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.

 

The WTC central support structure: a. as it really was, and b. as it was depicted by the media

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The central support column as depicted by the media:



And as it really was:








R.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by ratskywatsky]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Actually, the one depicted by the media would lend more credence to the fires NOT being able to weaken the steel. Concrete is an excellent fire retardant. Plus, it would take that much more energy to crush the concrete.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The idea that a smoky but not very hot kerosene fire could reduce that enormous central support structure, built to withstand everything from hurricanes to earthquakes, to ultrafine dust particles and fall at near free fall speed is patently absurd!



R



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
The core did not fall at free fall speed. South Tower collapse video shows SEVERAL floors of the core still standing after the initial global collapse.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The core did not fall at free fall speed. ..


_____________


The buildings did not fall at free fall speed. I said near free fall speed. Loose Change is incorrect in asserting that they fell at free fall speed, and the shills for the occupational government in Washington, always looking for loopholes, like to latch onto that mis-statement.




R



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Ratsky, the South Tower CORE was standing for several seconds after the initial collapse. Thats the only point I was making here. You waould have to define "NEAR".



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Ratsky, the South Tower CORE was standing for several seconds after the initial collapse. Thats the only point I was making here.

I wasn't calling YOU a shill, CF - even tho your avatar subliminally causes me to think that I am addressing Doctor Strangelove himself!


You waould have to define "NEAR".

Very fast and very symetricaly - just like buildings fall when they are deliberately and scientifically demolished, ONLY like buildings fall when they are deliberately and scientifically demolished!


R



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I didn't say you were calling me a shill. Have you watched the video of the south tower collapsing? Please tell me what you think happened?



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
CameronFox,

Do you have a good video that shows the whole collapse that includes the core standing? Basically from start to finish. Thanks in advance.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Griff... I have bits and pieces. Let me look around and see.

At the end of this video is the collapse of the North Tower. It appears that the core is still standing here after the global collapse.

It's not exactly waht your looking for.



edit to add video

[edit on 17-5-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Could you snap a screen shot? Or a time reference? I wasn't able to spot anything.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
CF's right, remnants of the core stood for several seconds after the tower collapsed.

It's popularly known as the "spire" and was smoldering and giving off grey smoke, then it gave up the ghost like a house of cards. One of the weirdest elements of the collapse, and most telling about the nature of the energies used to bring the towers down.

In a word, ain't no jet fuel gonna do that.

But saying this is somehow evidence that they didn't drop at freefall speed (or within 1 sec of it) is semantics on the level of defining what "is" means.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join