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.

 

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink


You do understand that would take more than 10-15 secs for such a colapse? Guess you dont...


Well actually it took nearly 18-20 seconds for the floors and the exterior columns to collapse to the ground, and it took another 10 seconds after for the remaining core sections to collapse. It collapsed due to the way the floors were designed. A failure of design that not many saw coming or ignored.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by waypastvne
 

This so-called "cascading failure" is an OS'er wet dream. It has absolutely no basis in reality.
The trusses that you say failed because of the weight of those above it that came down? What kind of nonsense is that? They are designed to hold the weight of those above it! In fact, much more than that. They are designed to hold he weight of ALL of the floors above, full of people, with a safety factor to boot.
You are writing absolute nonsense. Where did you get this nonsense?
Really.




Excuse me, where exactly does it say the floors in the WTC Towers were designed to hold the weight of those above it? Great, another truther that is way behind on the facts.
Well since you came in here with a lovely display of personal incredulity, maybe you can show us all just how the floor segment was designed to hold up the floors above it. I'll help you out:


This is a floor section:


I want you to show me just how exactly this floor set up is suppose to hold up the floors above it. Notice, this is the end of the floor truss where they connect to the exterior columns. Show me where the floor has the vertical component that is suppose to hold up the floors above it.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
The "cascading failure" is not possible. At any floor level, the structure is designed to hold the weight of the floors above and more. Only by blowing out these supports, could the building come down in the manner it did.
Surely, you are aware of the video evidence of these supports being blown out.
Additionally, you contradict the oral testimony of people that were actually there at the time that spoke of explosions. There were quite a few.
There is quite a lot of information available on how this building likely came down. Because high level government operatives did their best to thwart an honest investigation, this work has been far more difficult to accomplish. But, GenRadek, there are still some patriotic Americans that care enough to see this investigation through.
You seem intelligent enough, but it is true that the enemy of America that brought these towers down, and in fact, have done much more than this, are very intelligent as well. Intelligence does not equate to honor.
I cannot assume that you are one of those that are honestly seeking the truth. Because of your posting history, I can actually only assume the opposite.
You should know that there is ample evidence that points to the purposeful destruction of the towers by high level Israeli Mossad agents, outside and inside of our federal government. If you know as much about how these towers were destroyed as you claim, you would be aware of these clues and not spouting some "cascading collapse" theories that don't stand up to honest scrutiny.
Only dishonest obfuscation.
Therefore, I am calling you out as pwned by the Israeli faction that are responsible for this unconscionable crime.
Further, I recommend Christopher Bollyn's website if anyone wants more info.
Check it out GenRadek.
Missile evidence

edit on 28-8-2011 by SirClem because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

A failure of design that not many saw coming or ignored.


WTC was not a unique, or bad design. If it was then why are most modern high rises built this way?


In structural engineering, the tube is the name given to the systems where in order to resist lateral loads (wind, seismic, etc.) a building is designed to act like a three-dimensional hollow tube, hence the name, cantilevered perpendicular to the ground. The system was introduced by Fazlur Rahman Khan while at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill's (SOM) Chicago office. The first example of the tube’s use is the 43-story Khan-designed DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

The system can be constructed using steel, concrete, or composite construction (the discrete use of both steel and concrete). It can be used for office, apartment and mixed-use buildings. Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States since the 1960s are of this structural type.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...

So almost every building over 40 stories in the US are in danger of complete collapse if they have a fire?

WTC was not even the first, the DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago was, built in 1963.

And guess what Gen? It had two fires, and didn't collapse itself...


In 2002, a fire on the 14th floor killed one and injured 11,[4] and on December 10, 2009 another fire, on the 36th floor, also killed one person and injured 12 people. About one third of the Chicago Fire Department's equipment, with about 300 firefighters, responded to the 2009 fire.


en.wikipedia.org...

