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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Outside of official circles, as you put it, Griff, sure. I'm talking from the standpoint of "jet impact and fire did that!", in which case, everything available, even from the government investigations themselves, indicates that this is unreasonable. I think blowing the floors out in sequence from the core seems more consistent with what we know too. Esdad standing alone to assert as fact that the core fell first from fire and impact just has me wondering what study he's been reading to lead him to this.




posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
That's what I thought you were getting at. But, to even have a tilt in WTC 2, the core had to have been severed in that location or near it. My theory of having the core broken into three or more pieces would solve this problem. This happened around the 2/3 rds mark on the building (not far from the mechanical floors I might add). If the core was severed at the 2/3rds mark, this would allow the cap to tilt. Just my opinion.

And that is why there was no tilt in WTC 1. The core would have been severed too far down the core to cause the cap to tilt. But what was observed was the antennae dropping. That would also coincide with the core collapsing first.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Sorry no one can see it the way I do. I am not here trying to stir a pot, and BS, we have been round and round on this. The hardest part I think is that I am not speaking with enough clarity with some of my comments.
This is my own fault and I apologize.I read alot. Sorry, but I do. Sometimes I will spend hours at a library, or on the Internet, and I will search and datamine a specific issue. I have found some interesting things.

So,just as someone can scream till they are bule in the face that it was thermite, and they can show all the pictures, but I do not see it. It does not fit. It is hard to be on a side of the fence that so many think is the wrong answer.

It was the NOVA video that I posted that made it clearest, along with eyewitness testimony that the tower had shifted in it's own foothold. The building was buckling minutes prior to the collapse.

Survivors stated that after impact the view they had out the window was different the building shifted so hard in it's foundation. (102 minutes by jim Dwyer)

Please give me some solid evidence that something other than impact + fires + time + gravity did not destroy the WTC.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Please give me some solid evidence that something other than impact + fires + time + gravity did not destroy the WTC.


Hey, we have already done that I think?..
At last you make a correct statement...


Fires? Office fires do not get hot enough to cause 4" tick steel columns to completely fail.

Time? One hour, even if they could get hot enough one hour is not enough time to heat steel to failure from office fires.

Impact? Well please give me some solid evidence that the impact of an aluminium aircraft could have possibly crashed through a steel facade, and then still be intact enough to damage the central core enough for it to fail?
(remember supposedly the planes wings at 500mph completely disappeared causing NO damage to the pentagoons softer walls).

Gravity? Pls explain how gravity caused huge pieces of the steel facade to be ejected horizontally 600 ft. from the building?

Pls explain how lower UNDAMAGED floors could possibly be crushed by nothing but falling debris with no resistance whatsoever by the force of gravity?

Pls explain how gravity turns everything to dust as it is collapsing.

And finally pls explain the physics behind the original question in my OP.
What caused the top to defy the laws of physics??

So far you have offered nothing that even comes close to explaining any of this.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I want to make a correction. I was assuming the top of the South Tower was leaning in the direction of the planes impact. It wasn't according to this site*, it was in fact leaning to the East and the plane impacted the south face.

* algoxy.com...



That makes this even more of an odd occurrence. I can understand the top leaning in the direction of the damage caused by the impact, but how did it start leaning to wards the undamaged side?

[edit on 18/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I do not think you understood my question. Give me something other than what can be explained by the 4 independant investigations that shows something other than what I stated caused the collapse. That is all I ask. Where is there evidence, solid physical evidence of demolition.

You are correct that the steel did not melt, but in this case it would not have to. Then again I never said it melted, I stated it was weakened, right?

So, Please explain to me why the video on the NOVA site could not be a perfectly good explanation for what happened?


PS Also, if you were trying to state that the WTC was stronger structurally than the Pentagon...
.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
^
Hmmmm what question did I not understand?

If you are not seeing the evidence here for , I won't say controlled demo cause that's not really what it was, another energy acting on the buildings other than fire and aircraft impacts then you're not paying attention.

