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.

 

Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
By the way, how on earth (and its laws of physics) is it possible that after the top of the building starts to fall/topple, it falls straight down, completely demolishing the undamaged lower part of the building

In other words: why does the top of the building choose the way with the most resistance, and didn't it topple further & fall next to the building - as in choose the way with the least resistance, like physics dictate???

From day 1, this was the smoking gun for me




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA
Now I know you people will say that the B-25 was only travelling at 200mph and the 757's were going 500+, but really you anti-conspiracy people. Are you just to weak to think on your own?

Besides B-25 carries much less fuel, is much lighter (combined with lower speed makes a big differnece in KE) and last but not least the construction of Empire State was completely different but hey other than that the situation is really identical



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomashi
In other words: why does the top of the building choose the way with the most resistance, and didn't it topple further & fall next to the building - as in choose the way with the least resistance, like physics dictate???

From day 1, this was the smoking gun for me


My feeling exactly! Why didn't the tops drift/slip/topple off to any of the sides? Why did they follow the most resistance instead of the least? And what are the odds they BOTH managed to completely implode themselves just like the objective of a controlled demo and then start a fire to one of it's smaller sister building (7) and completely implode that one? The odds are just too great for planes and fire to do that so symmetrically.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
again, show your design engineering degrees as well as all the demolition sites you've been apart of.

Until you do so, you can't so much speculate how a building will fall or be destroyed.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
again, show your design engineering degrees as well as all the demolition sites you've been apart of.
Until you do so, you can't so much speculate how a building will fall or be destroyed.


Oh we can't huh? Why, cause you say so Mr. $125,000 a year? I'm not a cardioligist, but I know smoking is bad for your heart.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs


Oh we can't huh? Why, cause you say so Mr. $125,000 a year? I'm not a cardioligist, but I know smoking is bad for your heart.


Because your opinion is only worth the amount of experience you've had in doing something similar. With smokgin we have test that support its bad for you. However, when was the last time you've demoed a building?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy
However, when was the last time you've demoed a building?


So by your logic, have you ever been a part of an airplane crash recovery team? No? Then I guess you have no business commenting on whether a plane crashed into the Pentagon, right?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Mininum? 19. If 19 cave dwellars could pull it off, why not 19 special ops?



So, because the hijackers were arabs and Muslims, they were some how "cave dwellars" and thus not as smart as white Christian Americans, is that what you are trying to say?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, because the hijackers were arabs and Muslims, they were some how "cave dwellars" and thus not as smart as white Christian Americans, is that what you are trying to say?

No.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, because the hijackers were arabs and Muslims, they were some how "cave dwellars" and thus not as smart as white Christian Americans, is that what you are trying to say?

No.


Then what was the point of saying "cave dwellars," if not to denigrate the hijacker's abilities?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then what was the point of saying "cave dwellars," if not to denigrate the hijacker's abilities?


You mean the hijackers who never flew 757/767's in real life before, said their flight skills sucked by all of their instructors, weren't allowed to rent Cessnas a month before the attack, drank, smoke, watched porn, hired prostitutes? Those hijackers? So nice to see you're so caring for them.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, because the hijackers were arabs and Muslims, they were some how "cave dwellars" and thus not as smart as white Christian Americans, is that what you are trying to say?


What was al Qaeda allegedly hiding in after we invaded Afghanistan, Howard?

Mansions?

If they hide in caves, calling them cave dwellers seems apt to me. Has nothing to do with their religion. Just that they hide in caves, allegedly. If they didn't, then we've just been lied to again. Personally, I don't think we were really hunting anyone in particular over there anyway. Afghanistan is just a mess now, since we've invaded (not that it wasn't before -- but now...
).

[edit on 1-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
My feeling exactly! Why didn't the tops drift/slip/topple off to any of the sides? Why did they follow the most resistance instead of the least? And what are the odds they BOTH managed to completely implode themselves just like the objective of a controlled demo and then start a fire to one of it's smaller sister building (7) and completely implode that one? The odds are just too great for planes and fire to do that so symmetrically.



I know this probably won't help you, but this is a very good site with Tons of scientific evaluation of the WTC collapses.

If you read you will see the towers started their collapse at a slight angle then gravity took over. The subsequent floors could not withstand the forces applied to them. Gravity and the weight crushing down on each floor dictated the way the collapse happened. The path of least resistance was straight down for the most part. The floors did not stop Gravity from doing it's job.

wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

Btw, the WTC's did not fall completely straight down into their own footprints. Take a look.

Damage to WTC7



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavilI know this probably won't help you, but this is a very good site with Tons of scientific evaluation of the WTC collapses.

I believe our gov't was behind 9/11. Why would I trust a gov site?


If you read you will see the towers started their collapse at a slight angle then gravity took over. The subsequent floors could not withstand the forces applied to them. Gravity and the weight crushing down on each floor dictated the way the collapse happened. The path of least resistance was straight down for the most part. The floors did not stop Gravity from doing it's job.

I don't think those top sections where any stronger than the lower part of the building. The tops should have drifted off to any of the sides.


Btw, the WTC's did not fall completely straight down into their own footprints. Take a look.

The 7 did.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs


I believe our gov't was behind 9/11. Why would I trust a gov site?


I saw that one comming. Did you even look at any of the info on that site? I know opinion and coincidence is better than factual data, but just poke around the website. There are literally dozens of reports there.



