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.

 

WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



There must be access to every large support structure because of the regular inspections needed to be done to the steal columns. A building of that size must have regular inspections done to its structure.

Getting access to important structures within the Tween towers wouldn't be a problem.

Placing charges with explosives and thermite wouldn't be a problem either. Pre made charges would make the job doable within months.

The shaped charges would be easily put in place around the hallow steal structures with a aluminium frame. It could probably be done in less than 5 to 10 minutes pr. steal structure. With pre made charges.

Solid beams only need one shaped charge with thermite to cut it.

You dont need to drill holes into the steal columns like common demolitions do this on other concrete buildings. So placing charges would not attract attention at all.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


I know there was large empty space between one floor and the roof below. The problem is this: The "Explosions" that are purported to were coming not from the floor space but the actual floor space area.
So i'm going to reject your reality and insert my own. To produce those blow outs as depicted, the FBI would of had to of placed XMAS presents on every desk near every Windows on evey floor with a do not open til XMAS message on the top.

There's probably only one way to resolve this Myth.
Adam and Jamie will have to built an exact replica and drive a RC 767 into it.




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 





What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?



You dont have to weaken every floor - all it takes is one floor collapsing

When that floor collapsed into one below it sheared the bolts holding the
floor truss in place dropping that floor into one below - repeating the process until reached ground

Fire was feed by office contents ignited by jet fuel. There was sufficent fuel to raise temperature in most intenses fires to 1800 F (1000 C)
At that temperature steel has only 10 % of original strenght

Molten material was seen flowing from the corner of building where
collapse initiated shortly before it collapsed

video of fires showing molten material flowing from building

video.google.com...#

As for aircraft impact - original model was for 707 (largest at that time)
lost in fog flying low and slow (~ 180 mph) hitting building

In sense a replay of the 1945 Empire State Bld accident where B25 hit it.

At time WTC built was no way to model fires



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by spy66
 


I would have thought more Tons but....

If one floor weighed 100 tons and falling with gravity the force of the impact one the floor below is going to be lot more than 100 Tons. And each floors is added to pulverise the next floor. The speed increases and total amount of energy increase at an exponentional rate.

This building was also unique, which also added to it's own down fall. Even if there were no fires at ALL, I reckon it would have still come down. Just too much damage supporting the structure above. Take a bit longer but the outcome Innevitable.


No matter what:

The top part of the building would weigh the same until it starts to move.

Since the building first begins to tilts/rolls to one side and accelerat in that direction as it falls. You must calculate the mechanical mass/force working in the direction of the tilt.
The direction of the tilt would only take a portion of the down force from the top section. Because only a portion of the building is moving down in the initial collapse. That means 40 000 tons are not moving at the same time downwards. A large portion of the building is moving to one side. Look at OPs move again.
So 40 000 ton is not collapsing on the intact part of the structure initially at the same time all around the building. Because if it did the collapsing part wouldn't have tilted over to one side.

EDIT: The tilt of the collapsing top part of the building proves that it meat great resistance as it collapsed.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Its not easy to explain the use of shaped charges to people who have no idea of how they are set up for this type of use.

So i can understand that you dont see the picture here.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by mikelee
 




There is no way possible, scientific or otherwise that it could be "collasping ahead of the main debris" because in the floors below there was no fire to weaken the metal. So how can the lower building floors collaspe ahead of the main above it? The floors below were for all intents & purposes, were in good condition up to the moment the top portion of the towers crashed down on them.



What your are seeing is a "progressive collapse" - as the top section of building failed it became a giant hammer pounding the lower section


lol...I guess you are NOT familiar with..."for EVERY action, there is an EQUAL an OPPOSITE...REACTION...
how does a lighter built', top section, that has fire and structural damage,[for below the impact floor, there is NOTHING structurally wrong...is there], outlast a STRONGER built, lower 2/3 of structure, that it had been supporting all along?

