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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
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....

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.


Thanx for the open minded reply Damocles. I have no idea what did it either, HE, thermate, superbushgravityray, but I don't think it's that important at this point. That is why there should be an open independent investigation done, but with all the evidence gone it's almost impossible now.

Hmmm I can't really see the connection with the Zip Feeds Mill? It didn't break up and it didn't collapse in on itself, but maybe I'm missing exactly what you're proposing?




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
well i just found it interesting in that it started to fall and stopped. (the video is pretty cool)

it goes along with the top of the tower starting to fall, then essentially...stopping just before the bottom falls out of it. theoretically, once the top of the south tower started to fall, momentum should have kept it going regardless of waht the rest of the tower was doing and should not have fallen into its own footprint but should have landed, at the very least, beside the base of the tower.

what i guess im saying, as a possibility not necessarily waht i am saying happened, is that the top of the tower started to go. stopped as a result of resting on the outter wall below it or as a result of the inner core not being totally severed. and then when the tower started to collapse below it it was pulled downwards. again, i KNOW its a stretch...but, from what i saw happen its not TOTALLY outside the realm of at least possibility...? granted, im heavily medicated and havnt slept in over a day but still rofl...


all im proposing is that given we dont have a verifiable reason, we cant say things are 'impossible' in many cases. this i believe is one of them.

now, ill also admit that from reading much of douglas adams works many times starting at a very young age, i do know the difference between possibility and probability



oh, and im still not sold on thermate either but as my personal experience with it is very limited i cant say flat out that its not possible either. lol but until i see something new im standing by my no HE mindset. the mind however is open


[edit on 16-1-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The main factor in the collapse of the WTC was the design. First find how many other buildings are built as the WTC, and then ask your self why not?

If you look at the paths, the terrorists in the jets were attempting to strike the towers with enough force, that they would topple into one another and collpase. This was the same logic that was used in the WTC bombing. Destroy the foundation and it will collapse against one another. This is why they tilted the wings at the last possible moment, to not make a clean slice but exert as much force as possible.

I am open to theory, but it was the design that was the downfall of the WTC and it was exploited. This is why other towers or skyscrapers have survived large fires. They were not designed the same way.

Did the government have knowledge? Of a plot, yes, since the mid 90's. However, they did not PLAN it.

Unless you have ever seen the WTC, I do not think you can understand how it must have been for the building to be almost cut in half, and then collapse from it's own weight. This was not a 4 story apartment building.

I mean, if you are going to kill 3000 people, why make it so clean that it does not hit other buildings when they collapse. It would have added to the destruction that was created.

Good questions though.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The main factor in the collapse of the WTC was the design. First find how many other buildings are built as the WTC, and then ask your self why not?


Hi Esdad-

I was under the impression they were designed to withstand the strike of a 707? " Like punching a hole through a screen door with a pencil " if I remember correctly.



If you look at the paths, the terrorists in the jets were attempting to strike the towers with enough force, that they would topple into one another and collpase.


According to the confiscated Bin Laden video. He was suprised they collapsed. They did not forsee this happening.



This was the same logic that was used in the WTC bombing. Destroy the foundation and it will collapse against one another. This is why they tilted the wings at the last possible moment, to not make a clean slice but exert as much force as possible.


So why did they hit them closer to the top & not more towards the base then?



I am open to theory, but it was the design that was the downfall of the WTC and it was exploited. This is why other towers or skyscrapers have survived large fires. They were not designed the same way.


I agree. There have been many more violent fires and no building has ever before or since totally collapsed from fire. Two questions though. . .

Explain WTC 7 then. . . And if debris brought it down then how do you explain all the buildings we see getting hit from HE and ensuing fires and they don't totally collapse? How do you explain portions of these buildings still stand yet building 7 implodes into total collapse? I know every situation is unique but. . .

EDIT TO ADD: Why are portions of WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 still standing after getting hit with much more debris than building 7, along with more intense fires, and these buildings didn't collapse? It can't be both ways can it?



Did the government have knowledge? Of a plot, yes, since the mid 90's. However, they did not PLAN it.


C'mon Esdad. You cannot claim this for fact. How do you know this for sure?



Unless you have ever seen the WTC, I do not think you can understand how it must have been for the building to be almost cut in half, and then collapse from it's own weight. This was not a 4 story apartment building.