So no Gen, the collapse had nothing to do with the design of the building. Regardless of design all objects on planet Earth are effected by the laws of motion, even IF it collapsed due to bad design the floors themselves can not both be ejected out of the footprint, as claimed by FEMA, and still have enough mass and energy to continue crushing themselves to less than the height of the lobbies. A bad design does not change how physics works.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek

A failure of design that not many saw coming or ignored.


WTC was not a unique, or bad design. If it was then why are most modern high rises built this way?



In structural engineering, the tube is the name given to the systems where in order to resist lateral loads (wind, seismic, etc.) a building is designed to act like a three-dimensional hollow tube, hence the name, cantilevered perpendicular to the ground. The system was introduced by Fazlur Rahman Khan while at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill's (SOM) Chicago office. The first example of the tube’s use is the 43-story Khan-designed DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

The system can be constructed using steel, concrete, or composite construction (the discrete use of both steel and concrete). It can be used for office, apartment and mixed-use buildings. Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States since the 1960s are of this structural type.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...

So almost every building over 40 stories in the US are in danger of complete collapse if they have a fire?



Oh I am aware that the tube design is not rare. However, notice there are a few subsets to the "tube" design. I'll use the DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building as an example. It is known as a "concrete framed-tube". The WTC was a "steel tube-in-tube" (but also noted as a "steel framed tube" as well) design which used light steel trusses for the floors. This is not how DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building was built. It was concrete. BIG difference. Hell just do some research. So your example falls on its face, as the two structures are not comparable. Also, can you show us if they had the same floor design as the WTC? You can read more about the advent and evolution of concrete structures here:
www.ejse.org...





WTC was not even the first, the DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago was, built in 1963.

And guess what Gen? It had two fires, and didn't collapse itself...


In 2002, a fire on the 14th floor killed one and injured 11,[4] and on December 10, 2009 another fire, on the 36th floor, also killed one person and injured 12 people. About one third of the Chicago Fire Department's equipment, with about 300 firefighters, responded to the 2009 fire.


en.wikipedia.org...



WOW! A concrete framed building with out a 767 slamming into it survived a fire on one floor! Alert the presses!! It didnt collapse! That is all the proof we need that the WTC collapse was demo!
Listen to yourself ANOK, its pathetic! The DeWitt building was a concrete tube structure. Not like the WTC. In fact if the WTC had more concrete in its initial design, and no light steel trusses, maybe it would have survived better. That is the whole issue. WTC was a STEEL tube-in-tube design, with no concrete encasing the steel columns and light steel trusses for floors. Plus the floors were NOT steel I-beams or girders. Also, many of the tube designs are not steel alone, but steel encased in concrete. That was not the WTC.
The WTC was the first to be an all steel tube-in-tube design with floor trusses. Not like DeWitts, or One Shell Plaza. in fact read up on that building here:
gilbert.aq.upm.es...

That was the problem with WTC, that not many wanted to admit. Would you be willing to admit you made a big design mistake in, not one, but TWO of the tallest structures on the eastern seaboard? Hell you have trouble admitting when you are wrong on smaller issues like what NIST said about the collapses.




So no Gen, the collapse had nothing to do with the design of the building. Regardless of design all objects on planet Earth are effected by the laws of motion, even IF it collapsed due to bad design the floors themselves can not both be ejected out of the footprint, as claimed by FEMA, and still have enough mass and energy to continue crushing themselves to less than the height of the lobbies. A bad design does not change how physics works.


Oh boy, this takes the cake!
Again, you lie and say the floors were ejected somehow outside the footprint, based on solely your imagination. Why are you lying? I now am comfortable to say you are lying, because you have yet to show one shred of evidence to back up your claim. In the past three months or so, I have been patiently awaiting for you to show me any tangible evidence that floors were magically ejected through the exterior columns and found outside the footprint. So far, nothing. I call you on every time you bring up this BS, and you have nothing to back it up, other than showing me a picture of dust from the WTC, and saying that those are the floors being ejected, and yet you cannot even show me one picture of a steel decking, concrete slab or floor truss outside the footprint. All I see are exterior column spandrels laying out away from the WTC area. You have not been able to explain just how the floors would be ejected outside the footprint, somehow squeezing out those narrow windows. You have not been able to show me one shred of it. So, yes, you are lying. Lying to protect and promote another lie that the WTC were demolished.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by GenRadek
 

At any floor level, the structure is designed to hold the weight of the floors above and more. Only by blowing out these supports, could the building come down in the manner it did.


