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.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Dont have a lot of time so this will be short.
The South Tower failed first because the plane impacted it much lower, leaving TONS of more weight to be supported by the badly damaged section. See Isaac Newton for some reasons why.
THESE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO TAKE PLANE IMPACTS.!!!!
LOL the Titanic was not a 110 story building and as no relevance at all to the WTC.
Originally posted by cw034
They were designed to take the impact of much smaller commercial planes that were state of the art when the towers were built. Planes have gotten bigger, the towers didn't
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Human arrogance is human arrogance, whether you are building a ship or a skyscraper. In other words, yes it is very relevant.
Originally posted by kix
Swamp its not that easy, your post has some logic on it but its not the wight that would bring down the building first, that would have tobe that the support failed NOT THE WEIGHT.
You see columns on a tall building have compresion due to the support they give and that compresion gives strength, that is why we can build very high skyscrapers, in the evnt of the south tower the "experts" say it failed first because the weight on to was more than on the other tower.... semms rasonable what is not razonable is that if BIG IF the steel supports failded because of their destruction and breakage, then the top part would have fallen like a tree when its chopped badly and then the wind or gravity cracks it in half.
That really happened since on all videos you can see the top 30-35 floors come down then without any explanation all comes down perfectly and the top part disapears.... there is no WAY that newton can explain why that part dissapear and why some over 30 ton parts flew to land on other buildings when the panckake was ALLEGEDLY just using good ol gravity to feed it....
If weight was the bad guy in the collapse then why didnt the WT C fell when they put huge bombs in the basements years before? they had ALL the building on top.....
No it isn't, the physics of the collapse disputes your claim, so it is irrelevant.
The steel structual strength of the twin towers was not compromised when the airplane hit it.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And if you really believe that those two buildings DIDNT have their structural strength damaged by the jets slamming into them, PLEASE dont become an engineer.........