Been there before & after. They were HUGE! BUT-If anything wouldn't the immense size of the building help to thwart the total collapse? Wouldn't the significance of an impact be reduced as the size of the building is increased & vice versa? I agree with you. They were not 4 storey apartment buildings. Said buildings would have been obliterated upon a similar impact.

They were not almost cut in half, and they didn't collapse from their own weight because most of the material was ejected up to 600' during the collapse.



I mean, if you are going to kill 3000 people, why make it so clean that it does not hit other buildings when they collapse. It would have added to the destruction that was created.


It wasn't clean. The whole complex was destroyed, ( 16 football fields worth! ), along with other buildings that have since been demolished.



Good questions though.



I agree. They are VERY good questions.


I also agree with ANOK. Seeing the south tower collapse & the application of physics to this was the second reason I started to question what we were being told. ( Right after WTC 7. ) Proven physics are tough to disprove. . .

Damocles is right though. Until we know for sure, you can't say any theory is impossible.


2PacSade-

added comment

[edit on 16-1-2007 by 2PacSade]

[edit on 16-1-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Man, leave for a few months and there is no shortage of Internet educated people still wandering through these posts. WTC is not the coverup, Flight 93 is. It was shot down, but so much attention is given to the Pentagon and the WTC no one pays attention. Make a hero, make a movie and lets roll, the conspiracy goes on.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Anok

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.


Absolutely.


The buildings were deffinteily weakened at the point the planes struck them but I'm sorry guys.. it's just not possible for those buildings to have collapsed the way they did because of the localized damage they received. The worst thing that SHOULD have happened is that the top part above the 'strike zones' should have fallen off and AROUND the lower undamaged floors and core but this did not happen. I'll entertain the possibility of a partial collapse but for the top to pancake the lower floors and/or just pull apart the building as it fell? Not buying it. When you look at the physics and really study the videos it's just not possible.

Like I said earlier, I believe that the core was taken out in succession.. What sequence I'm not sure.. but it explains everything. The exterior exoskeleton would have put up one hell of a fight as the inner core fell apart inside of it.. thus shredding everything to bits, just like what happened. The top part sort of took it's own path momentarily simply because the exterior collums at the damage point were weakened which allowed this to happen. The rest of the building 'peeled'. Imagine it.. the core giving out with the outer perimeter collumns and 'netting' resisting the core/floors falling within it.. makes perfect sense.. and like I said... would have pulverized everything. So pancaking did happen int that sense because the outer net was trying to hold everything up while the center fell through the 'tube crushing everything in the process because the tube was trying to hold everything up.

I get the creeps just thinking about it and really #@%# me off.



Add:

This all will not make alot of sense to many of you until you realize how strong the 'perimeter' of these buildings were.. I'm still trying to find the link to specific information but not only were these perimters designed to have some vertical load bearing capacity, they had INCREDIBLE lateral load bearing capacity. It was designed to withstand amazing wind loads. The planes hitting those buildings were nothing compared to the wind loads those building routinely put up with. If you could have just taken the core/ floors and contents out of those buildings the outer shell probably could have stood on it's own and according to the information I have read, this would have been the case. This outer shell was really a building all it's own and Its plainly obvious that the inside falling within it caused an incredible explosive failure, literally exploding and imploding at the same time.

One thing that irks me.. is when you watch the building collapse and the top tilting away,,, the part below the 'tilting top' is already collapsing before anything from the top part having a chance to really act on it..



[edit on 16-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Man, leave for a few months and there is no shortage of Internet educated people still wandering through these posts. WTC is not the coverup, Flight 93 is. It was shot down, but so much attention is given to the Pentagon and the WTC no one pays attention. Make a hero, make a movie and lets roll, the conspiracy goes on.







So just how beyond 'internet educated' are you Esdad.. what makes you so special.. tell us please?


What on earth makes you think that if Flight 93 was a conspiracy that there could not possibly be nothing wrong with the rest of it? Please explain this logic to all of us.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
View, please take a step back and take a breath. I was responding to the person who picked apart my post using wit that could only be found on left 9/11 sites and prison planet. I care to not talk to those who cannot contribute something new to this investigation or who have not looked at all three sides of an issue, bieng your view, my view and the truth.

