important facts about that fire and the buildings structure. The 11th floor was treated with asbestos. The 9/11 impact zones were treated with a much less durable substance that was missing in many areas. A look in the history books shows that when they stopped using asbestos halfway up the towers, a few people questioned the ability of the towers to withstand an inferno on the upper floors.

As for the "rotation" and the angular momentum....what would happen if the inner structure of the top of the building (above the impact zone) fell into the remains of the inner structure below the impact zone.........hmmm......



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As for the "rotation" and the angular momentum....what would happen if the inner structure of the top of the building (above the impact zone) fell into the remains of the inner structure below the impact zone.........hmmm......


Well it wouldn't crush the whole building to the ground. How would it do that?

The steel columns are falling on steel columns of the same mass. Pls explain how you think a few steel columns would have the energy to crush many steel columns to the ground? What caused the inner structure to fall straight down, when it's shell was rotating and tilting off to one side?

Pls explain the physics that would do that?

But really you've missed the point a bit, the question is, 'what caused the top to not follow the laws of physics and continue in it's rotation and tilt?
Because until you can answer that your other point is mute.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I wonder what training everybody on this board, not what they claim, but what they really have.



'what caused the top to not follow the laws of physics and continue in it's rotation and tilt?


You apply black and white to a grey situation. The "rotation" was nothing of the sort, although it makes for formidable sounding arguments. The tilt, was stopped when that portion of the building fell into the jagged beams cut by the impact (which would also cause the top of the building to start to come apart)

The crushing of the building....actually I think the outside of the towers, below the impact, looked more like a banana being peeled. Of course, in the case of the towers the "peel" (metal facade) was being separated from the floor trusses, leaving them vulnerable to the mass of the building above the impact zone.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As for the "rotation" and the angular momentum....what would happen if the inner structure of the top of the building (above the impact zone) fell into the remains of the inner structure below the impact zone.........hmmm......


In other words if the core fell into itself?

So it wasn't the truss connections failing at all, but the whole mass of core columns themselves and all of their bracing, right?



I'll edit to add that NIST has the connections failing on the perimeter side, not the core side, and that the resulting collapses were because of loss of integrity from the perimeter columns, once again, and not the core.

NIST also showed how incredibly unlikely it would be in any realistic situation for the core structure itself to fail from heat. The impact damages similarly could not have been much, as NIST modeled this too, with Flight 175 slamming directly into the building rather than hitting it to the side and missing the core.

So these guys are tweaking the hell out of what actually happened in their simulation parameters and still can't get any significant problems from the core structure. That's why they brought their theory to the perimeter structure. And that's why what you're saying doesn't make any sense.



I'll also edit to add, and save potential back-peddling, that the core is also most definitely compromised for that ~15 degree tilt that low down on the South Tower. There is no way the core was still straight, and the perimeters just shifting around and the internal structure only appearing to tilt. Take a pic and work it out yourself.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wonder what training everybody on this board, not what they claim, but what they really have.



'what caused the top to not follow the laws of physics and continue in it's rotation and tilt?


You apply black and white to a grey situation. The "rotation" was nothing of the sort, although it makes for formidable sounding arguments. The tilt, was stopped when that portion of the building fell into the jagged beams cut by the impact (which would also cause the top of the building to start to come apart)

The crushing of the building....actually I think the outside of the towers, below the impact, looked more like a banana being peeled. Of course, in the case of the towers the "peel" (metal facade) was being separated from the floor trusses, leaving them vulnerable to the mass of the building above the impact zone.


Sry but that doesn't explain anything. Physics has no grey areas, otherwise we wouldn't have 'laws of physics'.

What do you mean the rotation was nothing of the sort? A tilt will not be stopped by hitting other portions of the building. In fact it should have made the tilt worse, when the pivot of the tilt impacted the still good floors it would have cause it too topple not go straight down, crushing undamaged steel columns and concrete.

Also you don't explain how the top had the energy to crush 77 undamaged floors and 'bannana peel' the whole building to it's foundations.
What caused the outer mesh to become unattached all around equally from it's many fasteners and welds? You think the top, that was not sitting true cause of the tilt and was crumbling apart, had the energy to crush, or peel the whole building to the ground? Now that doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
This is a good video.


www.peoplefor911justice.com...


Those are great questions Anok and of course no one is really answering them.. Why should we be surprised?

I'm 99.9 percent conviced those building were completely prepared ahead of time for controlled demoltion.

I'm also convinced the cores were knocked out, most likely with some type of thermite, which caused the center to fall pulling the exterior exoskeleton in. I don't have the sources in front of me but the exterior perimeter of the building had some amazing strength and could stand on it's own.. it had load bearing capacity, not just the cores. What I'm saying is because the core was knocked out, probably in succession, the inner falling part of the building literally tore itself apart pulling the outside in.. hope that makes sense. When you watch videos of the towers collapsing it makes perfect sense.. It looks like the outside is being 'peeled' down.. what's peeling the exterior inward? THE DESTROYED CORE. This also explains why the 'tilting top' had time to disintegrate before falling to the ground or falling to the side of the core that should have still been standing because THE BUILDING LITERALLY FELL OUT FROM BENEATH IT. (It's core of the 'tilting top' also being destroyed as it fell allowing it to 'fall apart')

The core was knocked out.. its obvious and it's the only thing that can explain how these building fell the way they did.