How was the steel weakened, and what relevance does it have to this thread? Even if the steel was weakened in the areas of the fires how did that cause the lower 77 floors, that were not effected by either fire or aircraft impact, to fail to the point of total collapse?

Remember the fires were in the top section that was tilting and rotating independent of the lower 77 intact floors, how did that have any effect on the load handling of the lower central core and steel facade?

How is the structure at the pentagoon stronger than a 110 story steel frame building? How is concrete, even Kevlar reinforced, stronger than 4" thick hardened construction steel H beams?

The Nova vid doesn't cover the questions asked in this post, just like all the other official theories they ignore it. I also doubt the claim of the central core damage, for reasons I already mentioned. All they did was create a theory within the framework of the official story.
It's nothing more than a re-hash of the NIST report narrated by the lead investigator of that report. This brings nothing new the debate and as I said does not even attempt to explain the South Tower.

The whole point of this thread was to see if you, and the other official story apologists, could explain the South Tower tilt, without referring to the NIST report, or other official government documents. Mostly to see if you all really understand what it is you are supporting.

Obviously you don't...
It doesn't do a lot for your 'sides' credibility...

At least you're trying though, the silence from all the others is rather telling don't you think?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry no one can see it the way I do. I am not here trying to stir a pot, and BS, we have been round and round on this.


Here's a thought:

The reason we keep going round and round with this "BS" is because every time I respond to one of your posts as above, you refuse to defend your assertions and instead throw this at us:


Please give me some solid evidence that something other than impact + fires + time + gravity did not destroy the WTC.


Happens every single time.


To avoid this happening again and again, how about you post something and get it right the first time, so you won't have to shift the burden of proof every time it becomes too heavy for you to bear?

Or at least stop posting the same BS and expect anyone to just believe it without you even being able to defend it yourself. And btw, I think if you actually try to defend your case, you'll realize that it's wrong anyway. At least read the NIST report or something if you want to have something to throw at us that actually makes sense.


Imagine Copernicus or Galileo or etc. trying to prove, without the aid of satellites or rockets or etc., that the Earth, Moon, and Sun are all spherical, and that the Moon revolves around the Earth, which revolves around the Sun.

You know how they did it? By inferences. And for a long time, most people didn't believe them, or think they could possibly be right, and certainly they had no proof. The Church hounded Galileo his whole life, and contradicted him with various "expert opinions". And Galileo had no proof that would satisfy everyone who wouldn't think long and hard for themselves (as obvious as this all is!). Now that we've imaged space and etc. it's easier to conclude that he was right, as if common sense and inferences were not enough.

Same here. The analogy is that, like Galileo not having a rocket to fly into space and survey it, we don't have a time machine to go back in time and photograph the devices that were in the towers on September 11th, or record them exploding. That simple.

Instead, we use inferences. And the inferences are what we keep arguing over. Things like, why did the buildings not slow down as they fell? This is a common sense problem that people refuse to see, just like common sense of Galileo's day that people refused to see. Total energy diminishes as energy is spent overcoming resistance. There is no two ways about that, PERIOD. The falling mass was exerting energy to overcome (utterly pulverize) the mass below it, yet maintained a constant speed (suggesting no loss of total energy), which implies that what happened is physically impossible.

But we all saw it happen, so something must have been providing the extra energy. And the best bet, in my mind, and many others, increasingly, is explosives. And, wouldn't you know it, buildings that are demolished with explosives tend to fall at a constant rate. So there you go. That's one example.

The one this thread is highlighting is the angular momentum problem, which you just attempted to explain. I responded to you critically, and now you're throwing the burden of proof back at us and refusing to defend what you posted earlier. That's because what you posted earlier was BS. And that about wraps up what's going on here.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
OK, there are 3 parts to this puzzle.