I am open to anything, I just do not have to believe it.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
One thing I would like to talk about too are the post collapse pictures of the cut collumns 'cut at an angle'. Do we really know when these collumns in question were cut and why would they have cut these at an angle during cleanup? It's easily verified that the demolition industry uses shape cutting charges to cut collumns just like this during controlled demolition so that the building will go in the direction that is desired. I have friend of mine who is a welder and who has done quite a bit of demolition cleanup and according to him.. there is no reason to cut a collumn like this at an angle (during post collapse cleanup) because they generally cut things down in small pieces and use cables and cranes to tilt/lift heavy steel in the direction they want. I wish someone would help me analyze this more closely.. Going by the pictures I have it's hard to tell what direction these angle cut collumns are facing. This would be a really important tell tale sign and clue.




Also, my friend says that the amount melted metal around the cut does not look right.. like there is more than there should be. He is going to find a similar type of boxed metal similar to this and cut it.. I'm going to get pictures and post them.. Will keep you posted.


[edit on 16-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Ed.. I don't need to step back and take a breath.. What I need is a breath of fresh air and break from people who imply that I need to have my face punched in because I'm supposedly accusing the NY FD of helping Larry Silverstein destroy building 7 because I imply (and still do) that Larry Silverstein has blood all over his hands and was VERY much involved with the foreknowledge and controlled demolition of building 7.. or I'm internet educated because I use references to certain websites.. So what if you don't like the 'wit' of certain people or websites. that does not automatically mean they are 'internet' edumecated'.. umkay'?


You take deep breath man and help keep the stage set for a civilized debate.. If you don't want a bad response don't set yourself up for one.



[edit on 16-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
View, do you personally believe in anything or do you just take the word of everything you 'read and agree with' and the diatribes of your friends? It is your perogative not to care, but it should be in your wisdom that allows you to see both sides of a picture.

If president Clinton cannot hide a BJ in the oval office, do you truly think 9/11 could be covered up? Someone else posed that question in one of these forums and it is very true. Many of you give the government too much credit, and it is in that they can control you. You show this weakness in the ability to believe that your own country could have pulled off 9/11.

It was intelligence failures, from former presidents back to Carter to Bush and his aides and their infighting with outgoing administration that led to 9/11, along with hte desire for radical Islam to attempt to promote a global agenda. Sorry, simple as that and it has gone on for hundreds of years.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Guys please stay on topic.

I want to hear your theories on how the top of the South Tower had the energy to demolish the building to the ground, not clintons BJ. Pls don't turn this into another 9-11 free-for-all, ATS is already full of threads like that. I want to focus on this particular subject, pls don't de-rail the thread with stuff that is irrelevant.
I will not respond to off-topic posts.

Thanx...



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The force of the impact of the planes shifted the entire structure, and it twisted. This can be seen in video from that day. the towers were leaning before the "pancake collapse" was even initiated. Minutes priorto collapse there were radio reports from NYPD helos in the area.

Because of the design of the buidlings, they basically fell into themselves when the inner support structure finally gave way. To explain it is there was a center column(s), and then there are 'hangiing trusses' attached to the outside columns. This is the support of the whold building and it's design. When they were no longer attached to the outside, the interior began to buckle and collapse inward. What was still attached on the upper floors was then pulled down into the middle of the structure.

The floors were sagging. You can see it in many pictures. Is this not a viable explanation?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Just because Clinton couldn't cover up a BJ (I'll bet back on topic, just want to illustrate something really quick) does not mean that the government, especially criminal elements of it can never cover something up.

ONE example and I can site many more..

Remember project Jennifer? I'm sure much of probably don't know much about this but how in the heck was this covered up as long as it was?


External Source

en.wikipedia.org...

USNS Glomar Explorer (T-AG-193) is a large ship currently being used as a deep-sea drilling platform. The vessel was built for a SECRET OPERATION, Project Jennifer, by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to recover a sunken Soviet submarine, K-129, which had been lost in April 1968.





External Source

www.answers.com...

The New York Times suppresses its story

In early 1974, investigative reporter and former Timesman Seymour Hersh had planned to publish a story on Project Jennifer. Bill Kovach, the New York Times Washington bureau chief at the time, said in 2005 that the government offered a convincing argument to delay publication in early 1974—exposure at that time, while the project was ongoing, "would have caused an international incident." The Times eventually published its account in 1975, after a story appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and included a five-paragraph explanation of the many twists and turns in the path to publication. [1]



Of course when it the story of this finally got out it still really didn't make headlines per say and at least some of the evidence was still around. Heck, the Glomar itself is still in service I believe.

