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 LeftBehind
In a fifty story building, would it be fair to say a twenty story hole went from the 19th floor to the 39th floor?
Originally posted by Ahabstar
To that please look way across the street at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church on the corner of Liberty and West. Tower 2 debris destroyed that church. Not much mention about it as it doesn't fit the "fall into its own footprint so it MUST be a CD" theory.
But if you insist on wild spectulation then the "demon face in the smoke" in the tabloids had to have been the tormented soul of Rasputin destroying some of Czar Nicholas's relics in the church across the way.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Basically the distance between the church and WTC2 shows that WTC2 was not a footprint fall. And while the four story church is a fly compared to WTC7 it does show the wide spread debris.
Originally posted by ANOK
...
But the towers did fall symmetrically, in other words all four corners fell at the same time and speed, and the towers did not as a mass fall anywhere but straight down.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Because if you scroll down to the map it shows how the prospective of a photo differs from the prospective of a map. Your picture would give the illusion that you would have turn sideways to slip between the church and tower 2.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
In fact I would go so far to say that in comparison that the CD's look sloppy compared to WTC7
Originally posted by Ahabstar
You are correct, I am not an advanced structural engineer , just a joe average citizen but if your research, analysis, and conclusions are too prohibitively exhaustive to explain to make me say “hey maybe you have something there.” maybe you need to objectively look again.
Is it easier to examine the effect of resonance as to say covert demolitions teams that acted in plain view of huge crowds gathered around the area or holographic plane impacts with realistic audio effects because John Lear doubts he could have hit the towers with his flying experience?
If you were to design a skyscraper in the 1970’s fully aware that it would eventually have to come down due to age like many other skyscrapers and you wanted it to come down easy and cleanly so not as to disturb surrounding buildings: What would it look like if it came down accidentally from structural failure?
Originally posted by bsbray11
The Myth Busters actually tried to fail a small beam in such a manner on one episode, watch out for it on Discovery. Also, all of the columns were welded and bolted all the way up to lateral beams. In other words, it was all solidly connected, more or less like one big piece of steel with granite and other masonry around it, concrete for the floors. Even if a column is knocked out at the base for whatever reason, it's not going to all come crashing down from the roof because of all of the beams holding the rest of it steady, "gripping" tight around it on each floor.
[edit on 20-3-2007 by bsbray11]
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Myth Busters would be a study on simple resonance in a solid object. In order to reshape or bend tempered steel you need heat, pressure and force.
My main point of consideration is this (guess this is a third point) the average person saying that it has to be a CD has never or rarely considered outside factors such as the weight of debris or the force of vibration from resonance on the remaining supports that were already stressed from covering the extra load from damaged and destroyed supports.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Ahabstar
You are correct, I am not an advanced structural engineer , just a joe average citizen but if your research, analysis, and conclusions are too prohibitively exhaustive to explain to make me say “hey maybe you have something there.” maybe you need to objectively look again.
So no you've never had physics, but the fact that I don't agree with you indicates that I should reconsider my views?
Originally posted by Smack
Ahabstar --
The problem I have with your arguments is that it has been covered exhaustively on these forums and elsewhere. If you really want answers, I highly recommend the search feature. I'm not criticizing your curiosity, rather I am pointing out the fatal flaw in your arguments is your lack of research.
Just my .02c
On Topic, my opinion is unchanged. I saw building 7 fall straight down. It was a CD. Trying to convince me it wasn't is like telling me the Earth is flat. It's an absurdity I refuse to accept.