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 3 Parts of Structure still Standing. No Complete Collapse Despite Severe Damage

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinnerarity
...and steel construction. Things don't fall down or blow away here.


Kinda like the WTC towers? Steel and concrete. Hmm....




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kinnerarity
 


Actually, I won't swear to that one way or another, but I've heard the same thing. But the US is a big country that has undergone enormous changes in construction means, methods, economics, design, and technology. You're right, not every building in the US is built to last a 1000 years. In fact, most commercial and industrial construction is meant only to last as long as the expected economic viability of its purpose. There are exceptions, but we don't build things to last centuries when we are pretty sure the economic purpose may shift or disappear long before the bricks and mortar fail. Its not being lazy or indifferent to the concept of quality, its just our particular world view.

On the other hand, those things that we expect to be "ongoing concerns" we build as well if not better than anything else found in the modern world.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? "Resistance should resist"? And exactly how did you establish that NO resistance was offered? Your Mickey Mouse watch and Youtube videos? As far I know there were no accelormeters in those buildings so how was it that you determined that the resistance was a perfect zero?


The FACT that the collapses were complete and didn't stop, that is the proof there was no resistance.

If you understood Newtons laws of motion you would understand why. Colliding objects experience the same equal forces. All the floors were destroyed, the only thing according to the OS doing that work was other floors. When a floor dropped on a floor, equal mass would result in equal damage to both floors (Newtons 3rd law). So if the floors were being destroyed as they impacted each other, as according to the OS, you would have ran out of dropping floors before the bottom section floors were all destroyed, 30 floors dropping on 80. The collapse could not have been complete without another force to keep the collapse going. Something removed the rest of the resistance from the lower building.

But remember no one has yet explain how the whole collapse sequence started to begin with, let alone continue through the path of most resistance completely ignoring the known laws of motion.



At the same time AND in the correct sequence?? Well if its at the same time then the correct sequence must be 0.


You guys like to pick on semantics don't ya? You think it makes you look smart? It just shows what your real motivation is. Timed explosives must be set off in the correct sequence, is that better?



As you can see from the quote above "footprint" is an ever changing definition.


No it isn't. Once again if the outer walls are sitting ON TOP of the debris pile then the building landed in its own footprint. You will be VERY lucky to get 100% of a building to land in its footprint. You are being ridiculous with this semantics games you like to play.

You have nothing to add to the discussion other than make me re-explain what's already been said, so I thank you for the chance to clarify. I love you debunkers, you all keep the "9-11 truth movement" alive and vibrant as you give us all the ammo we need to make the OS look stupid on a daily basis.
edit on 2/2/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
idk, I think about WTC 3 and the other buildings which had been fortified after the '93 bombing, and I... well, I honestly don't have anything else to add here. The only crap people talk about WTC 7 is when they are being ignorant to the extent of the damage, which while apparently was not directly related to the collapse, certainly contributed after a 7 hour fire.

Remember guys, ATS's motto is to Deny Ignorance, not continue spewing ignorance because it fits your hopes about a conspiracy. Rather than jumping on laser lights we should be focusing on the actual conspiracies. For example, why there is not a single video of the base of the towers just before the collapse. You know, the place where some witnesses reported a ring of flashes? I FOUND videos that would have shown the base, and they all skipped a few seconds into the collapse just as they were about the show the moment before the collapse on the base. I guarantee that you will never find a video showing the base of the tower. It has been deliberately removed. (In my opinion. I'm still rational about this, but honestly, there's no way that every single video would just cut out that one part. I can't assume that there were explosives or something else going on, but it does arouse suspicion.)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, according to your "logic"

"Wow! You mean that different structures, under different circumstances and subject to different stresses may have different outcomes????? "

how did buildings 1,2, and 7 collapse in the EXACT same fashion, whilst experiencing VASTLY different forms of damage?

EDIT: HOOPER Im calling you out here. You ignored me last time I slammed you. Im not letting you get away so easily this time.
edit on 2/2/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Good job turbo!

