WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 14
56
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



The examples you provided are nothing like the WTC tower.

For it to collapse vertically with no previous deformation would require the central supporting columns to fail at the same time.

What could cause that ?




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


Correct....

There was only one World Trade Center, and it can't be duplicated.

Yes, they have nothing to the WTC, and that's the Point.
I was showing how a small amount of damage can cause a Catastophic
failure later on. Sound Familiar.

And as for Ice Rink, It demostates how a single structural failure can
lead to a total and absolute failure. And once started, nothings going
to stop it. That is assuming the Federal Bureau of Demolitions did not
do another Midnight runner.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Well your point then is absolute nonsense.

I may as well compare the structure to a candle and ask why it didn't just melt.

So I ask again, what caused the collapse.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


No it is not

It is about STRUCTURAL FAILURE and unable to support itself.

If you can't understand that, then I give up.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


I'm no expert on structural failure true, I just can't understand how it occurred in this case but those that are so definite it didn't occur through some controlled mechanism offer no real explanation of how it did occur.

"Like anything be it plastic, wood, steel or concrete when something
is fractured it can no longer support what it was designed to do."

Agreed, and at that moment it fails, not 50 minutes later, but you can't compare damage in a multi composite structure to a stress fracture in a single material.

"You could have a crack on car gearbox, it will still work for a while
then suddenly bam, catastropic failure."

A crack in a casting of a piece of machinery under varying loads is in no way applicable to this case.

"This applies to everything, my laptop could have small crack on the lid,
and one day bam it;s totally stuffed. Lids in one hand and keyboard in
the other."

Again, a crack in something that is then subjected to additional loads.

"There is also the Rostraver Ice Rink Roof collapse, the whole roof didn't
collapse at the same time. It would have been a progressive failure all
happening in a fraction of a second."

Again, example not applicable. Firstly the weight of the snow would be fairly equally distributed across the roof and acting equally on all supports. When the weight of the snow exceeded the load bearing capability of the supports holding the roof it imploded, but what is important to note is that the actual structural support for the roof remained standing.

In some ways this could be said to be similar to the collapse of a single section of floorplate of the tower on one floor. However we know that they couldn't have collapsed all at the same time and the pancake effect just did not occur.

If the ice rink were 10 levels high then, depending on its construction, it is conceivable that the roof collapse could cause the collapse of levels below. However the external structural supports of both roof and floors would remain.

What caused the collapse of the internal structural support initially at the level of impact and then almost simaltaneously for levels below ?

Even if it can be accepted that the levels below were simply crushed by the falling of the section above the initial collapse (which is a big "if"), what caused that initial collapse ?

I guess the simple explanation is the easiest to grasp for most people, it was damaged at impact and just gave way in due course. However, this isn't actually what happens. Structures (gearbox casings, laptops etc) either fail immediately upon receiving the damage, fail later upon receiving some other loading or gradually get worse to the point that they fail later upon receiving some other loading.

It didn't fail immediately and there was no deformation as there would have been if it was getting gradually worse.

So what caused the structural support to receive some other loading ?

You can clearly see that there is a failure of the internal structrural support and a collapse begins. The external structural supports then simply fail, being exposed to loads they are not capable of supporting. Even without discussing what happened from then on what was the cause of the internal failure.

The only possible scenario I can think of is that the initial damage caused structural failure of a large part of the internal core but that the external structural support was strong enough to stop any deformation. Subsequent weakening of truss's by fire caused failure and collapse of a floorplate that was then the cause of the other loading on remaining internal supports so that they failed.

Is this what is being proposed ?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
It would also seem that recent new reports on the method of the actual collapse vindicate what many already know, that failure at impact level would not cause crushing of the floors below.

So even aside from the question of what caused the initial failure and collapse there seems to be a new model of physics required to explain the following 10 seconds.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
[

5. The Origianal Design only allowed a smaller 707 size, assumed not
fully loaded, and the pilots would be trying to avoid a accident by
slowing the impact. This was the Biggest Plane at the time.
Massive difference in Kinetic Energy with a 707 going at 100mph and
fully loaded Jumbo going at 500 Mph.
Like Comparing a Mini hitting a brick wall at 20mph and a Hummer
hitting a brick wall at 100mph




Sorry but that statement is wrong. The buildings were designed to take multiple hits from a 707 so the designers said.

And the pancake effect of the floors some of you guys talk about. If that was the case why in the hell are the columns not still sitting proud a 1000 feet tall.

I firmly believe that the towers were brought down by explosives. After seeing the video evidence and listening to the responders and firefighters it's too obvious what took place. Anyone with half a brain will know this. As far as I'm concerned, if u believe the official story your either an idiot or a government agent.

The only terrorists involved in this are the US government!!!



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The fact remains that the towers stood after the plane impacts.
One thing is to calculate that the tower will not fail "because" of the impact of the plane. Which was a correct calculation, as shown by evidence.
And a different thing is to calculate "how long" will it take for the structure to fail catastrophically if it is compromised.
When the structure was compromised, it was only a matter of time. But that depended upon "how bad" the damage was. Hard to estimate right away.
But it remains a great feat of engineering that the towers stood for as long as they did, with the damage they had sustained.



[edit on 18-4-2010 by rush969]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by savvys84
reply to post by mikelee
 


This debate will never be resolved. 9 /11 events strange as they seem can never be executed by human hand or intelligence alone.
Why has no one questioned about an alien hand.
Planes made of aluminium alloy slice the buildings asif they were made of butter.
Folks you are all barking up the wrong tree. Trust me Im both a Pilot and an engineer.

Cheers


well since the illuminati history has connections to non human beings and their manipulation of humans and human history, I don't doubt the possibility.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I simply do not see any so called evidence of explosives of any kind. Not in any of the videos posted here which claim how obvious it is. If you think you see it it's because that's what you WANT to believe. To the objective observer there still is no convincing argument of controlled demolition in any of these video analyses. Improper identification of the enemy can be a fatal flaw. I hope you folks don't get burned by it.


One need only view videos like these in place of any "argument", to understand the wtc's were brought down by CD:





posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpioif the building was blown up there wouldve had to be a huge amount of prep work not just planting explosives but weaking the structure by removing columns and materials that obstruct the final detonation
this simply could not have been done demolition isnt just an explosion its weeks of prep work and hollowing out??????


which is what happened... but i'm sure it was more like months





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join