HOW does this...lighter top, 'pulverize, and keep a CONSISTENT, NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, all the way down to create a HOLE....x2

WHERE is this...."top crushing block", after all said and done?...lol seems to have timed itself, PERFECTLY....x2, to disintegrate along with the 2/3 of STRONGER built towers, with large 2x4.5x 4 inch thick box columns instead of the LIGHTER 'H' columns that were used on the top...



As the top section slammed into floor below it overloaded the supports
causing it to fall in turn to floor below



oh...and WHY does this happen.....WHERE is the observational process of known structural failure behavior...the transference of energy... laws of mechanics, conservation of energy...
PE/KE of the initiation of the falling debris would have been largely absorbed by the energy required to take apart the building...twisting and bending the steel...for WE ALL SEE that lady hanging onto the column.....so that PROVES...minutes after fire leaves an area...things COOL...just like The Second Law of Thermodynamics says..."Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.
Motional energy from hot surroundings is spontaneously spread out in cooler systems/substances, never the other way around"...meaning...the area will NEVER remain hot once the source leaves...

and using the NIST WORST SCENARIO, as to HOW many vertical support was affected on impact....there is still 260+ intact vertical steel support that has varying temps of 90F to an average temp of...450F....

and the ONLY explaination from NIST,about that is...[NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238, 196] “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”...“The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.”



The shock of the plunging floors caused windows below to be either dislodged from frames or shatter - result was the "flashes" of light from the windows and refelective alumium cladding around windows as windows
failed from the force


lol.....yea.....right



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Its not easy to explain the use of shaped charges to people who have no idea of how they are set up for this type of use.

So i can understand that you dont see the picture here.


I've watched enough Mythbusters to understand the Basic Principles.

But if you could just fill in the Other Info

Where explosives were possibly Placed
Who Placed them, how many people would be needed
How did they get access
When were they placed
How many explosives would be needed
And why use Explosives and Thermite, doesn't make sense.

If the Government knew planes were going to hit these buildings why bother filling it with explosives and thermite, that doesn't make sense either.

Why has nobody come forward to say they were forced to plant explosives, nearly 10 years later.


Why is so hard to believe that people in Mid-East hate Americans that much to want to Destroy 2 Buildings.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:51 AM
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.


That's just it...this is what a building looks like being destroyed from the top down....end of story..

and for the 'official story' to state/hypothesize that this is a NATURAL event...while going against ALL observed/found facts...is idiotic...and criminal...for it is in lieu of another agenda....NOTHING scientific about it

if they wanted to end the dispute of IF CD was used.... once and for all...all they had to do was analyze and test the steel for explosives and accelerants...which is a MANDATORY ROUTINE whenever these is an explosive ejection of gassed and debris in a fire, and is done ANY OTHER TIME in America whenever FIRE is involved...NFPA 921

NOISE is NOT a requirement for testing, (as stated in NFPA 921), ...so the retort of..."well there was NO sounds of explosions"...is NOT a reason for NOT testing...as NIST "s ONLY reason for NOT testing the steel

NFPA 921 also has a section on Terrorism and the steps to take...

NIST IGNORED



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by chunder
 





What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?



You dont have to weaken every floor - all it takes is one floor collapsing

When that floor collapsed into one below it sheared the bolts holding the
floor truss in place dropping that floor into one below - repeating the process until reached ground

Fire was feed by office contents ignited by jet fuel. There was sufficent fuel to raise temperature in most intenses fires to 1800 F (1000 C)
At that temperature steel has only 10 % of original strenght



lol.....where are you getting these temps from......or are you just...LYING

HELLO...we are talking about the towers here...NOT a generalization of your opinions

please post a source for your claims...for I say your full of -Snip-

your post of...1800F is an air temp in the towers, and never stayed in one spot

"Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC:.Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC."
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132

U.L. tested truss floor assemblies....they built a 17' and a 35' complete floor truss assembly.
They loaded it with twice the weight that were known to have been on those floors.
They heated it up to 450 degrees hotter than was recorded in the steel testing. (900C)
they tested for 2 hours...which is longer than the towers stood for.
The 17' sagged 4"...the 35' sagged even less
no floor collapse...