This whole 911 thing is huge and the tension involved in the keeping it covered up would have to be HUGE.


This is just the tip of the iceberg. If this can be covered up for as long as it did why can't you believe that the homeland criminality in 911 be covered up?

The whole dynamic of 911 being covered up compared to project Jennifer is FAR greater. Far greater stakes. Far greater loss if the truth get's out and is believed on a big enough scale to motivate people to 'cross that line'. If the coverup is true which I believe it is, what in the world would happen if the 'sleeping giant' actually did wake up and learned the truth? I can only imagine and I think it would be far worse than an impeachment and a few hangings.

Of course I don't believe everything I read and hear and don't tell me I don't care because you have no idea.

Perhaps it is you that believe everything you hear and read because you fail to see what's right under your nose.

The self evident is so glaringly obvious yet people for some reason just refuse to see it.. maybe it has something to do with grand delusion.

Didn't Hitler say something to the effect that if the lie is big enough no one can do anything except believe it?

How can anyone even WANT to believe that our own government was involved in the deaths of 3000 people?.. Believe me when I tell you .. I wish I didn't believe it.. but I do.

If you believe because Clinton couldn't cover up a BJ that nothing else can be covered up I'm not sure what to tell you.

I wonder how many death threats were involved with the whole Clinton BJ scandal.. The 911 coverup is a WHOLE nother' paradyne as you could imagine and I've heard and read about a whole plethora of mysterious deaths and death threats concerning these matters.

Ok.. back to the topic.

Like I said.. controlled demolition is the only thing that can explain the collapse for me but I do have a couple of things that I would like to focus on...

I'm surprised that there has not been more commentary on how the building would have behaved if the core was knocked out. To me, the core, being pre weakened and knocked out in sequence pretty much explains it all to me including the 'tilting top' just disintegrating in mid air. Imagine it's core being 'busted up'.. it's not going to hold together to well eh? I mean it's innards just going everywhere still connected to the perimeter.. ripping itself apart as it came down.. If the core had stayed intact I just can't see this whole thing happening like it did. Also, the perimeter skin of this building is unique.. has anyone really studied it? There is a reason why buliding 7 collapsed with the exterior going down with the core elements at the same time and buildings 1 and 2 kind'a peeling from the top down. It's obvious that the external 'skin' or perimeter on building 7 was not designed to be a load bearing structure whereas the building 1 and 2's perimeter was designed to take both lateral AND gravity loads..

Just a starting point:


External Source

en.wikipedia.org...

Perimeter columns

The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads AND SHARED THE GRAVITY LOADS WITH THE CORE COLLUMNS. The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected together by spandrel plates.






Now.. the only thing that I still have some doubt about is the explosive nature about the collapses. The building "appears" to be imploding and exploding at the same time. Like I proposed earlier, since the perimeter, it's unique (60+ collumns) and lattice construction was so strong I believe that it's resistance to the stuff pulling and ripping away from it as the core fell contributed the energy needed for the explosive effects/failures that were witnessed.

As far as the angle cut collumns existing after the building collapsed and showing up in pictures.. I'm not sure what to think about them for now.. I'm looking at other threads now, I still think there is way too much metal 'slag' hanging off the cuts to be from it's own 'supply' if you will while it was cut. Thermite contributes quite a bit of it's own metal as it burns.


[edit on 16-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

esdad71

The force of the impact of the planes shifted the entire structure, and it twisted. This can be seen in video from that day. the towers were leaning before the "pancake collapse" was even initiated. Minutes priorto collapse there were radio reports from NYPD helos in the area.



Pancake collapse? sorry.. I just can't do that. The force of the impact from the planes didn't knock the towers down. What do you mean the towers where 'leaning'? Yes.. at the top.. but this still does not explain how the undamaged part of the building under the impact zone just fell out of the way upon collapse.



esdad71

Because of the design of the buidlings, they basically fell into themselves when the inner support structure finally gave way.


I'll entertain the POSSIBILITY that the core near the impact zones MIGHT have failed but this still does not explain how all the "inner support structures" below the impact area "finally gave way" as you say.


esdad71

To explain it is there was a center column(s), and then there are 'hangiing trusses' attached to the outside columns. This is the support of the whold building and it's design. When they were no longer attached to the outside, the interior began to buckle and collapse inward. What was still attached on the upper floors was then pulled down into the middle of the structure.


