"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


dont forget that the world trade centers were built to withstand plane crashs
heres a link if you dont believe me.

source




"The twin towers didn't collapse immediately, but the structural strength was affected by the subsequent explosion and the progressive effects of the fire seem to have triggered the final collapse. Of course it is up to investigators to identify the exact cause of the collapse but it seems to have been a combination of catastrophic events beyond any reasonable expectations."



The World Trade Centers were brought down by explosives.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Let's not forget building 7.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


From your source:




The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes


Try again.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
most notably that i remember is that the spindle at the top started falling before the exterior, which means that there was a central explosion or more likely multiple explosions that weakened the central part of the structure.

also the fact that both collapse vertically instead of tipping over is about a million to one.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Let's not forget building 7.


Well absolutely, let's not. But if you want to say that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives you also have to prove that too.

So here's your chance.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
most notably that i remember is that the spindle at the top started falling before the exterior, which means that there was a central explosion or more likely multiple explosions that weakened the central part of the structure.

also the fact that both collapse vertically instead of tipping over is about a million to one.


So your contention is that a building hit by a plane cannot collapse vertically. Indeed you contend that it's "a million to one". Why?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?

WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.

I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I am still on the fence on it.. it "looks" wrong, but perhaps someone can answer me this..

most of the force was applied to one side of the building.. kind of like Jenga, the side that is crippled, would apparently be the side that the tower falls on.. These towers did not appear to fall at ANY sort of angle. They collapsed straight down as if there was suddenly NOTHING holding any of it up any more.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I believe that this explains it well enough.

ATS Post...

It is often worth using the search function to find what you are looking for.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
Everything else aside, for me it's the nature and speed of collapse, which seems to completely disregard the inherent resistance of the structures themselves (especially the core structure), and the negated momentum the top of one of the towers had - after the initiation of collapse, it started to tilt of to one side, then the rest of the building below just erased all its resistance and fell from underneath instead of standing as it should, IMHO, and letting the top continue to topple off to one side.

It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I cannot see any way for them to have collapsed as they did, as quickly as they did, with so little apparent resistance.especially having been designed for fairly comparable conditions.

And the fact that no steel-reinforced skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire, before or after - until 9/11 when three did - strains credibility.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
ok first off here


Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners. Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.



it came from Structer of towers


also they are the only steel structures in the history of steel sky scrapers to ever actually collapse due to "Fire"....

hell the empire state building was hit by a plane and still standing....

here

The Crash At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


info here Empire State Building Aircraft accident.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?

WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.

I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


So your answer is basically no, you don't know why. You say it never happened before but since no hundred storey building had been hit by a massive jet at that speed you're still unable to explain why they could't have collapsed in that manner.

Keep trying.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Why do you need to ask this when every thread on the subject you have been involved in has explained it already a million times.

I'll explain one time very simply, and then you can go and look up the details in the other million threads were the physics are explained.

The laws of motion.

edit on 9/26/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Again WTC Towers were brought down by explosives and i have a family member who worked at or as demolition worker i have shown him alot of footages of both towers he told me, Oh yes they were brought down by explosives, the official story has alot of holes in it.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Oh oh another thread that wants to mislead you to argue about silly conspiracies that shift blame away from the true executors of the 911 mission.

Google Israel 911. Start there forget about what happened after the plane hit.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtlantisX99
I believe that this explains it well enough.

ATS Post...

It is often worth using the search function to find what you are looking for.



So your answer is a reference to another post? One I find wholly inconclusive.

If this stuff is simple you should be able to describe, in a couple of sentences, how the towers could not have fallen that way.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


The laws of motion.


Truly pathetic effort. I'm inviting you to describe why this is impossible in a few simple sentences.

Surely you can do this? It's a simple thing, right?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Oh oh another thread that wants to mislead you to argue about silly conspiracy that shift blame away from the true executors of the 911 mission.

Google Israel 911. Start there.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Yet another antisemitic answer that wants to encourage you to hate Jews.

If it's so simple, describe it to me. Why could the towers not have fallen that way? Briefly. If it's so obvious it should just take a couple of sentences.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Again WTC Towers were brought down by explosives and i have a family member who worked at or as demolition worker i have shown him alot of footages of both towers he told me, Oh yes they were brought down by explosives, the official story has alot of holes in it.


That's an assertion, not an explanation.

Tell me why it's so obvious.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join