You also need to understand the difference between compressive strength(which is 5 times higher) and tensile strength. In building steel structures steel doesn't lose 50% of its strength at 1100 Fahrenheit.




Molten material was seen flowing from the corner of building where
collapse initiated shortly before it collapsed

video of fires showing molten material flowing from building

video.google.com...#


LOL....I don't think that helps YOUR cause too much....for there is NO reason for that in an office fire....
aluminum is silver in liquid form...just as lead is

so what is that 'orange/yellow molten slag flowing out 4 min. BEFORE collapse.....looks to me as if there is someone...CUTTING through with a torch....don't cha think?



As for aircraft impact - original model was for 707 (largest at that time)
lost in fog flying low and slow (~ 180 mph) hitting building


which in comparison to what ALLEGEDLY hit the buildings..is very similar...not a huge difference in size and weight to alter the outcome

Mod Edit - Please Do Not Circumvent The Automatic Censors.


[edit on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:11:47 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stickerr

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by Stickerr
Theres no way they were bombs, if you wat at 3:40 second mark and on you'll see the those white flashes in the sky and in front of the 2nd building. Its just video glitches, or poor video editing to make it look like something else.


lol...yup...that's it..and everyone is entitled to an opinion

and it is ...'opinion' that is the base for NO EVIDENCE of explosives or accelerants...NO actual testing was involved...if YOU disagree...just post the testing results that were performed

so...you opened a brand new account just to post...here...are you part of the 'obamma' crew that is going to these sites to LIE?

here is a little hint...any flashes you see are just a bonus on the hypothesis that this is a CD...for...all anyone has to do is to look, to see this is not a natural GRAVITATIONAL event

so...either your 14 and are just displaying ignorance from not knowing about life...or this is your job



Or maybe I just opened an account, because I am new to the site? God forbid you have new people who join ATS. You obviously didn't really read my post. I never said that there was or wasn't explosives or the gov't is or isnt covering something up. I'm simply showing my view of what I saw on the video posted. and if you watch at the 3:40 mark. On either side of the building, in the sky, or even on the second building. you see the same flashes as the ones on the building it self.

I do believe there was some kind of explosion within the WTC, but I don't think this video proves that.

I love when people come up with random numbers and insults and try to piece them together to bring someone down.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Stickerr]


well then..I apologize and wish for you to continue your research...be thorough....and if I can offer some advice...if you continue, you might not like what you find, for it will affect how you see things around you...and things will never be the same

a natural gravitational collapse does not look like this...buildings do not behave like this...there is nothing natural about the way they fell



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

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.


That's just it...this is what a building looks like being destroyed from the top down....end of story..

and for the 'official story' to state/hypothesize that this is a NATURAL event...while going against ALL observed/found facts...is idiotic...and criminal...for it is in lieu of another agenda....NOTHING scientific about it

if they wanted to end the dispute of IF CD was used.... once and for all...all they had to do was analyze and test the steel for explosives and accelerants...which is a MANDATORY ROUTINE whenever these is an explosive ejection of gassed and debris in a fire, and is done ANY OTHER TIME in America whenever FIRE is involved...NFPA 921

NOISE is NOT a requirement for testing, (as stated in NFPA 921), ...so the retort of..."well there was NO sounds of explosions"...is NOT a reason for NOT testing...as NIST "s ONLY reason for NOT testing the steel

NFPA 921 also has a section on Terrorism and the steps to take...

NIST IGNORED


The other thing is:

These were NOT built like any other building anywhere in the World.

They were basically a concrete tube in the middle and a tin can on the outside. The concrete Flooring was not attached to the Outer or Inner Walls at all, only the trusses were tacked to the walls. Leaving huge areas in between the trusses that were not attached to anything. The Outside tin can held it up, and trusses just stopped it from bulging out like a coke can left in the freezer. And each truss was only designed to hold it's own concrete flooring. All the weight was transferred to the Inner and Outer Walls. There's just no way a few bolts on the trusses could hold up the concrete flooring and the Jumbo.

