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.
How do you expect a building NOT set up for a global symmetrical collapse, to globally symmetrically collapse?
Originally posted by ANOK
No assumptions that cannot be proved, because you know we're not allowed to make assumptions, only facts.
Originally posted by jprophet420
No one has been able to explain why there was less resistance from a steel structure than the open air around it.
If i was gullible and uneducated I might believe a falling object sometime takes the path of greater resistance.
Originally posted by ANOK
Please explain to us why you believe the collapses were not symmetrical?
Originally posted by Heiwa
Thanks for reading and discussing my article
Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by richierich
"DUSTIFICATION"?
Where in the hell did you come up with that term?
And the truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously?
Do you know the difference between structural concrete and slab concrete? The towers had very little structural concrete and lots of slab
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Heiwa
Thanks for reading and discussing my article
LMAO.
You wrote a letter to the editor.
Bazant is gonna humiliate you.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The tops of both towers fell to a side.
So the part affected by assymetric damage fell assymmetrically. So that truther statement is satisfied.
If you feel that the lower structure should also fall assymmetrically, even though it wasn't damaged, feel free to explain why.
Originally posted by Heiwa
To suggest, like NIST and Bazant & Co that C can apply energy that A cannot absorb and that C can one-way crush down A into rubble B without damaging itself is criminal apart from totally unscientific.
Originally posted by ANOK
No they didn't, neither top fell to the side. [/quote]
To be sure, neither fell OFF THE BUILDING to the side. But to claim that both fell absolutely straight dowm is beyond ludicrous. Good luck trying to get even the most rabid of truthers to back that statement.
The top of WTC 2 tilted, which in itself makes symmetrical global collapse impossible
Oh, so you have that engineering repo.... never mind,I know you got nuttin'.
and YES I did explain why in this very thread
Your words mean nothing. Bring some proof.
Again RESISTANCE causes ASYMMETRY.
No. Assymmetric resistance will cause assymmetry.
The real point is the bottom of the building should not have collapsed, period.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Hpw boring.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What is that supposed to prove? You are not supposed to post vids without an explanation.
From what I've seen they were not made from paper and washers. If the towers ended up as a pile of floors with the core columns still standing you might have something. The floors 'dustified' before they even reached the ground.
Could you please explain how that represents what happened to the WTC buildings. Then we can discus it.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by richierich
And the truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously?
Do you know the difference between structural concrete and slab concrete?
The towers had very little structural concrete and lots of slab. Slab concrete is popular in buildings because it is very easy to obtain a smooth level surface. It main strength is in compression. The concrete that "disintegrated" was slab concrete. It and the gypsum in the drywall made up most of the dust cloud created when the towers collapsed.
The damage, hundreds of yards from the towers, was caused by the impact of the aircraft, not the collapse of the towers. One of the landing gear wheels was found embedded in a section of the tower's outer structure almost a 1/4 mile away.
The damage, hundreds of yards from the towers, was caused by the impact of the aircraft, not the collapse of the towers. One of the landing gear wheels was found embedded in a section of the tower's outer structure almost a 1/4 mile away.
Originally posted by Heiwa
Your model is just a tower of washers around a pole held by friction, where a big number of washers can dislocate single washers one after the other. No C is crushing any A into rubble B. The pole remains intact, etc, etc. Only friction joints are disconnected.