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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Even if we take it as a given that the planes impact could cause the towers to fail - WHY did they fall the way they did? That is the whole purpose of this thread - to explain the tilt of the cap of the south tower, the tilt that suddenly stopped and corrected itself so that the tower fell straight down.

It would be nice if people would address that question and stop diverting the thread away from it's purpose. As I have already stated, this is what initially made me think that there had to be explosives in the building. I have never seen any structure large or small defy the laws of physics like I did on sept 11.

I would like to think that there is some vital piece of evidence or logic that I have missed. I would like to think that we are the good guys and radical islamists are the bad guys, but it isn't adding up that way.

Naivete, ignorance, assumptions and diversion aren't getting us anywhere. Let's do what the original poster suggested and look at the details. Starting here with the tilt of the cap and then we can move on to other topics that are causing dissension.

It has been presented that the angle of the cap should have caused it to shear down the side of the building, or continue to tilt further until the cap fell into the streets below. Please offer some kind of evidence to suggest that the laws of physics still hold true, that there were no explosives, and that the cap righted itself through some natural purpose.




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Also, according to the 911 commission report none of the fire chiefs on scene believed the towers would collapse. They were only slightly worried about some of the upper floors collapsing.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
well, to keep this short...as i said before the zip feeds tower was an example of something tall and heavy that should have kept going and didnt, ive laid out my reasons i dont believe there were any explosives in the towers and have yet to see fact one to demonstrate that im wrong about it (though i am open minded) and i havnt seen anything that says the cap of the tower righted itself (or didnt for that matter). what ive seen is it disappear into a cloud of dust.

however, explosives arent whta this thread is about. if you have some NEW evidence that supports HE in teh towers, plz start a thread and present it and we'll discuss it.

personally, im going with anok's 'superbushgravityray' cuz honestly, it makes as much sense as anything else



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, to keep this short...as i said before the zip feeds tower was an example of something tall and heavy that should have kept going and didnt,


There is a difference between the Zip Feeds Tower and WTC 2.

The Zip Feeds falls vertically until it hits the basement, then leans. It is well known that the building fell into it's basement. This tells me that the basement walls' resistance is the opposite force that kept it standing. You can actually see that it tries to "rebound" in the opposite direction, showing that the resisting force of the basement walls is actually trying to push it back into an upright position.

If it didn't have a basement to give this resisting force, it would have continued with it's angular momentum and fell over like a tree.

That's basically what they did wrong. They were trying to make it fall to one side, but forgot to account for the basement walls' resistance.

Kind of like putting a long pipe inside another shorter pipe (that is firmly attached to the ground) and trying to knock the longer pipe over sideways while the shorter pipe is still standing.

WTC 2 didn't fall vertically. It leaned first. Also, it didn't have walls with ground pressure to keep it from continuing it's lean.

Does this make sense?

Here's the video.

www.vimeo.com...:65173

Watch how it drops (kind of leans a little as it drops), then leans when it hits the bottom of the basement, then "bounces" back a little to upright.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
oh that makes perfect sense. and actually illustrates my point. the zip tower got 'stuck' and in my mind it makes sense that the top of the south tower could have also gotten "stuck" because we dont know whats left of the core at taht point.

its unlikely ill admit, but the zip tower does show a case of a lot of mass stopping.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
its unlikely ill admit, but the zip tower does show a case of a lot of mass stopping.


Just because you're dealing with amounts that are "a lot" doesn't mean physics changes. The force that building was falling with was transferred down the building and into the ground as soon as it struck the ground. As soon as the upper floors began to fall, the exact same thing should have happened.

And don't even think in terms of floors hitting!: the trusses weren't what was holding the things up vertically! (this is for no one in particular, a lot of people still think like this and it doesn't make sense)

The columns were, and they would have been resisting the falling mass 100% of the way down, not just at the floors!

Neither was it only the floors that were falling within the building. Any collapse video should prove this.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
oh that makes perfect sense. and actually illustrates my point. the zip tower got 'stuck' and in my mind it makes sense that the top of the south tower could have also gotten "stuck" because we dont know whats left of the core at taht point.

its unlikely ill admit, but the zip tower does show a case of a lot of mass stopping.


I agree. If the South Tower's core was still intact, it could theoretically have hung up on that.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Just to add though. If the cap did get stuck on the core and had enough energy to bust the core and all the floors, columns etc under it, I would assume that it had enough energy to continue it's angular momentum.

Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilandrah
Even if we take it as a given that the planes impact could cause the towers to fail - WHY did they fall the way they did? That is the whole purpose of this thread - to explain the tilt of the cap of the south tower, the tilt that suddenly stopped and corrected itself so that the tower fell straight down.


I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force.

As soon as the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower was broken, the entire upper portion of the tower was pulled straight down, accelerating at 32 ft./s2. This downward force was much greater than the angular force as evidenced by the very slow speed of the inititial tilt compared to the relatively fast speed of the free-fall. Therefore, while it looked like the tower stopped tilting, it actually continued to rotate very slowly as it fell straight down. The additional rotational movement was obscured by the cloud of smoke.