Any other building the Floors are embedded into the walls with Concrete, and a lot harder to bring down.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Ive watched the OP video over and over, what the flashes look like to me is electricity, i assume there was lots of electicity in the building at the time, lots of computers switched on etc, could these flashes not be just that, lots of PC terminals etc exploding all at once. Im not an expert in explosions or anything like that, but watching the video and knowing that these were offices, and lots of them, electricity and exploding pc's were my first thought.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




so you have definate proof and no one wants to beleive you?
ats is the only forum to announce this second to none info.
you have clearly changed the world as we all new this info would ...

Be Well


geez this gets better everyday!



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Which NIST report are you referring to with your posts? I do not see a link to the particular paper and would like to know. Thanks.

Also, there are again no visible explosions. If anything, it shows where the initiating collapse began. The bowing is the external frame losing its integrity. Once this occurs, there is nowhere else to go. Debris hit the ground at free fall speed but the rest of the building would not by simple definition.

Sorry but if you close your eyes and listen to the video you 'perceive' one thing because of the commentary. if you mute it an watch it, you do not perceive the explosions because no one is telling you to look for them. This is mind control 101.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
There are things to bear in mind about the Twin Tower's construction. The core columns were massive, up to about the mid 60th floors, and there appears to be no concrete involved at the inner core, not needed see this picture,

911research.wtc7.net...

The picture also shows the outer columns and a truss connected to the inner core from the middle of each outer column and the white marking on the outer column is where that outer column is connected to the one below. Those outer tri-sections are the ones you see flying down in other pictures I posted, mostly all a complete section broken off from the one below it, including one section that seems to have impact damage above the column joint. Now the towers outer walls were a square, while the core was rectangular, which meant a shorter run for the trusses on two walls, and a longer run for the other two, this schematic,

911research.wtc7.net...

Plus, there were transverse connections running across the trusses, from outer wall to outer wall, I presume more girders. Then there is the steel itself, say in the trusses, which had to soften and sag enough to produce a failure between the inner and outer truss connections uniform to all the trusses around the core, well nigh impossible if the trusses are not the same all round. Steel also has a habit of expanding as it heats, who'd ever have thought? There is too much going on in the idea of softening steel causing such a uniform collapse. And then there is the massive core, which mostly disappeared.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by masterp
 





If a specific floor in a building supports all the floors above it, then if those floors collapse, the floor underneath will not collapse.

It's simple physics: when the upper floors collapse, the lower floors have to support less weight than before, and therefore they do not collapse!!!



HUH ???

You did study physics in school - the part about gravity and momentum ?

The floors of WTC were attached to columns by clips fastened with bolts

The clips were fastened to trusses which spanned the gap between the
columns. A metal deck was laid over it and covered with layer of
lightweight concrete






The top chords were supported on bearing seats at each end of the two trusses. At the exterior column/spandrel beam, a gusset plate was groove-welded to the spandrel face and fillet-welded to the top chord angles. At the bearing seat, two 5/8-inch A325 bolts in 3/4 inch x 1-1/4 inch slotted holes connected the trusses' top chords to the bearing seat with a single bolt in the exterior angle of each truss. The lower chord was attached to the exterior column/spandrel beam with a viscoelastic damping unit connected to a small seat with two 1 inch A490 bolts that provided a slip-resistant connection. The damping unit had a capacity of about 5 kips.




When the 81st floor failed and top section of WTC 2 dropped onto the floor
below it shearing the bolts holding the floor truss . This floor in turn dropped, adding to the mass of the debris coming down , which in
turn collapsed the floor below and so on. Like a snow ball rolling
downhill it acquired more mass and momentum as it crashed in each floor

It was found that the momentum of falling only 1/2 meter (20 inches) was
enough to shear the bolts and clips . Each floor actaully fell the distance
of 1 story - 3 meters (10ft)



In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. The section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.





The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.


I'd agree with you, if we saw any progressive collapse. But the fact is, we don't see any progressive collapse. The towers did not fall like a pancake collapse!!!

