It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could the buildings have collapsed just from the planes?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:19 AM
Hey all, just got back from a nice week in Spain where I read an interesting book which I'll get to in a minute

I don't usually post in the 9/11 conspiracy forum and I rarely continue to read past the first posts because a lot of these theories are getting more and more absurd and stretching the realms of possibility. There are a few conspiracy theories on here that I do believe are possible, but I have seen so many videos now supposedly capturing different footage of the buildings collapsing, that I have no idea which footages are real and which are photoshopped.

Anyway, onto the book. The Operative, by Duncan Falconer (perhaps his pen-name, but if this is the case I can't find his real name anywhere on the internet), is a fiction novel about a Special Forces explosives expert trying to take-down the Albanian mafia.

Now, according to the 'About the Author', Ducan Falconer is a "former member of Britain's elite Special Boat Service and 14 Int., Northern Ireland's top-secret undercover detachment."

Source: This book

As well as similar to this on his website, his website's biography also contains:

In the last few years Falconer has operated at length and most often alone in places such as Afghanistan, Palestine, Liberia, and throughout Iraq.

Source: Falconer site

Throughout the book, the author displays (to my mind anyway) an in-depth working knowledge of explosives, combat, and survival. Although some may say his background is fictional to add weight to his novels, I believe that he does have an extensive Special Forces background, and knows what he's talking about.

Here's the bit in the book that caught my attention:

Modern buildings were designed to withstand natural forces like high winds and, especially in California, earthquakes. But unlike the older-fashioned multi-grid structural support system of cubes supporting cubes, they were susceptible to collapse if an unforeseen disaster - such as a bomb - blew away a crucial segment of the structure. A classic modern example had been the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York with a square plan that relied on a four-corner support system with the floors suspended between them. When one or two of the supports were compromised the floors dropped, creating a domino effect of horizontal and vertical collapse.

Source: Falconer D., The Operative (2006); Sphere (Originally published by Time Warner). Page 442.

So, what does everyone think of this quote? If his analysis of the building is correct, albeit brief, would it be possible for a plane to go through a corner support on several floors, thus severely weakening the building and causing it to collapse?

Therefore, no government conspiracies to kill thousands of their own people, no controlled detonation, just a straight-forward terrorists hijack plane and crash it into a building, which is what we all thought had happened at the time.

I know there are several videos out there that provide evidence against this, such as the explosion on a floor before the collapsing building reaches that floor, which 'points' to controlled demolition, but as I say, I've seen so many videos now I have no idea what is real and what isn't, and I'm sure many people feel the same.

So what does everyone think? Could it be as straightforward as was first thought, or is there definitely something untoward? There is so much evidence pointing in different directions

[edit on 30-8-2007 by DragonsDomain]

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:22 AM
It's nothing but another version of the pancake collapse theory which even NIST doesn't support.

People keep forgetting the law of friction...

Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.

The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.


The WTC towers were not dominoes, they were intricate structures that held themselves together in every direction. Friction (resistance) would have occured in every direction down and out. Yet we see massive pieces of structure being ejected outwards from what is supposed to be only a vertical force (gravity), and the massive core, the concrete floors, and the steel pans they sat on fell vertically as if there was nothing in their way. There is no amount of mathematical formulas and long paragraphs of big words that can ever make that happen.

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:36 AM
Not entirely sure Mr Falconer has done his own research properly.

As far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong, WTC 1&2 were mainly supported by the 47 core colmns.

What on earth is a "four-corner support system"

This implies that the towers were supported by supports in each corner.

Mind you this is a ficticious book....just another ficticious theory of that day!

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:49 PM
Dewey Decimal says file under fiction.

The reason 'we' were so ready to believe it was al quida is becasue they bombed us before, embassies, boats etc.

Don't you think if you could just bomb a strategic section of a building they would be doing that all over the globe?

new topics

top topics

log in