You are confusing a column, which is designed to support everything above it and a beam which is designed to support only what's directly on it (i.e.) the weight of the floor.

I have made this point before, and am probably wasting my breath, but once more shouldn’t hurt.
An unsupported column (that’s the vertical component) can support a given load which we will refer to as “X”. If you want that column to support more than X, or make that column support X but use a smaller member, you connect two (or more) columns together with lateral supports.

A practical example: take a stick or a bamboo skewer, put it between your hands and apply a force at each end. Notice how it bends in the middle, that is the point of failure if the load continues to increase. Support that stick or bamboo skewer perpendicularly to the applied force at the anticipated point of failure (the middle) and it can take a great deal more loading.

That was the relatively unique design feature in the WTC. The tube inside of a tube design. The inner tube was made of columns that supported the outer tube and vice a versa. They were tied together with the floor trusses (the horizontal beams). This allowed all the office space to be open and devoid of any columns between the inner tube and the outer tube.

When the trusses failed in WTC, the columns lost that lateral connecting member which prevented the column from buckling. The uneven heating of the trusses from the fire warped them and broke the connecting bolts and welds that held them to the inner and outer tubes. No later member and the column lost a critical support and then buckled.
Its really not rocket science.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
The "cascading failure" is not possible. At any floor level, the structure is designed to hold the weight of the floors above and more. Only by blowing out these supports, could the building come down in the manner it did.
Surely, you are aware of the video evidence of these supports being blown out.



Let me stop you right there: The floor structure itself was not designed to hold the weight of the floors above. Each floor was designed to hold itself up along with a basic safety net design. It was not designed to withstand having multiple floors coming down on it at the same time. The exterior columns were the ones responsible for "holding up" the structure along with the interior columns. The floors themselves just held the exterior columns in place and connected to the interior columns. I would suggest you go over the design of the WTC. The only "supports" were the exterior columns. The floors themselves were held up not by large steel I-beams welded to the columns. They were trusses which were bolted onto these steel tabs known as "seats", which were welded onto the exterior/interior columns. have 15 floors come down as one and impact the floor below, those tabs will be subjected to extreme shearing forces. It was found during recovery and clean up how these tabs were bent at obtuse angles, broken off, or completely sheared off the column it was attached to. There was no evidence of any blasts removing the supports. None. That shows that the collapse was powerful enough to shear off the floor truss connections.



Additionally, you contradict the oral testimony of people that were actually there at the time that spoke of explosions. There were quite a few.



Yes, I don't doubt someone hearing explosions during a fire in which 15-30 acres of office space is burning, with a 767 burning inside. I watched a garage fire a year back, and I counted three decent explosions emanate from the garage before the firefighters arrived. Did I believe explosives brought the garage down? Nope. Also, people claining they thought it was bombs, well, lets take a quick peek at the human psyche. It was obvious it was a terrorist attack once the second plane impacted. Of course, what do we mostly think of when its a terrorist attack? Bombs! What happened to the WTC 93? Bomb! So obviously people will equate the two, and any "explosions" will be noted or assumed to be "bombs" exploding as part of the terrorist attack. That is why so many people believe to have heard "bombs" when in reality, there are many "non-explosive related" sources of the sound that goes "boom". Case in point: pressurized vessels exploding from fire/crushed/punctured. Electrical conduits, steam pipes, gas pipes, large heavy objects falling from a great height impacting the ground, to name a few.