Thermite or it's derivitives are the only thing that can explain the molten metal that existed as long as it did in the rubble after the buildings collapsed.

I'm not saying bombs of some type were not used in conjunction with some type of thermite but it's plainly obvious thermite was involved. The burden of proof is on the cd naysayers.



It's right under your noses people.



Add:

The core 'pulling' the outside in and down also explains how all the connections at the perimeter all gave at the same time.. This ALSO explains all the cracking and popping everyone heard as the building fell.

Controlled demolition is the ONLY thing that can reconcile the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7 with the laws of physics.

P.S. The laws of physics don't change.. the stories pertaining to them do.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
P.S. The laws of physics don't change.. the stories pertaining to them do.


Thanx for the vid link, I'll check it out.

You're right the laws of physics don't change and have grey areas as Swampfox suggests, otherwise they wouldn't be called 'laws' of physics.

I try not to make suggestions as to what was used to bring them down, cause really we can only guess, even if it is an intelligent guess. We don't really need to know what was used to prove that something other than what the official story is telling us was acting on those buildings.
I do agree though that thermite/thermate or something simular seems the most logical, along with some other explosives, thermate doesn't make squibs.

We should concentrate on the physics, you can't argue with the physics. As the obvious lack of attempts to do so, in this and other threads, shows that is obvious.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And yet, you forget important facts about that fire and the buildings structure. The 11th floor was treated with asbestos. The 9/11 impact zones were treated with a much less durable substance that was missing in many areas. A look in the history books shows that when they stopped using asbestos halfway up the towers, a few people questioned the ability of the towers to withstand an inferno on the upper floors.



Show me one reliable source who is willing to claim that the lack of asbestos would leave the structural steel diposed to a sudden and total failure due to the temperatures exhibited by the fires that day... No matter if insulated or not, the steel would not have had any problems withstanding those temperatures for several hours. They tested the floor strusses in the lab with the maximum temperature of that fire and it held up withouth any weakening or sagging for over two hours. We've been over this before. Fire did not weaken that steel, no matter how you look at it. I'm not even sure your claim is right that they only insulated half the building. What would be the point of that? They "knew" there wouldn't be any fires in the top half?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
And the fire of 1975, which burned for 3 hours, didn't weaken the steel either...
(not that I would have expected it to)


Seldom mentioned in the literature about the September 11th attack is the fact that the North Tower experienced a serious fire in 1975, when it was only sparsely occupied. On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.


Source



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
well anok, i feel personally that you ask a valid question. ive been absent from the 9-11 threads a while as i just simply didnt feel like recreating my body of work about demolitions from the pre-august admin boo boo and there was nothing really "new" to discuss for me.

but, this thread poses a valid question, and while i still maintain that for me i cant say i buy W's version of things, i still cant reconsile what i saw to what ive seen working with real explosives, i will offer the following for discussion.

www.vimeo.com...:65173

www.tdaxp.com...


now, apparently what happned was they were trying to drop it on its side as the way was clear and it was essentially a concrete tube so trying to implode it really wouldnt work well or be as cheap, so they severed the support structure, and it just kind of got stuck. and i know what you will say next, that the momentum was absorbed by whatever it got stuck on which is correct.

is it not possible thats what happened to the top of the south tower?

in advance, i will offer that is a stretch, but without being able to recreate it exactly the same way, we just dont know.

another thing ill offer in advance, that alone shouldnt have caused the collapse exactly as it did. wont go so far as to say it DIDNT cause it that way just that it shouldnt have. but lets face it. regardless of anything the way those towers fell is an oddity to say the least.

still not willing to say it was HE that did it though. thats just me. no idea what did, but pretty sure it wasnt HE.

and before anyone jumps on me, bsb should back me up when i say that ive claimed the same thing for a long time now. and at least to him i think ive at least established my credentials for having, if not an expert opinion, at least an experienced one when talking about demo.

anyway, again, great question anok


[edit on 16-1-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS

www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by graphicsman1977
As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.


Please I am not an extremist, I take offence at such a remark!

And please re-read my OP, I don't want to hear from such things as un-popular mechanics, I want your views on this.

Pop mechanics did not cover the questions I'm asking, all they did was support the official story, and like the official story they conveniently ignored anything that didn't fit the story they want us to believe.

Pop mechanics is owned by the Hearst corp who are one of the biggest media outlets in the world and are motivated to support the government, no matter what.

How do you explain what happened to the top floors of the South Tower? If you can't explain it, then shouldn't you be questioning and not just accepting?




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join