For example, in the video posted by the OP, the upper part of the tower buckles and falls to the side. The lower part starts falling only when the upper part has completely fell down.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by masterp]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
When that floor collapsed into one below it sheared the bolts holding the
floor truss in place dropping that floor into one below - repeating the process until reached ground

Why would you post such blatantly false information? Are you familiar with #1 of ATS's T&C which states:


1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


From NIST's own FAQ's:


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers... Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


Unbelievable you would post such blatantly false and debunked information.




Originally posted by thedman
There was sufficent fuel to raise temperature in most intenses fires to 1800 F

That figure is for fire to reach that temperature under the most ideal conditions. You as an alleged firefighter should know that ideal conditions means the right mixture of air, and burning materials.

When we look at the small fires at the WTC, all we see is red and orange flames. Little to no yellow flames are visible. That means the fires were much cooler and no where near 1800 degrees.

I'll post this image for others to get a feel as to how hot fire can get:



Reds and oranges are the coolest temperatures a fire can get. Whites and blues are the hottest.



Originally posted by thedman
As for aircraft impact - original model was for 707 (largest at that time)
lost in fog flying low and slow (~ 180 mph) hitting building

Another blatantly false claim. The "180 mph" claim was made by Leslie Robertson after 9/11. NIST credits that number to the FEMA Report from 2002.

The real number was 600 mph and that was from a Port Authority document from February 1964 that concluded:


It appears that the design of the WTC towers considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building

The above is all listed on page 15 of NIST's WTC Investigation Status.


And what we saw at the WTC was exactly what was concluded in 1964: that the collisions only resulted in "local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the buildings".

Only 13% to 15% of the columns in the impact zones were damaged, leaving 85% of the structure intact and undamaged. And since fires never bring down steel-structured highrises, that's the end of that story. All other available evidence points to explosives only.

On a final note, we can't believe anything Robertson says. Robertson was only a secondary. A right-hand-man, if you will, who was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers. The chief structural engineer was John Skilling and his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson who recruited Robertson for the project.

Unfortunately, John Skilling is no longer with us to defend himself or his buildings.

Thedman, I would suggest that if you're going to post, at least do some fact checking because this is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, there are again no visible explosions.

We've been over this numerous times. These are visible signs of explosives:





What you will continue to do is concoct, make up, opinionize, and theorize as what they could be so that you don't have to believe in a conspiracy. But in reality, those ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of explosives being detonated.

I've continuously challenged debunkers to post a video or image of these concentrated ejections from a building collapse other than from CD, but nobody has yet obliged. I've looked at every video of fire-induced collapses, to earthquake collapses, etc., that I can find, but never can I find these concentrated plumes anywhere but CD. I wonder why......



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Here are two documentaries shoving how the Tween towers where really build.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Here is a old image of how a floor was set up. On top of these steal plates/foundations they added concrete as shown in the documentary.

files.abovetopsecret.com...



These images show how solid the structures really are.













[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Only 13% to 15% of the columns in the impact zones were damaged, leaving 85% of the structure intact and undamaged. And since fires never bring down steel-structured highrises, that's the end of that story. All other available evidence points to explosives only.

 


With respect to this:
How ?-? could they estimate 13-15% damage to columns when the final
resting place is just a twisted, pulverised mass of Rubble and unable to tell
what piece joined onto what piece.

In which case it could only Speculation, based on someone using X-Ray Vision
flying around in the Chopper.


Secondly:
In a normal Building, I beams connecting the Floors are resting on Concrete walls, there are no bolts holding the floors up. The I Beams are not exposed anywhere to be venerable to Fire. Infinately more stronger than WTC.
Why didn't they use Traditional I Beams, too heavy. Instead opting for the
lighter, less rigid trusses. Because of this "Pancaking" would be "almost" impossible in a Tradional Tower without help.

You can't compare what happens in those towers to any traditionsal tower.
The Building Technique is so unique, taditional rules just don't apply.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


In all the old picture I've seen...

How were the floor corners held up?, the 3 corners sections do not indicate
how they did that.

Unless they joined a truss onto another truss, that would be crazy.
Cant' see them creating a Fan effect, all the weight would be focused into
one small area.

So how did they do that bit?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join