There is quite a lot of information available on how this building likely came down. Because high level government operatives did their best to thwart an honest investigation, this work has been far more difficult to accomplish. But, GenRadek, there are still some patriotic Americans that care enough to see this investigation through.
You seem intelligent enough, but it is true that the enemy of America that brought these towers down, and in fact, have done much more than this, are very intelligent as well. Intelligence does not equate to honor.
I cannot assume that you are one of those that are honestly seeking the truth. Because of your posting history, I can actually only assume the opposite.


I am interested in the truth. However, I believe that rather than wasting time going on and on about magical explosives, thermites, death rays, missiles, no planes, and crap like that, how about investigating who screwed up royal on this? Who dropped the ball due to incompetence, stupidity, laziness, or whatever? Why did red-tape slow down the intel? Why were people too incompetent to realize somethign serious is coming? You want to start a REAL investigation that may go somewhere? Start there. Start with the people handling the critical intel and either ignored it, or put an empty pizza box over the memo, and forgot about it? Start with the idiots that are so proud with their organization, that they cannot work together with other agencies with civility. Start with the dolts that ignored the red flags thinking its false, or "that can't be right! That is not what I'm seein!" That is where the whole error is. THAT is where we should dig. Not in this make-believe world of fancy shmancy secret demolitions, parlor trick planning, and Rube-Goldberg-esque planning which would have required the complicity of thousands if not, tens of thousands of people.



You should know that there is ample evidence that points to the purposeful destruction of the towers by high level Israeli Mossad agents, outside and inside of our federal government. If you know as much about how these towers were destroyed as you claim, you would be aware of these clues and not spouting some "cascading collapse" theories that don't stand up to honest scrutiny.
Only dishonest obfuscation.
Therefore, I am calling you out as pwned by the Israeli faction that are responsible for this unconscionable crime.
Further, I recommend Christopher Bollyn's website if anyone wants more info.
Check it out GenRadek.
Missile evidence

edit on 28-8-2011 by SirClem because: (no reason given)


Ah yes, the jooooozs did it.
They were somehow responsible and they managed to rig up three of the tallest and busiest buildings in NYC, under the very noses of the Port Authority, building engineers, police and fire, that had direct contact and access to every nook and cranny of the buildings for many years and not a soul noticed them.
Oy vey.

Do I think the jews somehow rigged the WTCs and blew them up for whatever reason? Nope.
Now, do i trust the Mossad? Not really. Now I do believe they had intel showing something was up, and decided to withhold it from our agencies, for their benefit. People are capable of taking advantage of a situation for private gain, no doubt about that. Is that what could have happened here? Maybe. We'll never know. But to t hink they somehow they are directly responsible for actively blowing up the WTC? Yeah right. If you believe that, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell ya. Real cheap!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 

No, not rocket science. Just carefully planned destruction of an entire complex.
Actually, there was some rocket science involved, but hey, who am I talking to here.
Hello!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Sorry SirMike

The design of the Towers was always stated as this, gravity load or bulk of it was taken by the core wind load or bulk of it was take by the walls the floors help with the support of each.

If you look at any construction pictures of the Towers being built the steel work of the core or the walls was never allowed to be much above the floor level decking look at any picture of the tower as it was built!

When the collapse started you had 30 floors of mass from the South Tower hitting the floor below at around 18 mph and for the North Tower about 15 floors.

Any mass which hit colums would be taken by those but the BULK of the mass hit floor slab it was one acre in area and what holds that, the little connections at each end of a trusses once the floors started to fail the walls then lost support! Repeat until you reach the ground.

Here is a little experiment for you SirMike if you can hold a 50kg weight comfortably get someone to lift that what shall we say ah 12 ft the height of a WTC floor and when they drop it, you catch it see if it still seems to weigh 50kg ! please video it and youtube it with the address to send the flowers to!!!!
edit on 30-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: lines added

edit on 30-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
A few key questions and important points.

- Yes the fires were not hot enough to melt steel technically, but it's a moot point, cause even if they did melt the steel, how do you remove hundreds of thousands of tons of resistance from steel and concrete, on the 100+ floors below the impact points of the WTC? What I mean is, the twin towers could not have collapsed that fast, no matter what melted. The 110 floors provided a lot of resistance which could not have evaporated and turned to air. It's totally impossible and no one has explained it. Especially considering the fact that the north tower was hit at the very top. How does the very top floor pulverize 110 floors below it as though it were thin air? It's 100 percent impossible.