No.. the hanging trusses at the perimeter only supported the weight of that particular floor relative to the trusses attached to that floor, so only the floors attached to damaged trusses are going to be under scrutiney here. The INNER core supported I believe 90+ percent of the gravity load. Yes.. it obvious that there was some failures of a few exterior collumns and trusses but I refuse to believe that because of some "localized" failures in a few particular spots that it would have started a global and cascade failure like the one we saw. A few trusses failing and floors sagging? It's obvious that happened but there was plenty of load bearing capacity left in the untouched perimter collumns and core to support the building above the impact zone. Also, in order for the failure that we saw to have occured the way it did ALL the perimeter trusses WOULD HAVE HAD TO FAIL AT THE SAME TIME which is simply not possible without the core falling first or being taken out by something other than the plane strikes AS THE PLANES DID NOT KNOCK OUT ALL THE PERIMETER TRUSSES AROUND THE IMPACT AREA as the almighty NIST report will attest too.


I think this has been discussed before..


[edit on 17-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
www.pbs.org...


Please take the time and read and watch the information provided, and I think you may see more of my point. Please make sure to look at the video entitled 'collapse', where it explains it quite well.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
View, please take a step back and take a breath. I was responding to the person who picked apart my post using wit that could only be found on left 9/11 sites and prison planet. I care to not talk to those who cannot contribute something new to this investigation or who have not looked at all three sides of an issue, bieng your view, my view and the truth.

I am open to anything, I just do not have to believe it.


You do realize in your post you stated things like this;


Originally posted by esdad71
Did the government have knowledge? Of a plot, yes, since the mid 90's. However, they did not PLAN it.


How can you statements such as these??? If my responding to your dubious claims is "picking you apart " then I suggest you don't post such things without evidence to back it up. If you were to state that this is just your opinion then that's quite a different story. . . But you posted this comment, along with others, like they're facts, and by your own admission, they are not because you don't know the truth either at present. . . And neither do I;


Originally posted by 2PacSade
Damocles is right though. Until we know for sure, you can't say any theory is impossible.


Also- The comment about Internet educated people wandering through these posts was uncalled for.


This was directed at me without provocation. I wasn't derogatory in my response to you at all, and I would appreciate that demeanor be reciprocated in the future thank you. I have always shown you courtesy in the past Esdad, and until now, have seen you show the same. That's why I'm suprised by the unnecessary digs.

Didn't pick apart your post. Just responding to the points you made. Wasn't trying to use any wit, but if came accross that way I'm sorry. Don't visit left 911 sites & only go to prison planet when a link directs me there. Don't know where you get your information, but I'll choose to not make accusations about you, and forgive you for your comments.

But I guess since you brought up the subject I would like to ask;

What " new contributions to the investigation " were embedded in your original post?

Have a good day Esdad.


2PacSade-



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Oplan Bojinka. This was basically a second try or phase to that operation. This is why the government knew.

I am not making statement with nothing to back it up, I am making it in a forum where most people researching this have knowledge or they go and try to see if the statement has any cred. That is how I learned alot of what I have found on this site. I apologize for not giving more clarification.

I apologize for the internet edumacated comment, but that is what they read like. There seemed not to be much original thought.

This is about the South Tower. Is there any response to the video I posted? Does this at least give a more viable alternative than using super thermite?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The force of the impact of the planes shifted the entire structure, and it twisted. This can be seen in video from that day. the towers were leaning before the "pancake collapse" was even initiated. Minutes priorto collapse there were radio reports from NYPD helos in the area.


Do you even think about what you say, esdad? I don't ask this rhetorically. Where did you get this stuff?

The impact did not shift the entire structure. Think about it. What would have had to have shifted? The core structure? The trusses? The perimeter columns? All of it? What kind of shift, rotating from the lateral or vertically?

It obviously was not twisting, or tilted vertically until it began to collapse. Look at any picture after WTC2 was hit and this will be confirmed. If you've seen images to the contrary, then post them. Long story short, the planes impacts didn't "[shift] the entire structure", this is easy to observe, and honestly man, what are you thinking?

