Random Thought
We all know that the two World Trade Center towers' collapses started slightly differently. The South Tower started to lean over first, while the North Tower came down straight, as you can see by watching the antenna. The most obvious reason for the difference is the way the buildings were struck. The South Tower was hit off center, indeed almost at a corner, while the North Tower was struck dead on. Indeed, we know that none of the central staircases in the North Tower was intact, while one staircase survived the attack on the South Tower.
Doesn't it seem that the differences in the way the two collapses started indicates that it was not controlled demolition?
posted by Pat @ 3:48 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Aw, you're using logic, no fair!
You wouldn't know a real thought if it bit your on the a$$. The whole idea behind controlled demolitions is to bring th building down in a controlled manner, directing the majority of debris directly into it's own center. The only way one of the towers should have tilted like that is if someone REALLY messed up.
Democrat, you might want to reword that. As it stands, it isn't proper English.
Are you trying to say the collapses should've been the same if there was no controlled demolition? I hope not, but it'd fall straight in line with all the other nonsense comments you've made thus far.
I think the fact that the north tower -started- to topple over to the side, but then righted itself can be used to support the controlled demolition theory.
Not really, the tower would have to tip quite a bit to have toppled over, being of its center of gravity.
What happened was the top portion collapsed over the hole (which obviously weakened) it, and the momentum caused the rest of the building to come down.
They couldn't have set up the controlled demolition so perfectly that it would collapse over the hole (how the hell they would've got the plane to hit that dead on for their plan is beyond me).
Andrew, how would you do that with controlled demolition?
I simply think it was like any object that you tip a LITTLE...its inclination is to tip back to stand, rather than tip over. The bigger and more massive the object, the more it wants to maintain its present position. The amount of energy to keep it falling toward toppling over, is far more than that needed to right itself again. Onec the floors started pancaking, and the top of the building was coming down faster, it merely fell back.
Look at it as a bowling pin that was just knicked by the ball...it tips a little, but then goes back to where it was...
Everyone within a mile hears many, many bangs.
It probably would've destroyed windows for quite a few blocks around.
C4's just as easy to model, and if we used C4 we could test the theory that the WTC was built with explosives. That'd make nessie happy.
What I meant was whether the towers would not have collapsed in different ways since the damage was different? Now, they both fell at alarming speed and virtually in their own footprint (not totally, but fully to the ground I mean).
What is alarming speed exactly? Also "virtually" in their own foot print!?!? There were pieces of the towers past WTC7. That's a bit outside its footprint.
What I meant was whether the towers would not have collapsed in different ways since the damage was different?
They did fall in different ways. The collapse for each building began at a different height for instance. One of the towers tipped slightly before falling straight down, while the other did not. One seemed to begin falling from the center columns while the other did not. Etc.
What YOU are asking is whether maybe one of them shouldnt have slid sideways or maybe fallen up instead of down. And the answer is "no".
The South Tower started to lean over first, while the North Tower came down straight, as you can see by watching the antenna.
But I've read that from one particular camera angle (from the North), the antenna on the North Tower looks like it starts to fall before the top of the building, but from a view from the East, you can see that the very top of the building in fact leans, and the antenna does not fall first. It only looks like it does from that angle because that tall antenna starts to tip away from the camera, giving the illusion that it's falling straight down. As NIST said, "When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Post a Comment
<< Home