I've heard many point to the fact that one of the towers began tilting before the implosion as a sign of collapse instead of demolition. However, it seems to me that it would point to the latter. Simple physics would relate that it would have been much easier for the top to simply "break off" rather than correcting itself.

Inertia - Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.



With the building beginning to fall to the side, the support on the opposite side would have had to given way for the building to correct itself. But, if you use the definition simple definition of inertia, most of the pressure would have been on the side of the building to which the building originally began to collapse.

So, an "outside force" would have had to be responsible for the buildings correction.
This, in itself, disproves the pancake theory.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by white4life420]

That's right, White4Life... I've been saying that throughout this thread and it has been pretty much ignore by the "Agents" we have posting on here.

I don't care how the building was constructed, it's physically impossible for any building to fall the way they did, with none or little resistance from the lower floors.

Planes and fire do not alter the effects of physics.
The opposition has NO argument, so we go round in circles and debating them is getting boring and pointless.
I have other things to worry about now...

AP&F...

you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"

And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

PS Figured the tapes out now....more people would comment....I"ve only finished half of em' (will get to finishing the rest soon) and post what I think...and will always love to hear everyones views (even the Agents)

Originally posted by svenglezz
you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"

And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

PS Figured the tapes out now....more people would comment....I"ve only finished half of em' (will get to finishing the rest soon) and post what I think...and will always love to hear everyones views (even the Agents)

Structural design follows the same laws of physics as everything else.

Originally posted by svenglezz
And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher

The collapse of those towers is kind of like a magic trick. If you look at it without knowing how it works, you think, how the f*ck? That's not possible! And you'll start making up crazy theories about how they came down.
Untill someone hints or explains how it really works, then your reaction is "aah yes ofcourse how could I've been so stupid I didn't figure that out myself".

You keep thinking that magic happend on 9/11 though!

Originally posted by svenglezz
you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"

Hmmm actually I was referring to our friend Howard, you're just a Troll.

You have bought nothing to this discussion that even remotely explains what happened on 9-11, yet you spout off like you know everything.

Saying "I am in construction" and "Go Howard your da man" does not have a whole lot of credibility on this site, sorry. I have far more respect for Howard, at least he puts some effort in even if it is in vain.

Bring me a scientific explanation of the WTC collapse, that I can't find holes in, then maybe you'll get some respect.

Why is it the only post I made that you answered to was this last one?

I have asked you numerous questions about the WTC topic and you have ignored them. This tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot answer the questions.

Agent, yeah sure...If you are an agent then damn this counties in a worse state than I thought...

Maybe if you spent some time studying government tactics you wouldn't be so quick to blindly support them. They poisoned thousands of their troops, using us as guinea pigs for testing vaccines. Many have died, and many including me are sick.
Don't trust the government, they'll stop at nothing to achieve their gaols of power and control.

AP&F..The only way to go.

Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6.

How the hole can be as wide at top as it's at bottom if there was an explosion? Steel Structures that falled from WTC 1 and 2 explains that hole perfectly.

Originally posted by msdos464

Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6.

How the hole can be as wide at top as it's at bottom if there was an explosion? Steel Structures that falled from WTC 1 and 2 explains that hole perfectly.

No massive chunk of building from WTC 1 tipped over and fell onto WTC 6. The collapse of WTC 1 pancaked vertically and did not tip over. However, the top portion of WTC 2 did tip over and fell toward the east destroying half of WTC 4. If WTC 1 tipover and fell onto WTC 6 then there would be no hole. Only the south side of the building would have been destroyed similar to what happened with WTC 4.

The trajectory looks wrong for the damage that was done to the building. From the angle that the "object" is leaving the building the damage to WTC 6 should have been angled into the ground from the top, but from the pics I saw it went straight down from top to bottom. At the time and location of those pics, if it was a missile then it should have already started to change its trajectory in the pics so that it was curving to dive straight into the building.

If it WAS an A2A missile that hit, then there would have had to have already been damage inside to cause a MUCH bigger secondary explosion. Most A2A missiles only have maybe 20 pounds of explosive in the warhead. 20 pounds of explosive isn't going to cause the giant hole that appeared in the building.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Hector
The link you provided shows the smoke from the explosion at WTC 6. This CNN photo is NOT the collapsed of WTC 2 as claimed by others. To prove this, the smoke from WTC 1 is blowing in an opposite direction when WTC 2 collapsed.

As you can see in the following photos, the dust from the South Tower's collapse did not discriminate in regards to which direction it went:

In my comment I was referring to the smoke coming from WTC 1 tower. In the first link you provided it shows the CNN footage of the smoke coming from WTC 6 at around 9:04AM. In this CNN photo the smoke from the burning tower WTC 1 is blowing toward the west. When WTC 2 fell at 9:59 AM the smoke from the burning tower WTC 1 was blowing toward the east. My point is these are two different events in time.