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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Well, it may be "apples and oranges" but I think we can still gain a little bit of knowledge from this collapse such as the ratio of solid matter to particulate matter after the collapse and the level of investigation put into this bridge collapse in comparison to the WTC collapse. We could also compare seismic data of the bridge collapse to that of the WTC and see if they are proportionatly the same and whether or not the multiple seismic spikes occured during the bridge collapse.

I think that since we have such little evidence of massive structural failure to compare the WTC with we should try and glean whatever info we can from the evidence we have.




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Well I agree metal fatigue is at least part of the source of collapse for the bridge. Metal fatigue was not the source of WTC collapse.

There was a full scale picture in the paper of this bridge collapse, as I stared at that, I become even more convinced that 9/11 was CD of some sort.

When you compare both the collapses and how they look at the end, from what they were to what they now are in a destroyed state, something looks really strange about the 9/11 WTC site.
It just doesn't feel right both the actual collapse and the end result.

Remove emotion from this, and hunches are interesting thing, it has been said that instinctive hunches are facts buried deep below the sub-consious level that have no proof. Yes many little things add up to a certain feeling and sometimes we don't even know why, we have seen and heard things and linked them all together at only the subconsious level. Later these hunches are proved correct with solid facts.

When you factor in all the strange things that happened on 9/11, then you come to the undeniable conclusion that, the government story is smoke and mirrors. A modern day Rashtag fire/ false flag op.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Ok......so now there is a comparison of the Minneapolis bridge collapse to the World Trade Center attack by Muslim Fascists. Where do we draw the line? I love ATS and its exploration of all sorts of conspiracy theories but sometimes I think some threads are just downright silly. THE only thing these two tragedies have in common is the fact that some American infrastructure fell down.
I'll throw my own theory out there. In a desperate move to draw funds from the Iraqi War, Katie Couric made the whole Minneapolis bridge collapse up to get the people to demand that America stop wasting money in Iraq and start updating the domestic infrastructure. It doesn't matter that there are literally thousands of bridges across each state that handle millions of cars each day.
The odds of a rivet falling out of one and causing a few deaths exists. Its just a reminder that we have good reason to regulate these things. Personally, I think the DOT's have done an excellent job considering how big their job really is! Equating this to the WTC event is just "reaching".

Its not comparing apples to oranges.

Its comparing Jihad to "a screw falling out".



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
the level of investigation put into this bridge collapse in comparison to the WTC collapse.


I concur wholeheartedly.


We could also compare seismic data of the bridge collapse to that of the WTC and see if they are proportionatly the same and whether or not the multiple seismic spikes occured during the bridge collapse.


I'm not sure on this so please correct me. Isn't siesmic data on a log scale? Can a log scale be proportionated for a comparison? LaBTop?


I think that since we have such little evidence of massive structural failure to compare the WTC with we should try and glean whatever info we can from the evidence we have.


I also agree but a thorough investigation would have helped to begin with. NIST? FEMA? Where's the steel?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
the effects of physics change depending on weights and speed. Different forces apply to a hundreds of floors falling ontop of each other, and a bridge falling a shorter distance



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The reason this is "apples to oranges" is in the structure themselves.

A beam (bridge deck) has weight loads, dead loads, live loads, wind loads and siesmic loads. These create shear along the beam and moments along the beam.

A column (long column) has the same loads but there is an added feature in long columns. It's called the P-delta effect. The P-delta effect is the added moment at the supports of a column due to the loads deflecting the column. This puts the column off center and thus adds a moment because of the eccentricity (offset from the center...centroid). Beams don't have this added moment because they are considered short columns in the horizontal direction.

Although I'm all for trying to compare structural materials with others, a composite bridge deck is totally different from a long column when the P-delta effect is considered.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
It's funny how everybody is so quick to assume that the aircraft that hit each of the Twin Towers made those buildings structurally deficient. Did it make them structurally deficient in the 5-10 floors which were damaged? Of course. But what about the 85-95 other floors? Was the aircraft so large that it took out most, if not all of the building?

