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.

 

Why I Believe the WTC's were Brought Down by C.D.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


yes some of those links had to do with the planes and i do admit thats a whole other argument completely but the scholars that formed these sites are actually professors and very educated people making educated arguments
and as for the other things you said proof please? those are some loaded accusations you're making about some very respectable people.

as for what i've contributed i'm a part of an organization called We Are Change based in NYC and countless other cities all over the US. We do a street action on every eleventh of every month and many other actions. you should check us out.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Shocka
 


So, once again, can you show me what evidence your scholars have produced to sway you to believe in the controlled demolition fantasy?

Thanks,

-TY-



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

posted by debunky
I must agree with other posters and say "poor, poor newton"

Of course you are forgetting gravity in your ideas how the towers should have fallen according to newton. Its a force. quite relevant in this case actually, accelerating everything towards down with almost 10 meters per second squared.



posted by ANOK
And of course you are forgetting resistance, and a few other laws of physics.

The whole CD theory hinges on the fact that the buildings, all 3, fell at a speed that indicated there was no resistance hindering the collapses.

It's really convenient to the official story to forget that fact.

So why has neither the official story, or you, been able to explain this lack of resistance?

How did thousands of tons of steel, welded and bolted, just give way without slowing down the collapses?

Have you even looked into WTC2 and the tilting of the top section? How do you explain angular momentum being defied when according to NEWTON, who you claim to know so well, angular momentum cannot be changed without an external unbalanced force acting on it?

I don't think you understand Newton as much as you think you do.

See this thread, your chance to prove me wrong. I'd love to hear your expert opinion... www.abovetopsecret.com...

ANOK I added this post to your thread to get the ball rolling again. The south tower is a fascinating subject, and you investigators have some great material on that thread.

Angular momentum toppling to the east



Top 30 floors toppling towards east side



Is this about how the top 30 floors looked just prior to disappearing? It would seem that milliseconds before this position, the massive core structure was not sheared yet and perhaps bending or ripping sideways through the upper 30 story block of floors. To release the block, the core needed to shear entirely through or break off. I cannot imagine that massive core structure breaking off even if it was slightly damaged by the aircraft. Presumably either action would result in the block toppling off the top of the tower and landing next to the base below.

However it seems to me, that shearing that core structure at that dividing line would also collapse the entire block ending the angular momentum toppling effect. Additional explosives at regular intervals would hasten the top-down explosive demolition at near freefall speed.

Was that toppling block planned, or did it almost get away from them? In the following video, what looks like cutter charges can be seen going off while the block is toppling and not falling or disintegrating.





Slow motion video shows cutter charges 38 seconds into video in lower left of building and later on in the front and finally the upper right hand of the video.

Google Video Link




David S Chandler

This is another in a series of kinematic analysis videos of events in the World Trade Center "collapses." This video was provided to me by "plaguepuppy." It measures two ejections from the side of the South Tower at over 100 miles per hour.




David S Chandler

This is a movie of the collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center taken with a hand-held camera. In the original video, the camera is moving wildly, so the details of the collapsing building are hard to see.

To make it easier to study the details of the collapse, I separated the movie frame-by-frame and wrote a program to transform the images in such a way that the image of the building remains fixed, even though the camera is moving. I then reassembled the sequence of still frames into a slow-motion version of the movie.





[edit on 10/8/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
THIS IS A REPLY TO "THROATYOGURT"


Debate: Michael Shermer v. Jim Fetzer.

Philosophy of 9/11 by Jim Fetzer, PhD.

Member List

More Members

You should check out their site it has a lot of information.

Is there any other links you'd like? Proof? I still want some reliable links from you I haven't seen any definitive proof that you're not just spewing garbage, pulling stuff out of your a$$...

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Shocka]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Thank you for your post. It shows how the Three Laws of Motion were violated for those who didn't seem to understand or know what they are.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

posted by debunky
I must agree with other posters and say "poor, poor newton"

Of course you are forgetting gravity in your ideas how the towers should have fallen according to newton. Its a force. quite relevant in this case actually, accelerating everything towards down with almost 10 meters per second squared.



posted by ANOK
And of course you are forgetting resistance, and a few other laws of physics.

The whole CD theory hinges on the fact that the buildings, all 3, fell at a speed that indicated there was no resistance hindering the collapses.

It's really convenient to the official story to forget that fact.

So why has neither the official story, or you, been able to explain this lack of resistance?

How did thousands of tons of steel, welded and bolted, just give way without slowing down the collapses?

It seems the naysayers very conveniently refuse to address the lack of resistance to the collapse of both towers and WTC 7. They just glibly pretend it doesn't matter and hope it will go away. Not very honest scientific method is it?

To mark the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist acts, on September 12, Russian Channel One TV showed the documentary, “Zero: an investigation into 9/11” The screening of the film, made by prominent Italian journalist and MEP Giulietto Chiesa, was followed by a discussion, in which two groups of experts - those who agree with Chiesa's version and those who disagree - expressed their views.

I especially liked this quotation and logic from a Russian journalist and university dean Vitaly Tretjakov.


"In physics it is known, that an experiment is valid if any other researcher can repeat it."
"... could you organize a similar act of terrorism? Would it be possible to repeat it?"
"I can not believe, that 9/11 has been perpetrated by a handful of 19 men or even 119 men from al Qaeda."


Of course not. The primitive al Qaeda organization could not possibly carry out 'another' operation even remotely like 9-11. Not even an operation one hundredth the scale of 9-11. Why cannot people just open their eyes and admit they have been had?





top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join