Imagine somebody balancing on a tight-rope, and tipping over to one side before they fall. The free-fall will appear instantaneous compared to the slight wobbling before the fall. I think this may be the same effect that happened with the South Tower.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Thanks nick - that's actually the best idea I have seen on this topic, we do have limited number of camera angles to judge this from.
I believe that the tilt was estimated to be only 8 degrees or so, though it looks like it is more in some videos. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?
If the core remained intact enough to cause the cap to stop in it's tilt, that could also possibly act as a fulcrum for the rotation. And all seems to make sense.
Except that the core had to fail for the building to collapse the way it did - perhaps it failed in sections, but the speed of the fall seems to negate that type of resistance.
And why did it tilt away from the area of impact? It seems to me that the damage should have been far worse on the side of impact yet the cap shifts away from that area, as if it had lost support on the far side only.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
As soon as the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower was broken, the entire upper portion of the tower was pulled straight down, accelerating at 32 ft./s2.


You make a valid point. Although, saying the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower would be wrong. The pivot would have to be either the core or the outer columns on the east face. But, a good addition to the thread, nonetheless.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilandrah
And why did it tilt away from the area of impact? It seems to me that the damage should have been far worse on the side of impact yet the cap shifts away from that area, as if it had lost support on the far side only.


Just to clear things up. The tilt was on the east side not the north (which would be the the opposite of impact). The plane actually sliced through the east facade which would make sense that it tilted to the east.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

You make a valid point. Although, saying the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower would be wrong. The pivot would have to be either the core or the outer columns on the east face. But, a good addition to the thread, nonetheless.


You're right about the pivot point, and about the reason the tilt was towards the east side.

And of course this still doesn't explain how the entire core, as well as the perimeter steel beams, all failed simultaneously and symmetrically. Nor does it explain why the concrete was completely pulverized.

What's also odd is that both towers seemed to collapse in nearly identical fashion, even though the damage they suffered was far different, and even though the south tower's collapse was initiated with the rotation of the top, while the north tower seemed to drop straight down.

How could WTC1 and WTC2 both pulverize themselves from the top down, almost exactly vertically, when the structural damage each suffered was very different?

By the way, has anybody ever seen a photo of any steel beams from either tower that looked twisted or warped from the fire? There was a fire near where I live that gutted a warehouse, and all that was left was a twisted pile of steel beams that deformed due to the heat. Has anybody seen anything even remotely similar from WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7? Wouldn't the beams that were theoretically damaged by the heat be near the top of the piles of rubble?

[edit on 1-2-2007 by nick7261]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Exactly Nick7261. Plus, steel shouldn't just snap in heat, it bends like you say. Which means it should have been a slower collapse IMO.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
i have to ask for clarification on an oft repeated theme in these types of discussions if someone would be so kind...

the 'pulverized concrete'

is the implication that ALL of the concrete in these buildings turned to dust and there was NOT a giant mountain of slabs remaining along with the steel?

i only ask becuase it is a recurring theme and goes directly against what was told to me in conversations with guys that were on scene on 12 sept 01 as part of the rescue ops.

could someoen explain the 'pulverized concrete' idea to me?

thanks



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

could someoen explain the 'pulverized concrete' idea to me?

thanks



The pulverized concrete is what caused the giant clouds of dust when the buildings collapsed from the top. I don't think many people believe all the concrete was pulverized, but it's obvious that a great deal of concrete from the top floors turned into clouds of dust as the building was falling.

And here is why I'm having trouble making sense of this: what force caused the concrete to be pulverized at the top of the towers almost instantly as soon as the buildings started to collapse?

I've watched dozens of videos of implosions and have never seen another building disintegrate as it collapses.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Don't see a whole lot of concrete in this pic, I'm trying to find more...



Looks like a lot of dust...



Hmmmm...



Oh wow! Look, these buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints...





Here's a good series of rubble pics, not much concrete just a lot of metal and dust...

lindleyonline.com...&w.htm

[edit on 2/2/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
oi, i dont know if im too 'general' in my questions, or if you guys just like making the vein in my head stick out more...

obviously there was dust when the buildings fell. obviously it was largly from concrete..im not a complete bleedin idiot despite what some of you may wish to imply.

the actual question was, to be more specific, HOW MUCH in percentage,of the concrete, in your learned opinions, was turned to dust and what % SHOULD have survived as solid concrete? i mean, ive seen pics of piles of concrete and steel etc and didnt think it looked THAT odd, but apparently im just blind so please, tell me how much should have survived vs how much did. adn be specific cuz 'more than did' isnt a great answer.

i ask only becuase many would 'imply' though never actually say that nearly ALL of the concrete was turned into dust in the wind. ill openly admit that there was sure a lot of dust, but there was also a lot of concrete breaking up during the fall, and ive busted enough concrete to know, well, it makes dust.

and im being serious here. in the spirit of openmindedness, i would like to know how much of the concrete in teh towers was turned into dust and how much, given the mechanisms involved here should have survived as solid concrete. and please have some facts to back it up. thank you.


edit to add: www.abovetopsecret.com... theres a video embedded in this post. concrete building being demo'd, fall to the side like the zip tower only this one falls. guess what...lots of dust. curious huh?

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
im being serious here. in the spirit of openmindedness, i would like to know how much of the concrete in teh towers was turned into dust and how much, given the mechanisms involved here should have survived as solid concrete. and please have some facts to back it up. thank you.


You have valid questions. It is impossible to calculate how much exactly should have withstood without knowing what the specs on the concrete were. It could have been 200 psi (doubtful), 300 psi, 400 psi. We don't know because for some reason the construction documents of a building that will never be there again are classified.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
ok, now THAT was an articulate and honest answer

thank you griff.



new topics




 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join