1. The top floors.
2. The impact floors
3. The bottom floors.

Lets see. South Tower was hit between 78 and 80, so this is 3 floors at least that we know would have had major damage, and there are eyewitness reports to prove it as well as pictures. Now, if fire engulfed these floors as pictures have shown, it would have caused the structure to weaken within these 3 floors. So, if you have 25 floors of a skyscraper above 3 floors that are damaged, I would think that it would start to tilt to the point where it was weakest. Mainly where the fires were the strongest. The south face showed bowing, and that is where it was leaning to. It is stating that it was tilting up to 8 degrees before it collapsed.

The impact floors were on fire. This is seen in photos and by surviving eyewitnesses. It was also radioed that there was severe damage by some of those who reached those upper floors looking for survivors and who died. The steel did not melt, it weakened and the unique structure failed.

The bottom floors. The WTC was unique, and there is only the IBM building that I know of that was designed the same way. It is designed to spread an even load, not suddenly have 2or 3 floors give way. The amount of force of 25 stories suddenly not being supported was too much for the lower floors and the building collapsed.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I like your analogies, but they don't fit. I am not going back to the SAME old thing, I am asking the same question, that you base your theories on.

Where is the proof of demolition? That is all I am asking for. That is not that much. Why is that so hard.

I just explained, very simply in that last post about the tilt, and what occured. There is no need for a degree in Physics or Engineering.

Try this little experiment. Go outside and hold 100 lbs above your head, then take an arm away. What happens? You may be able to hold it for a second, but it will drop. Eventually.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I like your analogies, but they don't fit.


Your opinion. And that analogy stands every time you ask for definitive proof without having the sense to tell that that's what we're showing you right now.


I just explained, very simply in that last post about the tilt, and what occured.


No you did not. Refer to my post following yours and address it.

It was this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Summed up, you don't understand the structure,


Originally posted by esdad71
To explain it is there was a center column(s)


you don't know where the load-bearing columns are (you imply that the exterior held the CORE up!),


Originally posted by esdad71
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.


you don't understand the difference between a tilt and angular momentum (statics and dynamics),


Originally posted by esdad71
the towers were leaning before the "pancake collapse" was even initiated.


and you don't understand that the buildings did not just fall straight down into themselves, but were ejected all around (check GZ photos; only the exterior walls). You also don't realize that the buildings WERE NOT tilting before they fell, except immediately (seconds) before they began to fall, when they had angular momentum. Individual exterior columns may have been tilted, but that's it. The whole freaking building was not leaning before the collapse sequence began and the top floors gained that tilting motion.

And that's all laid out pretty clearly for you in the post I linked to above.


And you still haven't told us where you're getting all this BS from. It certainly isn't from any government investigation, or any opposing professional viewpoints either. It's like you just dreamed up your version of events, with the outer walls holding the core up (again, totally ASSED BACKWARDS and defying COMMON SENSE), and then applying similarly misconceived "laws of physics" to the situation until it makes sense to you. If not, then I ask again, where are you reading this crap from?

[edit on 18-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I am done with the personal attacks BS. Back the f@# off. I have tried to be real civil, but I draw the line when someone tries to state everything I state is BS and very kindly calls me ignorant.



Also, I DO understand the contruction of the building. It is a hollow core, not solid. It used the outside perimeter columns to help distribute the load. It was designed for commercial space, not safety. The 'pancake theory' is close in it's description. It collapsed at "near free fall speeds". If there are 20,000 tons of mass suddenly moving toward the earth from 75 stories up, do you not think it is sufficient mass to destroy the WTC, especially with the floor design, and how thin they were?

So, where is your evidence that supports your theory of the collapse of WTC 1 Bs?




WERE NOT tilting before they fell, except immediately (seconds) before they began to fall, when they had angular momentum. Individual exterior columns may have been tilted, but that's it. The whole freaking building was not leaning before the collapse sequence began and the top floors gained that tilting motion.