- Also keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? The WTC did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 11 seconds.

- Besides, if one could destroy whole skyscrapers just by lighting a few floors on fire, then the demolition company would be out of business, since no explosive charges that takes months to set up, would be necessary. All you'd need is kerosene and a few matches. Have you considered that?

- Have you seen the collapse of Building 7, which was NOT hit by a plane? It's considered the smoking gun. It was a 47 story skyscraper made of the best materials. Yet it collapsed in 5 seconds. The government says it collapsed from fire. But have you seen the collapse? If not, look at it and tell me if it looks like a fire collapse. Here:

www.youtube.com...

Here is that new professional video I told you about from AE911Truth.org featuring MANY structural engineers, scientists and demolition experts talking about the collapse of Building 7 and why the official explanation is WRONG. You need to watch it. It's so compelling that it will change your mind if you listen to every words of it. It's a MUST SEE.

www.youtube.com...

Btw, the debunkers have NEVER explained the free fall collapse of Building 7. They simply tried to muddle the waters, cause they CANNOT explain a free fall speed collapse by fire. In fact, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), which was commissioned by the US government, ADMITTED that they could not account for the free fall of Building 7, so they just ignored it. And they ADMITTED that they NEVER even looked for evidence of explosives either, since they already MADE UP their mind from the beginning that ONLY fire could be the cause of the collapse. (since that's what they were ordered to do obviously)

With such damning admissions from NIST, why do you say you trust them and consider them to have explained everything sufficiently, when in reality, they can't answer any important questions and run away from evidence presented?

For example, NIST said there was no molten metal found under the WTC 7 rubble. But many people said they saw it, including fire fighters. Have a look at what they said below. These are good honest Americans, just like you, so why do you ignore their evidence?

www.youtube.com...

Thermal heat imaging from the air also detected molten metal in the WTC rubble as well.

Again, keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? Building 7 did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 5 seconds at near free fall speed.

I know we all have our biases, including me, but how do you explain all this when you factor it in? Yes it's disturbing. But like Richard Gage said, you gotta follow the evidence (and the money especially) and let the chips fall where they may.

I really urge you to watch the film I recommended to you long ago, called "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" when you have time. It's only 100 minutes, and is the BEST documentary on 9/11 ever. It was made by a member of the European Parliament and features Nobel Prize Winners. Once you watch it, your mouth will drop open and you will be stunned, as you slap your head and wonder, "How could I have been so gullible?

Full length here:
www.youtube.com...

Trust me. All these clips and films are a MUST SEE. I would not ask you to see them if they weren't important and worthy of your time. Once you see them and follow the evidence, you will understand why. The case will be much more clear to you than before.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
9/11 The Top Scientific Arguments




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
My question is, was something originally planned with Bldg 7 that for some reason didn't pan out, and had to be pulled anyway, to remove the evidence?
Could it have been the target of flight 93 originally? I mean, if bldg 7 was rigged and pulled, which it does seem so to me, it seems "they" would have had a plan for it?
Get what I mean?
edit on 11-9-2011 by tom502 because: misspell



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Out Of Chaos - The Real Story About 9/11




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Out Of Chaos II - The Real Story About 9/11




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Well first of all Demolition Companies wouldn't be able to use fire WHY? No control thats why
they like the buildings to fold in on themseleves so they dont effect any buildings close by that didn't happen on 9/11 did it!

Re you 110 floors , each floor was held up with small sections of angle iron they were designed to support their own weight with a safety factor!the floor connection were the same for the bottom floors as the top so what you claim is BS! The only floors that were different were the service floors!

The WTC 7 building did not collapse in 5 seconds here is the video you linked to!!!!



