It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The first thing is that the buiding collapsed at free-fall speed. This means that there was absolutely no resistance from the lower floors, as the upper floor descended. In other words, the floors did not fail under the weight of the upper floors. Instead, the structural integrity of the lower floors had already been negated by the time the floors above had descended to that point.
The second thing that leaps out at me is the lake of molten steel which burned for weeks after the attack.
And of course, we have the lead NIST engineer flat out lieing about the molten steel at WTC.
I do not believe that 19 cave-dwellers had the means to create lakes of molten steel, which then leads me to ask who actually does have such technology and the means to deploy it. (I'm not referring to plasma-ray guns or anything like that either necessarily.)
Not at the beginning. And I think the reason it started seemingly going at free fall speeds is because of the accumulated weight at that point.
I have heard nothing outside the "truther" movement about lakes of molten steel. Now as I mentioned, post collapse with the fires still burning and under a pile of debris I could see it easily melting some, you do after all, have in effect a oven with those effects. And it wasn't just jet fuel burning.
These people weren't "cave dwellers", its convient to call them such. But how many "cave dwellers" travel internationally? And there is evidence that is mostly ignored by the "truthers" of them training here in the states at commercial airline training courses at accredited colleges.
Simple fact of the matter is I can think of alternate reasons and point out obvious discrepancies in each and every aspect. And when I do I get ignored or attacked out right. What would that say to you?
This is an inaccurate assumption. The arithematic has been posted elsewhere here on ATS, sorry I don't have the formula handy. But it shows that the building collapsed at "x" amount of seconds. The time figure actually shows that total collapse occured in slightly less time than allowable by terminal velocity. Some use this as evidence that not only was there no resistance whatsoever at any point during the collapse, but that there was actually an accelerant "pushing" the bulding down faster than gravity would allow.
What do you suggest was in the buildings that was more flammable than jet fuel?
They did train here in the States, this seems to be true. But their instructors have said on the record that they were not good students, and would never become pilots.
But this is besides the point really anyway, considering that they may very well have crashed the planes into their targets, this did not create the molten steel at WTC. Even if I were to blame al-Qaeda outright, I would still have to ask where the other operatives were that actually caused the buildings to collapse, because clearly the planes did not.
I think people are angry at what happened, frustrated by what they have learned, and even more frustrated that we still don't really know exactly what happened that day.
Ignoring your evidence is fruitless. All evidence must be taken into consideration. This isn't about proving one's own point of view to be the truth, it is about finding the truth. That is only achieved through examining ALL of the evidence.
And attacking you personally would be even more ignorant. I would rather present you with evidence that may show you a truth beyond the opinions you may hold now. My opinions on 9/11 have changed many times over the years, but the changes were based on evidence, not rhetoric.
Before I start my response please understand I do respect you.
The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.
As for the math of it. I don't think math would work for such a thing. Tooo many variables
First you insinuate that the structure was wired to explode.
Now your insinuating that it was caused by something that made gravity stronger?????
Not talking flammable man. Any number of things once gotten burning burn energetically. And any number of them could have been there.
This is to be expected obviously, up to the point of terminal velocity. The problem is however, that whenever there is resistance, that speed will be interrupted. Even the air itself can act in a resistant manner, as you know I'm sure. If two objects of the same weight were dropped off of a building, the one with the larger surface are would land last.
Now in this case, we have much more rigid resistance to the downward force of the collapse. Even if the weight of the floor above caused the failure of the floor below, there would have been a slight delay at each floor during the failure. There was no interruption. The physics calculations show, that the collpase was a free-fall, and not met by any resistance whatsoever from the floors below.
This is basic physics. The variables you speak of cannot defy the laws of gravity.
As you may recall, up until a short time ago, I was a believer in the "official" line regarding the Twin Towers (though not WTC 7.) I no longer am, based on the evidence that I have reviewed. However, as I am still researching, I have not yet reached definative conclusions as to what caused the anomalous collpases.
I will be back to reply to your post further....
All hearsay and I seem to remember Ata being said to have achieved his degree.
I think the planes did and really have yet to have one show me conclusive evidence otherwise.
This is where you start insulting me I guess.
In many cases psychologists have discovered that recollections can deviate greatly from the way the events actually occurred, just as in the anecdote about Piaget.
Hey. It's not me that actively ignores stuff. I know the arguments. And as I have said before, doesn't sway me. If anything I have seen rung true to me I would be with you. But it doesn't.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.
This is where you are in error though my friend. The floors would not stay intact. They would be quickly turned into a bunch of rubble.
1) Those laws are our laws that we use to explain why things are the way they are and thusly falliable.
2) Even if our current "knowledge" of gravity is dead on, of course you can't defy a natural law. But you can "bend" a natural law, that is what technology is of course getting better and better at doing. Or modify it with added situations. Gravity is not the only factor in a collapsing building.
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
It wasn't a massive failure. It was parts failing which in turn caused other parts to fail. And once a tipping point we got to the stage that it was TONS of falling debris that caused the acceleration.
On a simular topic I feel its worth adding.
1) Engineer's asessments of what their buildings can take tend to be by their very nature over optimistic as they of course want the money for designing the building.
2) Construction firms OFTEN cut corners in materials and everything else. I am inclined to believe the materials inside that building weren't as good as they like to try to tell us. And I think that is one of the things the NIST wanted to cover up was shoddy materials.
I remember man. And please don't take this the wrong way I think you have allowed yourself to be misled somehow or are not taking the whole picture in.
Cheers! Sorry I had responses now.