ALso, the above statement is completely wrong. The upper part of building was leaning, verified in photos and NYPD reports from helos. You are wrong about your 'angular momentum' comment also. They fell into themselves and shot debris outward. The top slammed into the lower floors which would have spread much of the debris that was found from the site.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I DO understand the contruction of the building. It is a hollow core, not solid.


It's not a solid chunk of steel, but it's definitely not HOLLOW. It's not a pit that is just going to fall in on itself when the exterior walls are no longer there.

Why do you think there were 47 massive core columns in the middle of the building there, all linked up laterally with big I-beams? **** and giggles?



The core columns, all linked together as the "core structure", went into the foundations of the building. The gravity loads are being carried to the GROUND. The exterior columns did not. Again -- why?

And look at this:





Where do the majority of the gravity loads seem to be harnessed: the exterior columns, or that big mass of steel you vaguely see inside, shown in more detail above?

Finally, look at this:



The tower on the left only has its core up thus far. So, that is the core stucture. Does that look HOLLOW to you? It's more like the structure of the Sears Tower. This was a structure WITHIN a structure, and the exterior columns held the other end of the trusses up. Primary gravity-load bearing was done by the CORE STRUCTURE.


Do you have anything you'd like to show you contradict this? Maybe images showing the single core column you weren't sure about?

Tell me when we've finally established this and we'll move on to more complicated things.




The upper part of building was leaning, verified in photos and NYPD reports from helos.


Post the photos.


They fell into themselves and shot debris outward.


They fell into themselves and then debris shot outward?

That might make sense except we're talking about 80-90% of the total building masses. So, no. Or else, prove it.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
www.attivissimo.net...

Here is a good one.

img231.imageshack.us...

Here you can see it pushing some of the debris

And this study from China give some pretty good visuals and perspective.


click here

and

Condition of WTC towers:
• At 9:30 am, a FDNY Chief Officer inside WTC 1 feels the building
move and makes the decision that the building is no longer safe.
• At 9:49 am, NYPD helicopters provide a radio report stating that “large
pieces” are falling from WTC 2.
• At 10:07 am, NYPD aviation units warn that WTC 1 may collapse.
• At 10:20 am, NYPD aviation unit reports that WTC 1 is leaning to the
south.
Noteworthy Information (3)

This is from NIST, sorry.



[edit on 18-1-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
www.attivissimo.net...

Here is a good one.

img231.imageshack.us...

Here you can see it pushing some of the debris


That was AFTER the collapse had already began. THAT is the "angular momentum" this whole thread is about! It's not a tilt that existed BEFORE the collapse. It was before the second, vertical phase was initiated, but is nonetheless generally considered a part of the collapse by all parties.

Also, if you have the reports above right, then they're talking about WTC1, not WTC2 tilting. And WTC1 didn't globally tilt before it collapsed either (and was much more symmetrical than WTC2 when it did).


Are you at least ready to admit that the core was the main gravity load-bearing part of the structure?

[edit on 18-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I DO understand the contruction of the building. It is a hollow core, not solid. It used the outside perimeter columns to help distribute the load. It was designed for commercial space, not safety. The 'pancake theory' is close in it's description. It collapsed at "near free fall speeds". If there are 20,000 tons of mass suddenly moving toward the earth from 75 stories up, do you not think it is sufficient mass to destroy the WTC, especially with the floor design, and how thin they were?

So, where is your evidence that supports your theory of the collapse of WTC 1 Bs?
[edit on 18-1-2007 by esdad71]


Tell me, how do 2 buildings with completly different structural and fire damage collapse exactly the same ?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
AS soon as you will admit that the south tower was tilting prior to collapse. The towers were twisted partially from the impact. I read in 102 minutes where a survivor stated they were actually looking in another direction when they looked out there window after the impact. That is how much it was 'rotated'.

Slowly, over the course of the next hour it began to tilt toward the corner, and this was the momentum that it needed to initiate the events that would lead to the eventual collapse.

Also





www.pfarrell.com...

