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.

 

I-35 Bridge Collapse Exposes 9/11 Lie?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Video

This video is only about two minutes long.

The video demonstrates how physics on 9/11 with the Twin Towers and Building 7 was different from the physics of the I-35 bridge collapse.

Apparently, the 1,368 ft. towers collapsed in 20 seconds or less because the floors above out weighed the floors below, and the support structure below the impact zone could not hold up to that weight.

But in the bridge collapse, so many people survived because the support structure essentially created an "air bag" and slowed the collapse down.

You'll see this in the video.


**by the way, this is NOT my video. it was posted on the myspace 9/11 truth group, and I decided to post it on here.**




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Apparently, the 1,368 ft. towers collapsed in 20 seconds or less because the floors above out weighed the floors below, and the support structure below the impact zone could not hold up to that weight.

But in the bridge collapse, so many people survived because the support structure essentially created an "air bag" and slowed the collapse down.


For one thing, we don't know yet how the bridge collapsed, what was the trigger of it. The comparative weight of the top of the bridge and the top 20 floors of the WTC to the supports is different too.

And basic equations show that the bridge wouldn't have got much more than 20m/s either in it's fall (assuming stopping/slowing when the struts hit the ground/water), due to the supports under it, which can be seen on that video to easily be twice maybe 3 times as thick as a thick truss of the WTC. Add to that the fact that any heat above a couple of hundred degrees C can alter the properties of steel, weakening it in the case of the WTC.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
It would't matter. In the twin towers, you'd have entire floors full of equipment falling on top of you, that would kill you alone.

Of course the physics are different. They are entirely two different forms of structure!! One weighs significantly more than the other. One is built upwards, and the other is built across

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Peyre]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I'm noit sure the bridge collapse and 9/11 physics are apple-to-apple comparisons. However, I did find it interesting that the NTSB is planning on recovering all the bridge material in order to reconstruct and analyze it. A far cry for the WTC material being recycled overseas before it had even cooled.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Without trying to debunk this theory, or treading anywhere near it, Ill just add that bridges and buildings, while in theory would have similar support to be held up, are not the same thing, and you are also taking into account 2 different particular structures.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Apples and Oranges my friend.

Where are the jet liners that crashed into that bridge that caused the collapse? Oh yeah, there aren't any.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Funny how everyone is calling apples and oranges when the very same people wanted to compare the Oakland fire underpass collapse with the towers. Just amazes me how people can be so biased in their thinking (I'm included).

But, I agree with others. It IS apples and oranges. Just like the Oakland underpass.

Edit: BTW, I'm not trying to call anyone out. I ment no one in particular.

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Apples and Oranges my friend.

Where are the jet liners that crashed into that bridge that caused the collapse? Oh yeah, there aren't any.



Do buildings have millions of cars pass over them every year? You're right, its apples and oranges, but many things have to be taken into account.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
What bothers me about people arguing over whether something is "apples and oranges", is that the people arguing probably have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.

Here's an example:


Originally posted by Peyre
Of course the physics are different. They are entirely two different forms of structure!! One weighs significantly more than the other. One is built upwards, and the other is built across


I guess it's pretty much say whatever you want, and anything goes.


If it comes down to it, they're different colors, too! They absorb photons differently!

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Add to that the fact that any heat above a couple of hundred degrees C can alter the properties of steel, weakening it in the case of the WTC.


That's true. However, the heat didn't weaken the 80+ floors of steel and supports under the impact zone.

I realize a bridge and a tower are different, but the point here is, the bridge support structure wasn't the thing that made the bridge collapse. The Twin Towers support structure below the impact zone also wasn't the thing that made the buildings collapse. So why did the support structure act as an "air bag" for the bridge, but not the Twin Towers?

I also realize their different in weight, design etc. But are we putting the weight of the Twin Towers up against the support structure of the bridge? No, because of course the support structure for the bridge would collapse. But the constant is, both support structures were built to sustain their respective loads and weights. So you really can't compare size, because their both scaled to what they're supposed to support in the first place.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyre
Of course the physics are different.


Physics DOES NOT CHANGE! The physics is never different.

Like I just said, it doesn't matter the difference in size. We're not comparing the weight of the Twin Towers up against the supports of the bridge. Both supports were built to what they needed to sustain. That is the constant, and so are the physics.

The Twin Towers could NOT have collapsed that fast when the 80+ floors of support beneath it were in tact. How the hell does 20 or so floors out weigh 80+? It doesn't matter what's on the floors, it doesn't matter if the steel is weakened. You people are jumping all over the fact that the Twin Towers weigh more than the bridge, but you're ignoring the fact that 80+ floors of building FAR out weigh and out support 20+ collapsing floors.

Would the building have eventually collapsed? It's possible. But would it collapse in 20 seconds or less? Hell no.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I'm noit sure the bridge collapse and 9/11 physics are apple-to-apple comparisons.


Physics never changes. The bridge, the Twin Towers, the bullet that killed JFK, someone skydiving, doesn't matter. All the same laws of physics and forces are being applied.

Just because the bullet hitting JFK's head doesn't resemble a tower collapsing doesn't mean they're 'different physics' at work. It's all the same.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Where are the jet liners that crashed into that bridge that caused the collapse? Oh yeah, there aren't any.


Where is the jet liners that weakened the 80+ floors under neath the impact zone? Oh yeah, there aren't any.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Do buildings have millions of cars pass over them every year?


Do bridges support the weight of over 20,000 people daily, on top of all the steel, glass, desks, computers, generators, and all the other equipment?

That's a weak comparison just like mine is. It proves nothing.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Where is the jet liners that weakened the 80+ floors under neath the impact zone? Oh yeah, there aren't any.


those would be the same ones that impacted the buildings at the top.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I'm noit sure the bridge collapse and 9/11 physics are apple-to-apple comparisons. However, I did find it interesting that the NTSB is planning on recovering all the bridge material in order to reconstruct and analyze it. A far cry for the WTC material being recycled overseas before it had even cooled.


I agree-

They are not even remotely the same!

The answer to your second pondrence could be one or more of the following;

There was no justification of war needed from the populace.

There was no gold & silver to be had.

There was no pressure to destroy sensitive documents or evidence.

There was no money to be made short term in the NYSE.

There was no property owner that withstood to collect $4.55 billion.

The list goes on & on. . .Take your pick-

Good catch jtma508!


2PacSade-




[edit on 7-8-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
those would be the same ones that impacted the buildings at the top.


So that one airplane that spanned a few stories, damaged 110 stories, and allowed the building to collapse in 20 seconds or less?

Wow, good theory.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by elevatedone
those would be the same ones that impacted the buildings at the top.


So that one airplane that spanned a few stories, damaged 110 stories, and allowed the building to collapse in 20 seconds or less?

Wow, good theory.


No it didn't! Everyone knows that's not the cause of the collapses. . .

It was the residual fires that were the " coup de gras ". . .


Otherwise how would you explain WTC 7 collapse???

2PacSade-



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
So that one airplane that spanned a few stories, damaged 110 stories, and allowed the building to collapse in 20 seconds or less?

Wow, good theory.


Thank You.

I like my theory much better than it was the government behind it all, using this "attack" as an excuse to go attack other countries for oil and world domination.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The funny thing is, you probably believe in aliens visiting us, but you can't comprehend 9/11 being an inside job.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join