Watch it from 2:34 seconds then tell us how long it takes

What amazes me is that people on this WHO claim to be engineers dont seem to see the collaspe of the
penthouse and the 8 seconds from the start of that to the start of the total building collapse!

Care to explain what you see, you guys like to show the street level videos this shows it takes a good deal longer than you claim! FOR HOW MANY SECONDS BEFORE WE SEE THE PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE HAD STEEL BEEN FAILING HIDDEN FROM VIEW!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Well actually it took nearly 18-20 seconds


thats almost freefall speed, whats your point?



Let me stop you right there: The floor structure itself was not designed to hold the weight of the floors above. Each floor was designed to hold itself up along with a basic safety net design. It was not designed to withstand having multiple floors coming down on it at the same time. The exterior columns were the ones responsible for "holding up" the structure along with the interior columns.


If the building came down due to a pancake effect, we should have seen the columns sticking out as the floors came down. According to you or Nist, the floors came down on each other and in the process desintegrated the columns which were designed to hold up multiple floors. Do you see the problem there?

But it does not matter what you have to say. We have anonymous general debating architects and engineers who do show their face. Where are the architects and engineers defending the garbage NIST put out? How is it treated in academic circles? Is the material being taught and discussed in universities across the world, to make buildings in the future safer? I Doubt it.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
So about the above post, what became of the columns which were holding up the building. According to NIST and general kadaffi here one column failed due to fire which caused the floors to pancake atop each other, although I am puzzled how that can be with the heat being dissipated through the interlocking steel structure. What became of the other columns? Did the floor destroy the steel columns which were designed to hold up the floors? Is there enuff energy to go around, or do we need to introduce energy, in the form of explosives maybe?


Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SirMike
 



Any mass which hit colums would be taken by those but the BULK of the mass hit floor slab it was one acre in area and what holds that, the little connections at each end of a trusses once the floors started to fail the walls then lost support! Repeat until you reach the ground.



Interesting theory, but unfortunately for that theory, the collapse has been captured on video. Not just the floors are coming down, with the floors being disconnected from their support, the whole building comes down. Something had to take out the sturdy columns as well. All of them.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
If the building came down due to a pancake effect, we should have seen the columns sticking out as the floors came down. According to you or Nist, the floors came down on each other and in the process desintegrated the columns which were designed to hold up multiple floors. Do you see the problem there?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666


thats almost freefall speed, whats your point?



Point is, watch any of the collapses from the ground level, and you will see that the debris itself fell faster than the building. In fact, it took about 12 seconds alone for the initial debris to hit the ground in freefall. But the building was still standing when the initial debris started to hit the ground. Actually I would dare say that the entire collapse and destruction took 30 seconds, to cover the collapse of the core. Speaking of the core:




If the building came down due to a pancake effect, we should have seen the columns sticking out as the floors came down. According to you or Nist, the floors came down on each other and in the process desintegrated the columns which were designed to hold up multiple floors. Do you see the problem there?



Ahhh but we did! We did! Remember those videos of the "spire"? That is your core columns. A little beat up and missing chunks from the top section, but those columns did in fact stick up after the collapses! They took another 15 second after initial collapse to fall over/down.

North Tower




South Tower



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Don't be silly people. Sky scrapers fall all the time straight down on to themselves becoming piles of twisted steel and dust with or without jet fuel and colliding planes. I'm sure all of the demolition companies have studied this technique and are going to start using kerosene as a cheaper alternative of bringing sky scrapers down. It's a wonder such an easy method hadn't been discovered before. I'm also sure metal foundry's will also start using this process to smelt steel. Think of the money they would save. Perhaps Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, is rolling around in his grave wondering why they just didn't drop kerosene and a flare on Japan. So much cheaper. I'm just really surprised diesel engines don't just melt down when the glow plugs ignite the fuel.

Now to be serious, concentrate on WTC 7 only. That's all you have to do because if WTC 7 collapse can't be explained without using demolition then you have your smoking gun. We need to prove that fire couldn't have possibly collapsed it to dust. That's it. After that the "Original Fairytale" will also crumble to dust.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join