The World Trade Centers existed because of their architecture and the supporting engineering. Unlike other skyscrapers, the exterior walls of the World Trade Centers were load bearing. The whole building was a vertical truss, and the interior was column free. Without this design, it is unlikely that the WTC could have been built on that site. The architecture enabled the existence of the building.


The load bearing was actually shared with the core columns and the perimiter columns. The perimeter handling all the lateral loads, the core handing most of the gravity loads.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
AS soon as you will admit that the south tower was tilting prior to collapse. The towers were twisted partially from the impact. I read in 102 minutes where a survivor stated they were actually looking in another direction when they looked out there window after the impact. That is how much it was 'rotated'.

Slowly, over the course of the next hour it began to tilt toward the corner, and this was the momentum that it needed to initiate the events that would lead to the eventual collapse.

Also






www.pfarrell.com...

The World Trade Centers existed because of their architecture and the supporting engineering. Unlike other skyscrapers, the exterior walls of the World Trade Centers were load bearing. The whole building was a vertical truss, and the interior was column free. Without this design, it is unlikely that the WTC could have been built on that site. The architecture enabled the existence of the building.


The load bearing was actually shared with the core columns and the perimiter columns. The perimeter handling all the lateral loads, the core handing most of the gravity loads.


That still does not explain how 2 buildings collapsed exactly alike.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
They did not collapse 'exactly' alike. How do you think it happened?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Esdad

I read in 102 minutes where a survivor stated they were actually looking in another direction when they looked out there window after the impact. That is how much it was 'rotated'.


Esdad, no offense but are you going off the deep end? Please back this up with some substantial something or I'm just going to assume you are absolutely bonkers.


I'm still al little vague on this but didn't the towers exhibit like 8 degrees of tilt before collapse above the impact zone according to the NIST report? If I recall they had a grid overlay on some exhibit pictures before collapse.. Bray, please ellaborate on this.

I don't have the pics in front of me but I recall looking at them and there was indeed some sagging relative to the 'grid' that had been overlayed.

8 degrees of tilt in this situation would not mean 'rotation' and would not cause someone to be looking in 'another direction'.

Found this on quick search:



911myths.com...



Also, Anok.. I did not think about that.. I thought the 'tilting top' tilted in the direction of the 'impace side' of the tower... If that's not the case then the core HAD to have been taken out with help. Someone here mentioned that the core was probably taken out in sections starting at the top and this goes along exactly with what I believe.


BSBray, please talk a little bit' more about the info in this link.



Add:

Oops Bray.. didn't mean to rehash all that. This just soaked in..




That was AFTER the collapse had already began. THAT is the "angular momentum" this whole thread is about! It's not a tilt that existed BEFORE the collapse. It was before the second, vertical phase was initiated, but is nonetheless generally considered a part of the collapse by all parties.



Soo.. the core collumns nearish the side OPPOSITE of the impact zone and 'sag' had to have given away first thus setting the angular momentum going in that direction? Help me out here... Bray, you get away from me pretty easily sometimes.. lol

Common sense and some knowledge of physics would tell me that this angular momentum would start in the direction of the 'sag'/impact area because this is the logical place the massive failure and cascade starting point should have occured but in this case it didn't.


Bray, slap me silly if I'm off base here.. I think I have head around what your saying but I'm not entirely sure.



I really did not grasp the fact that, upon collapse, that the top tilted AWAY from the impact side.

Also esdad.. I love the information in that link.. "the whole building was a truss with NO? "interior" collumns"?.. How simplified and generalized. Yea.. NO interior collumns between the -INTERIOR- core -COLLUMNS- and EXTERIOR PERIMETER COLLUMNS. There ARE interior collumns.. Deceptive generalization to those who really don't understand how WTC 1 and 2 were constructed.

Glad you cleared things up for us, your understanding that the interior core contributed most of the gravity load bearing capacity of these buildings. That is one thing I'm am 100 percent sure about and after reading some of your earlier post..well.. I was not too sure that you really realized this.



[edit on 18-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join