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.

 

Investigation for bridge collapse, yes! WTC collapses, nah.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
From another website, I honestly don't understand what this means because I have no engineering knowledge or know the terms being used. But here it is.


After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
From another website, I honestly don't understand what this means because I have no engineering knowledge or know the terms being used. But here it is.


Then why are you posting it for us?

When I tell you that it doesn't explain the temporary loss of momentum or symmetry that came about below it, you're not going to be sure whether it really does or not, and so you're going to assume that it's right and argue with me about it. Without knowing what you're talking about, of course.


All your quote is saying is that the core columns buckled and bent over and that's why the building tilted. What it doesn't explain is why this would cause a symmetrical set of failures on the floors below, or why the tilting stopped momentarily when the floors below first started "falling" vertically and symmetrically.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Thirdly, I'd really like some sources for your claims...


What claims? I asked three simple questions based on what we know as fact. If you think those 3 events didn't even happen then you are less qualified to come here and argue our points than I thought, go do some research.
You can either answer them, or you can't. Very simple really.
Will you be the first de-bunker to tell me the truth? We'll see...

You are already starting to dance, it don't look good so far mate...


(am I condescending enough for ya yet?)



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
The tilt/rotation is VERY easy to explain. The plane hit building closer to the sides so that side was weaker. When the columns began to fail, they were all failing at the corner. If you take the corner off of something it's going to twist.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by ccaihc]


Well if it's so easy to explain you obviously didn't get it because the building didn't lean in the direction of the damage.

The plane impacted the south-west face, the top section tilted to the south-east.
After tilting to almost 35 degrees it suddenly loses it's inertia and begins to drop vertically. The only way this is possible is if the building under the tilt dropped away leaving the top with nothing to hold it up. It fell faster than it was tilting. Something had to cause the building section, that was not damaged, to fail symmetrically. The top, in the position it was in, could not have done that.

If you can really explain how this happened you don't kneed maths formulas. You can do it using basic laws of physics.

Nice try though...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If you can really explain how this happened you don't kneed maths formulas. You can do it using basic laws of physics.

Nice try though...


I would love for someone to explain using the laws of physics, how the top part of the building, after making the tilt maneuver, does not fall over onto the street.
It should do so, at least partially, as the inertia of its movement is already in that direction. If you say, that the tug of the building from underneath pulled it back into a straight down direction, then you have to admit the use of explosives.
Only that, could have enough vacuum to pull the top out of the "tipping over" momentum.
Additionally, what is making the building underneath the tipping top, fall straight down, as the top is tilting to the side.
It should, using laws of physics, collapse the side underneath it, that the weight of the top is exerting the greatest force against, wouldn't you think?

All that said, and I expect the debunkers to attack on this, take a look at the intact top of the tower.
Why does the top disintegrate before reaching the bottom.
Perhaps as the pancaking of the floors below begins, the numerous impacts of the top pancaking them?
I can see how one could say that, but it just looks like it disintegrated to me.
Now, the still standing core section, that stood for a few seconds, and then is cut from below, is the absolute "SMOKING GUN" for me.
Falling debris cannot sever its bedrock connections and have it fall like that.
Perhaps fall over, but to fall in the matter that it did, requires explosive energy used at it's core.



[edit on 6-8-2007 by weatherguru]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weatherguru
I would love for someone to explain using the laws of physics, how the top part of the building, after making the tilt maneuver, does not fall over onto the street.


There is no explanation for the loss of angular momentum other than the whole block turned mysteriously into dust.


Debunkers HATE the rotation of this block but do not bother arguing it... I have yet to see a debunker on here (other than Roark) that has any clue re: physics.




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join