Secondly, this tilt was not just a tilt but a tilting: it had significant momentum and an acceleration to it for a period of time, and we could even pick pretty precise starts and stops from video frames. To the contrary, there was no such movement before the collapse began (and by this I don't mean 20 minutes before this angular momentum appeared -- because as ridiculous as that would be to assert, I have a feeling somebody would
), and this is also easily observed. Anything else and you'll have to post it for me to see, because I've never seen the buildings tilting before their collapse on a global scale.


Because of the design of the buidlings, they basically fell into themselves when the inner support structure finally gave way.


This is also completely wrong. Are you just saying what you think should be right in your mind, or what you've actually observed from the media we have from the day?

Most of the buildings' masses fell outside of their footprints. Several sources will state the same, including FEMA, Blanchard from PROTEC, etc., but really all you need is common sense: look at the footprints. The vast majority of the buildings' masses, are missing. Not there. Just the outer wall of the lowest floors. Use your head, man. All that mass can't be two places at once. They didn't fall into themselves; their masses were ejected constantly all the way down.


Also, there is pretty widespread agreement that the core structure could not possibly have failed first. You'll find evidence enough of this in NIST's report, and NIST itself has asserted that the exterior columns buckling from sagging trusses was what caused the collapse to initiate, not the core structure! NIST shows with tests and simulations that the core couldn't have been severely damaged by the impact (and they did their test with Flight 175 coming in straight-on, not off-set like it actually was!), and fire also fails miserably at failing those 47 thick and massive box columns.


To explain it is there was a center column(s)


You aren't even familiar with the structure you're trying to educate us about?


and then there are 'hangiing trusses' attached to the outside columns.


AND inner columns, AND they were bolted and welded on BOTH SIDES.


When they were no longer attached to the outside, the interior began to buckle and collapse inward. What was still attached on the upper floors was then pulled down into the middle of the structure.


Aside from you asserting once again that the core must've failed first, the exteriors were not holding the core up. That is ass-backwards and this should be obvious if you just look at the below photograph:



Where does it look like the load bearing part of the structure is, esdad? The walls? I'm assuming you know what "load bearing" means, but that might be the problem, too. Look at the massive columns in the middle there. Those are primary load-bearing parts of the structure. They form a structure independent from the walls and trusses.


The floors were sagging. You can see it in many pictures. Is this not a viable explanation?


Then show me this in a picture!

NIST tested replicas of the WTC trusses, both fireproofed and unfireproofed, in 2-hour, high-energy fires, and could not get the data they wanted. In other words, NIST subjected unprotected trusses to intense fire for longer than any tower actually burned, let alone any one section of either tower, and the trusses were fine. If you do a Google search (example hit) you can even find a RealPlayer video of NIST testing one of the fireproofed assemblies in their lab. The actual paper from this is somewhere amongst their mass of releases.



Really man, I'm wondering where you get this stuff from, because it isn't from NIST, or FEMA, or any major institution that's done even a half-assed job at investigating these collapses. This is all stuff that I'm only seeing come from you, and most of it directly contradicts things that are generally agreed upon by most everyone else that's looked at these buildings and collapses in any detail.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also, there is pretty widespread agreement that the core structure could not possibly have failed first.


Not sure if you mean within the "official" circles or not. My main theory is that the core collapsed first. Although my theory involves something other than plane damage and fire bringing it down.


You'll find evidence enough of this in NIST's report, and NIST itself has asserted that the exterior columns buckling from sagging trusses was what caused the collapse to initiate, not the core structure!


I believe NIST has well intentions but this doesn't satisfy me. I believe there is more evidence pointing to the core failing before the outer columns buckled. The findings of the bolt and welding connections. Valhall has pointed out that the inner connections were bent while the outer connections were sheared off. That would go along with the core collapsing first. Why NIST is trying to convey that the perimeter collapsed first is obvious because if not, that means something failed the core columns and they know it couldn't have been the planes.


NIST shows with tests and simulations that the core couldn't have been severely damaged by the impact (and they did their test with Flight 175 coming in straight-on, not off-set like it actually was!), and fire also fails miserably at failing those 47 thick and massive box columns.


It would definately take more than the planes and fires to fell those columns IMO.

Edit: As far as the original question, isn't there a dynamacist in Scholars 4 9/11 truth? Has anyone heard what he says about it or has anyone asked? I wouldn't know where to begin on that one. I have taken dynamics before but am not a dynamacist.

[edit on 1/17/2007 by Griff]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join