I don't think those top sections where any stronger than the lower part of the building. The tops should have drifted off to any of the sides.


Ok, what does the sections being stronger on top have to do with this? If a floor suddenly has the weight of additional floors hit it and can't support the weight, what will happen to that floor?

Why should they have drifted off? What is your rationale for that? Each time the floors got hit by the floors above them, they just buckled and became part of the crashing down on the next floor. Why is that so hard to believe. It's not like each floor was 12 feet of solid metal and stone, most of each floor was empty space.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
If you read you will see the towers started their collapse at a slight angle then gravity took over.


So gravity waited a bit before it took effect? Thus is the power of Islam when it comes to building collapses?

Let me let you in on something: gravity was there the whole time. And so was a little law called the conservation of angular momentum. The tilting should have continued around the fulcrum, as per this law, and any additional motion of just dropping straight down vertically has to be viewed as a separate event, because tilting doesn't result in this, and as I said, gravity was there the whole time. If anything should have resulted from the tilting, it should've been the collapse of one perimeter wall from the increasing shifting of gravity loads upon it at an angle.


The subsequent floors could not withstand the forces applied to them. Gravity and the weight crushing down on each floor dictated the way the collapse happened.


Yeah, this is called pancake collapse theory, and it's been around since the start. And I would love to see this shown scientifically, with all variables taken into account. Not even NIST could do it. So good luck.


The path of least resistance was straight down for the most part.


What utter nonsense. Open air surrounded those towers and yet "[t]he path of least resistance was straight down for the most part"? Straight down through hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete?


The floors did not stop Gravity from doing it's job.


You're right, because they were blown out.

In fact, the collapses didn't even slow down, despite losing mass over the sides all the whole way down (the good majority from both towers ending up outside of the footprints), and the fact that the floors became structurally stronger the whole way down.

No matter how hard you try to downplay it, 13 light floors falling into 97 floors is going to slow down from resistance. 97 freaking floors of steel and concrete aren't going to be sliced through by 13 lighter floors without so much as slowing down. It just doesn't happen. I would love for you to scientifically show otherwise.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then what was the point of saying "cave dwellars," if not to denigrate the hijacker's abilities?


You mean the hijackers who never flew 757/767's in real life before, said their flight skills sucked by all of their instructors, weren't allowed to rent Cessnas a month before the attack, drank, smoke, watched porn, hired prostitutes? Those hijackers? So nice to see you're so caring for them.


So you admit that they existed, right?

"drank, smoke, watched porn, hired prostitutes"

And "real" pilots don't?



[edit on 1-6-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I know opinion and coincidence is better than factual data,


The NIST reports don't prove anything. They just repeat themselves over and over. If you disagree, I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

Posting the NIST reports as final words on what happened just shows that you haven't read them. They don't even analyze the whole collapses! They only theorize on how they initiated (ie the first floors to fail).

Other than that (which they even fail to prove), they just wave their arms and repeat the basic idea of the pancake theory, which has been redefining itself ever since 9/11 because of how little sense it's continually shown to make, because of everything from cores remaining standing to the fact that most of the debris fell outwards.



I don't think those top sections where any stronger than the lower part of the building. The tops should have drifted off to any of the sides.


Ok, what does the sections being stronger on top have to do with this? If a floor suddenly has the weight of additional floors hit it and can't support the weight, what will happen to that floor?


Each time the floors got hit by the floors above them, they just buckled and became part of the crashing down on the next floor.


Common misconception. People assert this often, but most of the mass fell outside of the footprints. Thus you see massive spreading of outwardly-ejected debris in the videos. Look at Ground Zero, and the spread of the steel all over the complex. Something around 80% or more landed outside of the footprints.


Why is that so hard to believe. It's not like each floor was 12 feet of solid metal and stone, most of each floor was empty space.


It wasn't like all of the steel was in the floor systems either. Did you know that the perimeter and core columns continued vertically upwards through each floor?
There would've been sustained resistance the whole way down, only intensifying at the floor systems and even moreso at the reinforced mech floors and etc., but you'd never know it by the fact that the collapse rates remained constant.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
The 7 did.


Did it?

Take a look at before and after there was some spray as well.

If you have some photos otherwise please show them.

Before and After WTC 7

Here's a nice prisonplanet photo of WTC 7
www.prisonplanet.com...

Before and After
images.google.com...://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/fig_1_9 B.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/buildings.html&h=400&w=331&sz=39&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=JkxV2kg_ojSanM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=99&prev=/ima ges%3Fq%3Dwtc%2B7%2Bbefore%2Band%2Bafter%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2006-15,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavilI saw that one comming. Did you even look at any of the info on that site? I know opinion and coincidence is better than factual data, but just poke around the website. There are literally dozens of reports there.

Yeah, it said they found no evidence of explosives. Think I should believe them?


Ok, what does the sections being stronger on top have to do with this? If a floor suddenly has the weight of additional floors hit it and can't support the weight, what will happen to that floor?

So this is what our gov't is trying to tell me. If you took a giant samari sword and sliced through near the top of a twin tower, that top would then smash the rest of it below all the way to the ground. I can't by that. Each floor is designed to support the floor above it. But maybe the towers just fainted from all the trama of being hit by a plane.


Why should they have drifted off? What is your rationale for that?

P.L.R. (path of least resistance.)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join