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.
Originally posted by ANOK
All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by ANOK
All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.
Your edited quote above all for corners fell at same time explain this
1.bp.blogspot.com...
Falls to one side to start with at corner of impact point.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by ANOK
All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.
Your edited quote above all for corners fell at same time explain this
1.bp.blogspot.com...
Falls to one side to start with at corner of impact point.
Once the top of WTC2 stopped tilting the building still fell symmetrically.
How do you explain the tilt in the first place? How did that top, that was undergoing angular momentum, suddenly stop it's angular momentum and fall straight down? How could it crush lower floors symmetrically when it was not sitting 'true' and under angular momentum?
One of the first things your learn in engineering school is that if want something to go straight down then the force has to be even on all points or otherwise it will not go straight down. Try pushing anything straight down while pushing more on one side. Really simple concept that you seem to miss. That top could not have done the crushing, the bottom section of the tower had to have had the resistance removed for it to drop like that.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite your sources for your information so that I am able to determine if you logic is accurate or inaccurate.
Originally posted by ANOK
I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite your sources for your information so that I am able to determine if you logic is accurate or inaccurate.
There really is no single source I can give you. There are so many concepts involved.
In the past I used to post a lot of sources for the physics, real physics sources not 9-11 sites, but the debunkers either just ignored them or didn't understand them.
But I decided I'm not here to hold hands, if you want to check what I say then do your own research like I have for the last 7 years or so...
Start with learning why and how the central core was built, and why it was incredibly strong and would resist collapse. It's a pretty common engineering design and known to do the job it was designed for, resisting the collapse of itself.
Most people here seem to post based on their feelings, or assumptions, or what they've been told by whomever, not on real world physics or their own experience and background.
Originally posted by iamcpc
I agree that the central core was strong. I also believe that several of the 44 central beams were destroyed in the airplane impact. If you destroy 7-20 of the cetral core beams with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane then the buidling is not nearly as strong as it once was.
if the WTC towers didn't have any resistance to their collapse then why did they fall slower than the free falling debri?
The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity.
Then we are taken back to the statement that the collapse could not have been symmetrical AND had resistance.
Originally posted by ANOK
Did they? By how much?
The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity.
And that would be from UNDAMAGED structure. Gravity is not stronger than bolts and welds otherwise nothing would ever stand up. Only a few floors were damage and on fire, the majority of the building was not touched by either and thus maintained it's original strength and would thus offer mass resistance, as they were designed to do, to the collapse.
Then we are taken back to the statement that the collapse could not have been symmetrical AND had resistance.
Yes resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses, why is that so hard to understand.
Originally posted by iamcpc
1. We both agree that the collapse had resistance from "UNDAMAGED structure"
2. We both agree that the towers had a symmetrical collapse
We agree the collapses were symmetrical. We agree the undamaged floors offered resistance to the collapse.
Where is the logic that explains that any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse when we both agree the collapse had resistance AND was symmetrical?
Originally posted by iamcpc
If the towers had no resistance lower floors then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds and they fell slower than 9.2 seconds. How much slower is up for debate. These are all the points that I made previously in this tread.
It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer...
...of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The impacts of the planes would have caused massive damage to several floor structures . The intense heat would cause further weakening and failure of the thin material in the floor trusses.
Once the first few floor supports failed , the 'pancake' theory was inevitable ., the combined weight of the higher floors collectively contributing to the failure of each successive floor .
Tubular steel radiates heat much further than solid steel . Will supply links if requested .
The 'squibs' of smoke you see coming out of lower floors is due to the fact that the floors INSIDE the building are failing in succession , compression from blowing out the windows . You are unable to see the floors failing because the facade is not failing at exactly the same rate .
The floor trusses were what was keeping the exterior 'beams' in place . The towers failed from the inside out .
No explosives were needed .
Study the construction history .
Originally posted by okbmd
...It's really a no-brainer , if you stop and think about it .
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by NO-USE
There are PLENTY of threads , right here on ATS , that shows pictures of the debris field from the collapses .
Try the search function .