| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30
|
 Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:49 pm Post subject: How do buildings fall & how did the WTC fall? |
 |
|
HOW DO BUILDINGS FALL?
HOW DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER FALL?
This is how buildings (that are not subject to demolition) fall.
Why did the World Trade Center not fall this way? Simple, because it was subject to a professional demolition job.
 
 
 
The photos are from Alex Jones web-site.
From http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/
and http://guardian.150m.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: HOW DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER FALL? HOW DO BUILDINGS FA |
|
|
| TheTruth wrote: | HOW DO BUILDINGS FALL?
HOW DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER FALL?
This is how buildings (that are not subject to demolition) fall.
Why did the World Trade Center not fall this way? Simple, because it was subject to a professional demolition job. |
Whilst I am not disputing the underlying concept of what is being suggested here, an important factor has been overlooked.
We are presented with pictures of buildings that have taken a tumble. However, without explanation as to why they fell, they are meaningless comparisons.
If a building is subjected to an earthquake, its foundations can be weakened and whilst it is being rocked from side to side, the combination of compromised base and sideways motion means it cannot recover and it topple sideways.
Other causes (and there are actually very few) of collapse include concrete cancer, where areas of a building are eaten from within and a building can tip and gradually fall in the direction of the weakest area.
The point here is that the WTC is often cited as not falling 'classically', in other words, like other buildings that have been weaked via means other than controlled demolition - it should only have fallen sideways.
Well I have to ask what evidence this is based upon? Was the base actually compromised sufficiently to warrant a sideways collapse? How many similar events can we use as a yardstick, how many of the photos of buildings that fell sideways are actually pictures of poorly done controlled demolitions?
In conclusion, whilst I do not accept that the WTC towers should not have been brought down by impact and fire - I am not prepared to accept a bunch of quite random images of buildings that have collapsed with no clue as to why they fell in the first place - the actual angle they fell is a secondary issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While your concerns are valid Tele, I'd consider it noteworthy that in the photo at bottom left, despite dropping an estimated 90ft, the building's upper storeys did not crush themselves, and there is a distinct lack of powdered concrete and evidence of dust clouds on the surrounding buildings.
Collectively they also counter Prof. Thomas Eager's specious argument that tall buildings can only fall straight down; on the contrary they show that the building will likely topple in the direction where the first supports fail.
The pics are not a killer argument by any means, but still useful to know about when countering some OCT memes.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a picture showing the top of the South Tower falling like the buildings pictured above.
It shows the extent to which it had been blown apart (in this picture the top section has been reduced in height by about 75%) even as it falls.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 'Toppling' from another angle...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evans_England
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its funny how when u look on google images sometimes, theres a really revealing picture, like i saw one of the underground car park, apparantly from 9/11 not 1993, and it looked quite genuine. The cars from 1993, and 2001 are obviously recognisable. But now when u look pictures like that are either gone, or when u click to enlarge they are not there on the site.
Amazing
I wonder why this happens.....
They got something to hide, and we know they have.
_________________
9/11 - Only in america... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evans_England
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The pictures above of concrete and brick buildings are different structures to steel.
And u have to think that if a steel structured building of alot of mass like the wtc is brought down 110 stories, there will be sweet * all left of the structure.
Realistically, how many core collumns could the crash have taken out.... would the plane just bend around them and disintegrate or what?
_________________
9/11 - Only in america... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Evans_England wrote: | The pictures above of concrete and brick buildings are different structures to steel.
And u have to think that if a steel structured building of alot of mass like the wtc is brought down 110 stories, there will be sweet * all left of the structure.
Realistically, how many core collumns could the crash have taken out.... would the plane just bend around them and disintegrate or what? |
also realistically can an downward momentum accelerate through an upward resistance and wind up at 10 seconds??????
top portion collapses providing downward momentum, the lower section is bolted to the ground and providing an upward resistance, both top and bottom are hollow and no extra building mass is being applied to the lower floors providing the upward resistance.
so should the collapse accelrate or slow as it collapses?
the plane impact slowed down due to the same forces of momentum it didnt get faster or continue at the same rate once met by resistance of the buildings, momentum met by resistance = opposite force = slower collapse or comes to a stand still, not accelerate. example:>>>>>>I<<<<<<< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
or if you turn it upside down
I>I>I>I@@I<I<I<I<I<I<I<I<I<I<I(BOLTED INTO THE BEDROCK).
TOP----------------LOWER SECTION
@ = COLLAPSE ZONE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
