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 esdad71
reply to post by Lillydale
If you enter these forums and these threads you should be educated in the basics of 9/11. I am not posting any videos as you can find them yourself but
WTC 1
tilts to the left....
Any questions? I mean, someone else posted that BOTH did not tilt, right? C'mon guys. Get edjamacated.....
Originally posted by esdad71
The WTC 7 was a Frankenstein of a building and it is lucky that more debris did not hit it or I feel it would have been lost earlier in the day.
Originally posted by esdad71
You're a pisser that is why I like reading your posts. Not semantics but perception. Very close cousins...
...The WTC 7 was a Frankenstein of a building and it is lucky that more debris did not hit it or I feel it would have been lost earlier in the day.
I am not posting in desperation but actually hoping someone will see what the truth is
stop trying to find nanothermite in dust and tell stories of laser beams melting steel and CIA ninjas wiring up the WTC with micronukes or whatever theory suffices at the time.
Originally posted by esdad71
Symmetrical? This is a word that some people like to use because it is big and sounds cool. Do you know what it means? It makes no sense when you guys use it to show a 'perfect' collapse because it was not.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87a5516c0eb6.jpg[/atsimg]
This is a debris field. If it was, by definition, symmetrical, this would not have happened.
Originally posted by ANOK
The buildings ultimately fell symmetrically, that is obvious and undeniable.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The lower part? Sure. What's surprising about that?
It was undamaged before the collapse began, so it would be reasonable to assume that when a global collapse happens, it will happen symmetrically.
1- the global collapse begins with the top tilting - and this is the part that truthers ignore - AND descending.
2- some of the top moves outside the ext columns, and will be unable to impact the floors below. Some remains inside the ext columns and does indeed impact the floors below.
3- the floors are unable to resist the weight in motion and fail at their connections to both the core columns and the ext columns.
4- the floor failure continues downward, destroying floor after floor in rapid succession. This is seen by the air being forced out through the windows, while at the same time it is seen that the ext columns are still there.
5- without the floors to brace them, the ext columns peel away like a banana skin.
6- the core columns are also unbraced, and so some of them are immeadiately stripped away by debris. Lower in the structure, the columns are stronger, and are better able to resist the falling debris. This is expected and seen in video evidence as commonly known as the "spires".
7- But the core columns are not immoveable bricks, and as seen in the "spire" video evidence, can be seen swaying as the collapse is ending. They are not able to resist this swaying, and as expected, they also fail.
It is seen that the airplane damage and fires caused the top to fail assymmetrically, as expected. That type of damage is not seen in the lower parts.
Originally posted by ANOK
What was damaged bellow the point of aircraft impact and fires?
Yes descending through the path of MOST resistance,
Why do you ASSUME falling 'remains' would keep on falling when it meets RESISTANCE from UNDAMAGED building structure?
You have yet to account for the lack of resistance
You admit not even all the floors were able to impact lower floors, which means even less weight was available to do this magic trick.
Do you have proof of this, because NIST doesn't. It's an assumption.
Why would the building structure suddenly not be able to hold up the weight it had been doing since it was built?
Also the claim that floors became completely detached from the columns, enabling them to fall onto floors bellow is another ASSUMPTION, there is no proof of this.
Windows would not be the path of LEAST resistance for the air to escape through.
Hmmmm so the floors both became detached from the columns and at the same time pulled the columns down with them? Explain that one.
Rubbish there was NO resistance as I keep telling you, resistance slows things down,
there was no slowing of the collapse wave.
The 'spires' if you look closely turned to dust in mid air, how do you explain that?
But what do you expect, most of the columns were stripped away and you think it swaying proves your hypothesis?
The building as a whole fell symmetrically regardless of what the top did, which is why it is a PROBLEM.
A collapse that seemingly started as a chaotic natural asymmetrical collapse
became a complete global symmetrical collapse
and physics in general.
sym·me·try
Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
What is there to learn? IT DID Not fall straight down. You are all trying to use a big word to make sit sound scientific. Those big read arrows are debris which makes it NOT a symmetrical collapse. How about the pieces of the building that are accelerating faster than the rest of the debris? THis is showing that it was NOT a symmetrical collapse.
Again, I do not need an explanation on science. Lilly and ANOK and impressme all want to believe something that is not there. WTC 7 feel symmetrically because it did not lean nor break off at any point. The WTC 1 and 2 did.