Dont even bother arguing with the troll! your doing a good job spreading info. Keep it up man!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
how did buildings 1,2, and 7 collapse in the EXACT same fashion, whilst experiencing VASTLY different forms of damage?


Just pointing out that 7 collapsed VERY different than 1 and 2. It didn't destroy itself and project debris laterally as it did. It didn't have a plane crash into it. It burned for FAR longer. Want me to find more differences?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Oh turbo, hate to rain on your parade but, do you have idea of how WTC3,4,5,6 were built? Any at all? I'll give you a hint: not with a tube-in-tube design, nor any large cantilever trusses over a substation. Do you get it it?

Fine I'll just tell you:
They had a CONVENTIONAL steel box skeleton. You know, with regular steel I-beams forming vertical and horizontal supports, like a regular building. To better show this to you, take a gander in one of them:
Why dont you do some REAL research on it:

911research.wtc7.net...
Oh and being flattened is considered, still standing?
turbo, I think you are starting to lose it.



Way to spread disinfo turbo! Way to go!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Gee thanks Gen! I couldn't have done it without you!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan
 



Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.

I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.



You contradicted yourself, truther.

How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"

WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?


edit on 26-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


that's not a contradiction, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

reply if you disagree so i can dismantle your post further.
edit on 2-2-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by VonDoomen
how did buildings 1,2, and 7 collapse in the EXACT same fashion, whilst experiencing VASTLY different forms of damage?


Just pointing out that 7 collapsed VERY different than 1 and 2. It didn't destroy itself and project debris laterally as it did. It didn't have a plane crash into it. It burned for FAR longer. Want me to find more differences?


No, I want you to work on reading comprehension.

I said they collapse in about the exact same fashion and they DIDNT experience the same damage. Free fall speed, no bumps or deceleration due to hitting lower floors,

when you watch the way they fell, they look extremely similiar.

but the point still needs to be answered why building 7 had much much less damage than wtc 4, and yet it crumbled to dust.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The FACT that the collapses were complete and didn't stop, that is the proof there was no resistance.

Uh, no its not. It only proves that the resistance offered was not sufficient to cause an obseervable abbreviation of the collapse.

If you understood Newtons laws of motion you would understand why.

Oh, please teach me oh Master of Physics!

Colliding objects experience the same equal forces.

Well, so much for the Master of Physics!

All the floors were destroyed, the only thing according to the OS doing that work was other floors.

What about the stuff that was holding the floors up? Did that just disappear?

When a floor dropped on a floor, equal mass would result in equal damage to both floors (Newtons 3rd law).

It wasn't that neat brother.

So if the floors were being destroyed as they impacted each other, as according to the OS, you would have ran out of dropping floors before the bottom section floors were all destroyed, 30 floors dropping on 80. The collapse could not have been complete without another force to keep the collapse going. Something removed the rest of the resistance from the lower building.

Very neat theorizing, however, it its completely removed from reality.

But remember no one has yet explain how the whole collapse sequence started to begin with, let alone continue through the path of most resistance completely ignoring the known laws of motion.

Yeah, they have, you just don't understand it.

You guys like to pick on semantics don't ya? You think it makes you look smart? It just shows what your real motivation is. Timed explosives must be set off in the correct sequence, is that better?

Not semantics, its called communication. Confusion begets confusion.

No it isn't. Once again if the outer walls are sitting ON TOP of the debris pile then the building landed in its own footprint. You will be VERY lucky to get 100% of a building to land in its footprint. You are being ridiculous with this semantics games you like to play.

Sorry, but words are important. If you keep repeating the footprint lie I am going to keep calling it out. None of buildings fell into their own footprints. None.

You have nothing to add to the discussion other than make me re-explain what's already been said, so I thank you for the chance to clarify. I love you debunkers, you all keep the "9-11 truth movement" alive and vibrant as you give us all the ammo we need to make the OS look stupid on a daily basis

Me? You're the one telling everybody that the demolition had to happen all at once and in the right sequence!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


No really, the collapses happened very differently. It is only similar in that they did collapse.

