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 Varemia
reply to post by stirling
At best, I would say it may have grazed the lawn, but yeah, it definitely didn't hit the lawn.
He's not a government shill for thinking that though. According to the wikipedia gods, a shill is someone who is an accomplice to a government or organization without admitting a close relationship. You can't just accuse someone of being a shill because they disagree with you.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by superman2012
I suppose it is also worth noting that the towers really did survive the impact of both 767s. It was the culminating factors afterward which led to collapse.
If the towers were not designed enough to take the impact, they would have collapsed instantly after being hit. This did not happen, obviously, so factors after the impact must have done it. Some say explosives, and others say fire+damage. Fire or damage alone could likely not take out the tower, because the fireproofing would be intact, or in the other case, there would be no fire, so the intact steel would be able to hold.
What is argued is that the fire weakened the steel which was missing fireproofing (due to the fireproofing not being impact-proof), and because the steel was already taking more weight than normal, the weakening caused the specs to be lowered significantly. It was just a matter of when, not if, the towers would collapse.
Originally posted by patternfinder
sorry guys, we have to figure out another angle...the columns were still standing for a very short period of time after the collapse...we figured this out on another thread...this means that there was definitely a pancaking of some sort, but, it doesn't rule out explosives on predetermined floors.......plus, the vertical beams did collapse on to themselves all the way down after the initial collapse, which they shouldn't have done.....
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by patternfinder
sorry guys, we have to figure out another angle...the columns were still standing for a very short period of time after the collapse...we figured this out on another thread...this means that there was definitely a pancaking of some sort, but, it doesn't rule out explosives on predetermined floors.......plus, the vertical beams did collapse on to themselves all the way down after the initial collapse, which they shouldn't have done.....
The only way the vertical supports could have survived is if every vertical connection to horizontal supports was cut, and the collapse would have looked very different, a clear, straight-forward pancaking with the outside supports basically falling away or being somewhat blown away by compressed air.
No, more likely, some of the connections failed and others did not, meaning that the collapsing steel pulled the vertical steel with it, twisting and bending it along for the ride and making the collapse a lot more chaotic. I'm amazed, as it is, that part of the core of one tower did manage to survive and remain standing for a moment after the collapse.
I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?
Originally posted by thedman
Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?
Originally posted by superman2012
I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by jazzguy
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd
Even given a much higher speed than the average plane crash? You must remember that most times, planes are attempting NOT to crash. These guys were pushing full throttle and doing their best to aim at their targets. That increases the kinetic energy by a whole lot, and can potentially lead to the plane being shredded/disintegrated beyond recognition.edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed a question
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by superman2012
I suppose it is also worth noting that the towers really did survive the impact of both 767s. It was the culminating factors afterward which led to collapse.
If the towers were not designed enough to take the impact, they would have collapsed instantly after being hit. This did not happen, obviously, so factors after the impact must have done it. Some say explosives, and others say fire+damage. Fire or damage alone could likely not take out the tower, because the fireproofing would be intact, or in the other case, there would be no fire, so the intact steel would be able to hold.
What is argued is that the fire weakened the steel which was missing fireproofing (due to the fireproofing not being impact-proof), and because the steel was already taking more weight than normal, the weakening caused the specs to be lowered significantly. It was just a matter of when, not if, the towers would collapse.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by superman2012
I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?
Problem was in the 55 years between Empire State building and Pentagon/WTC office interiors has
dramaticly changed
1945 - Furniture consisted of steel desks/chairs with minimal padding to desks built of particle board held
together with flammable glue/resins. Office equipment in 1945, manual typewriter/adding machines to
computers/monitors/printers built of plastic. Cubicle dividers (made of highly flammable urethene.styrafoam)
did not exist in 1945, Rugs/floor coverings are made of nylon or synthethics (derived from petroleum and
burn with twice the heat energy of organic wood/paper/cloth)
Even difference between when WTC was built in 1970's and 2001 was dramatic
Modern buildings have much greater fuel loads do to large amounts of plastic/sybthethics
Also fuel loads - max fuel in B 25 is (according to my reference book) 975 gals, vs 9,000 in Boeing 767 or
5500 gal in Boeing 757
Originally posted by DIDtm
Lets go over this for a second...The planes wings disintegrated upon hitting the ground?
Originally posted by DIDtm
What happened to the lawn.....Did the ground open up and swallow the plane where the plane hit it, only to close its mouth back up and leave what looks like an untouched lawn.
Originally posted by DIDtm
Please explain WTC7 then?
Cant wait to hear this.
reply to post by dragonridr
The only people who took credit and said we did it was terrorist