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 EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...
Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...
Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...
Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.
That's incorrect. The columns are designed to support the weight of the columns resting on top of them. There's no physical way that the floors could focus their weight on those vertical points once the collapse began. All the weight would be distributed onto horizontal connections, and those are not designed for dynamic vertical load.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...
Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.
That's incorrect. The columns are designed to support the weight of the columns resting on top of them. There's no physical way that the floors could focus their weight on those vertical points once the collapse began. All the weight would be distributed onto horizontal connections, and those are not designed for dynamic vertical load.
BS! That would defeat the purpose of having columns and a central core. Try again.........
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
I have used this analogy before but I think it explains the issue quite well. If you try to throw a stool from 2 meter hight on a stool that is on the ground upside down, what are the chances that the legs of one stool exactly hit the legs of the other stool, without falling off? They are astronomically low. If you do not believe me, take a day off an try it. In case of the WTC tower we know for sure that the columns did not fall on each other, because the top tilted. That made it physically impossible.
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
I have used this analogy before but I think it explains the issue quite well. If you try to throw a stool from 2 meter hight on a stool that is on the ground upside down, what are the chances that the legs of one stool exactly hit the legs of the other stool, without falling off? They are astronomically low. If you do not believe me, take a day off an try it. In case of the WTC tower we know for sure that the columns did not fall on each other, because the top tilted. That made it physically impossible.
YES the top TILTED , so why did it disintegrate ? along with everything below it ? hmmmmm ? weird collapse to say the least.
Anyone .... provide a link to a "collapse" exactly like the twin towers in every way which didnt include controlled demo... and i`ll suck a monkey`s giblets !edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You are making the truther movement look more silly then it needs to be!
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-
No. I don't think its unsafe to have explosives pre-set in concrete because they cannot corrode and are isolated from external forces. Besides the fact there are all types of explosives available to experts, with many being classified.
No amount of heat from fires, accidental drilling, whatever would set them off. If you think explosives are inheritantly dangerous then perhaps you should watch how long it takes military bombs to cook and explode. It takes a long time.
Emergencies can happen were it would be a good idea to implode a building rather than have it topple over into other buildings and cause absolute chaos. When you thing about it, it starts to make sense. Of course the government would not go around advertising it cause people would fear working in such buildings from a psychological factor alone.
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
so ............... it was "pulled" ?
2nd
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...
Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
so ............... it was "pulled" ?
2nd
Only if they somehow got massive cables or hydraulic charges up on the floors of the plane impacts. It seems kind of unlikely, in my opinion.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-
No. I don't think its unsafe to have explosives pre-set in concrete because they cannot corrode and are isolated from external forces. Besides the fact there are all types of explosives available to experts, with many being classified.
No amount of heat from fires, accidental drilling, whatever would set them off. If you think explosives are inheritantly dangerous then perhaps you should watch how long it takes military bombs to cook and explode. It takes a long time.
Emergencies can happen were it would be a good idea to implode a building rather than have it topple over into other buildings and cause absolute chaos. When you thing about it, it starts to make sense. Of course the government would not go around advertising it cause people would fear working in such buildings from a psychological factor alone.