As for why suffering less damage led to its collapse, as you've probably read, the official account is that the fires where they were led to the collapse, not the damage. The damage just allowed the near-symmetrical final collapse.

Let's do a role-call of the damage to the trade center. First off, there was a 10 story gouge off the corner of the building. Then, there was a 20 floor section of damaged building from the floor up in the center of the south side, according to an eyewitness account by firefighters. It was unfortunately obscured by the smoke of the fire, so no pictures exist of this damage. (but remember, no pictures or even direct eyewitness accounts of demolitions exist, so the fact that we have actual visual account of this damage is more credible than the sound of an explosion.) I recall there also being a smaller amount of damage near the roof of the building, but it was likely a lightweight projectile from the WTC 1's collapse.

Now, compare this to the design of say WTC 4. It was fortified after the '93 bombing and had a very different structural design since it was only 9 stories high. As a result, it was able to have much sturdier design mechanics. As such, it makes sense that it could take so much damage and remain standing. WTC 7 was a different scenario, a set of unfortunate circumstances that became more severe over the course of the day and eventually led to a complete global failure of the building. First the interior began collapsing, and then after the base blew out, the damage allowed a low-resistance fall that looks "similar" to a demolition, but is actually quite different in almost all regards.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, no its not. It only proves that the resistance offered was not sufficient to cause an obseervable abbreviation of the collapse.


How could the resistance not be sufficient? Nothing was added to the weight the buildings were not designed to hold many times over. To think there would be no resistance at all is simply ludicrous.


Well, so much for the Master of Physics!


Really?


According to Newton's third law...

For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.

What does this mean?

This means that for every force there is a reaction force that is equal in size, but opposite in direction. That is to say that whenever an object pushes another object it gets pushed back in the opposite direction equally hard.


I can't believe you don't know this.


What about the stuff that was holding the floors up? Did that just disappear?


What other stuff? All there was were floors, that were steel pans, concrete and trusses.



It wasn't that neat brother.


What has that got to do with it?



Very neat theorizing, however, it its completely removed from reality.


How? Your opinion means nothing, provide proof. I have provided lots of proof for my claims, all you are doing is offering your opinion with nothing to support it.


Yeah, they have, you just don't understand it.


I understand it fine that is why I can offer evidence and logical rebuttals to your claims.




Sorry, but words are important. If you keep repeating the footprint lie I am going to keep calling it out. None of buildings fell into their own footprints. None.


It's NOT as lie. You can't offer anything to prove this but your opinion. WTC 7 fell in its footprint, if you say it didn't YOU are lying. The evidence it landed in its footprint is the FACT that the outer walls waited until the middle collapsed before they collapsed on top of it. I have already shown the proof there is only possible one way to do that, controlled implosion demolition. YOU fail or refuse to except the physics that makes that impossible from a natural uncontrolled collapse.

Explain to me how it could happen any other way, just saying it can is useless.



Me? You're the one telling everybody that the demolition had to happen all at once and in the right sequence


Huh? Again you use semantics to bolster your weak opinions. Everybody else in the world would know exactly what I meant.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Real question - is English your first language?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



How could the resistance not be sufficient? Nothing was added to the weight the buildings were not designed to hold many times over. To think there would be no resistance at all is simply ludicrous.

Read it again - I said observable (noting I misspelled it, sorry). All you have to go on are the videos.

I can't believe you don't know this.

I do know Newton's Thrid Law of Motion. You seem to think it somehow applies here. Do you really think it means that when a stationary object is struck by a moving object the objects share the same reaction? Don't forget "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" The reaction must be equal and opposite, but may not be the same. A tennis ball hits of the pavement of the court - does the surface of the court act the same way as the surface of the tennis ball? No.

What other stuff? All there was were floors, that were steel pans, concrete and trusses.

And the trusses were connected to....?

What has that got to do with it?

Think about the idea of point load.