85-95 floors UNTOUCHED! People let the smoke and fire get to them and assume the whole building is destroyed. That impact zone was less than 10% of the overall building, which means that less than 10% had to out weigh and defeat the resistance of over 90% of the building in less than 20 seconds.

Could it have happened eventually? It's possible. But in less than 20 seconds? With flashes going off in the building with the corresponding explosions? With smoke rising from the base? With horizontal ejections? The three signs of a controlled demolition?

What other conclusion is there to draw that's logical?

Just because it collapsing because some "pissed off arabs" (possibly my favorite argument from unintelligent official story followers) flew a plane into it is the most psychologically satisfying result possible in that whole situation doesn't mean it's the most plausible. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, fine. But it contradicts physics, logic, and common sense.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Can a log scale be proportionated for a comparison?


It could, but unless something is just way off for either figure, then I doubt much could come out of it, because we aren't really sure how much the falling floors in WTC1 weighed, for example. The upper floors are supposed to explain the initial seismic spikes in that the whole body of upper floors slammed the lower building in one instant and sent a great amount of energy down through the columns and into the ground. Personally, I think whatever was in the basement that instantly severed the core structure caused the massive seismic spike, the deep, local "boom" that ABC reporter heard from ground level just before the tower started dropping from way up. I guess this kind of thinking is why someone wants to compare the seismic data.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
It's funny how everybody is so quick to assume that the aircraft that hit each of the Twin Towers made those buildings structurally deficient. Did it make them structurally deficient in the 5-10 floors which were damaged? Of course. But what about the 85-95 other floors? Was the aircraft so large that it took out most, if not all of the building?

85-95 floors UNTOUCHED! People let the smoke and fire get to them and assume the whole building is destroyed. That impact zone was less than 10% of the overall building, which means that less than 10% had to out weigh and defeat the resistance of over 90% of the building in less than 20 seconds.

Could it have happened eventually? It's possible. But in less than 20 seconds? With flashes going off in the building with the corresponding explosions? With smoke rising from the base? With horizontal ejections? The three signs of a controlled demolition?

What other conclusion is there to draw that's logical?

Just because it collapsing because some "pissed off arabs" (possibly my favorite argument from unintelligent official story followers) flew a plane into it is the most psychologically satisfying result possible in that whole situation doesn't mean it's the most plausible. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, fine. But it contradicts physics, logic, and common sense.


You've never played Jenga then


A plane only needs to directly damage 5 or 6 floors for the tower to collapse, thus killing everyone still in the building.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyre
You've never played Jenga then


In Jenga, the blocks aren't electromagnetically bonded to each other.

Ever try playing with a solid block of wood?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

In Jenga, the blocks aren't electromagnetically bonded to each other.

Ever try playing with a solid block of wood?


i've welded jenga together using unobtanium. ever played that way? it's uneventfully awesome.


Originally posted by Peyre
You've never played Jenga then.


ever try jenga with a woven grass basket?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyre
thus killing everyone still in the building.


I'm not questioning them dying. I'm questioning the physics of the collapse.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
...There was no pressure to destroy sensitive documents or evidence....


What do you make of this then?


At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45.[16][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft).[16] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft).[16] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[16] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7.[6][17]

Source


Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, United States Secret Service, New York City Office of Emergency Management, Immigration and Naturalization Service, The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS.

Also, why would fema command HQ be located there? why not set up an office FAR away from the location? because they conveniently got rid of something they saw as a threat (to the cover-up, not the public).



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM THE 2008 LEGISLATIVE SESSION -- May 19, 2008


reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


I remember living through this tragedy with my friends here on ATS, well while looking at some links from another post today I found this:


Victims of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse and their families now have access to a $38 million compensation package. Anyone on the bridge when it collapsed will receive up to $400,000. Those with more severe injuries are eligible for additional compensation from a pool of $12.6 million.


What do you make of this? And just how many millions were spent on the repair job?



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
What do you make of this?


It's money to people so they don't sue. I'd say it happens more than we hear about.


And just how many millions were spent on the repair job?


In my experience, quite a few. I've seen rehabilitating a building cost into the millions, so I'd have to say rebuilding a bridge would be rather expensive.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join