How? Your opinion means nothing, provide proof. I have provided lots of proof for my claims, all you are doing is offering your opinion with nothing to support it.

Yeah, right, all that proof. You repeating the word physics two thousands times does not constitute proof.

It's NOT as lie. You can't offer anything to prove this but your opinion. WTC 7 fell in its footprint, if you say it didn't YOU are lying. The evidence it landed in its footprint is the FACT that the outer walls waited until the middle collapsed before they collapsed on top of it. I have already shown the proof there is only possible one way to do that, controlled implosion demolition. YOU fail or refuse to except the physics that makes that impossible from a natural uncontrolled collapse.

There you go. Repeating the word "physics" like its some magic tantra.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


So turbo did you realize the problem in your OP? Or are you just going to act like a child with sarcasm as usual?

No comment on the obvious design differences? None at all? No comment on the fact that WTC3 was squashed flatter than a bug after both collapses? None at all? But somehow in your world, being squashed like a bug means "still standing". And you wonder why we dont take you seriously anymore!

This is considered "still standing" according to turbo:



when it used to look like this:



Still standing?





posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Read it again - I said observable (noting I misspelled it, sorry). All you have to go on are the videos.


All ANYONE had to go on were videos! NIST, Bazant etc.

There was no observable resistance because there was none. Trying to claim the resistance was invisible is just stupid. If the resistance was unobservable then there was no resistance, simple as.

Resistance would be obvious as the collapse would have slowed and stopped before it was complete, but it continued to accelerate through the path of most resistance.



I do know Newton's Thrid Law of Motion. You seem to think it somehow applies here. Do you really think it means that when a stationary object is struck by a moving object the objects share the same reaction?


YES THEY DO. I can't believe you think they don't. Of course it applies, physics always applies, did you ever go to school?


... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs...
Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision....


www.physicsclassroom.com...

It's the, 'unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force', that actually causes the damage to the objects.
This is why a larger mass will always cause more damage to a smaller mass.

Understand that and you'll understand why 30 floors can not crush 80 floors to the ground, and be left with no floors.


Don't forget "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" The reaction must be equal and opposite, but may not be the same. A tennis ball hits of the pavement of the court - does the surface of the court act the same way as the surface of the tennis ball? No.


You obviously don't understand the concept. Just like I've been saying for years now. How can the reaction be EQUAL and opposite but not the same, if both objects are the same MASS? The force between your ball and the ground IS the same when they collide, the difference in the outcome is the difference between the objects mass and, in the case of the ball, its elasticity. Why do you have a hard time understanding these differences? Probably for the same reason you think the OS is correct.



And the trusses were connected to....?


The central and outer core columns, that can be observed being ejected laterally during the collapse.
Or did the columns do the same as the floors and defy physics by collapsing straight down through the path of most resistance?


Think about the idea of point load.


HUH? Think about the load being redistributed to undamaged columns.



Yeah, right, all that proof. You repeating the word physics two thousands times does not constitute proof.


They do when I have physics principles and photos to support my claims. What do you have? OPINIONS based on nothing but your misunderstanding of physics, and your desperate attempt to make everything fit the OS.



There you go. Repeating the word "physics" like its some magic tantra.


Now THAT is funny? You really don't understand the physics do you? If you did you wouldn't be saying that lol.

You'd love me to stop talking about physics wouldn't you? If you don't like it stick to the easy threads like space beams and no-planes.
edit on 2/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


If you can't tell the difference between this...



And this...



Then it's no wonder you can believe the OS so easily.

You're the one who should be laughed at.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Refresh my memory ANOK. How exactly was the WTC7 building designed? What damage did it inccur during the collapses? What damage did the fires do to the interior? what happened when the interior experienced internal failures from fire, which caused the structure to be collapsing for 18 seconds, before the hollow shell came down last? Hmm maybe that is how the exterior walls landed like that?

But then again, this is about WTC3 and not WTC7, so that is OT. Turbo here is a little confused about what constitutes as "still standing". Let's help him out first ok?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join