It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by demonseed
And you seemingly ignore half of my arguments. Im not really sure who the loopy conspiracy theorist here is...
I've countered every single argument you've put forward! You seem intent on ignoring the effects of KE. The towers did not collapse symmetrically, and they did not collapse in freefall!!! Resistance in the structure did provide a countering force to gravity, yet a net force was still downwards! The energies have been calculated, and it's much higher than the structures can support, especially when weakened.
The arguments you've put forwards assumes the collapses were in freefall, which is completely incorrect. That's why the truthers ideas of:
1. Momentum and energy not being conserved,
2. Underestimating the kinetic energy produced by stored gravitational potential energy (which does increases with more mass!),
3. An apparent make-believe extra super-resistance that holds up all the supports,
4. That constant acceleration means constant forces at separate masses,
Are all truly stupid!
You complained that I called you "stupid" which you obviously have been.
It's only frustration that led to that, because of the many times you haven't used science correctly.
I'll think I'll stick with just concluding truthers will always be ignorant, and leave you to your own devices.
Ironically in your own mind you will feel some false sense of vindication. It's not surprising that most people don't bother arguing with you. The majority who are frustrated with the lack of critical thinking applied, does not constitute as proof of your beliefs. Luckily any frustration is shortlived, as I won't bother discussing this subject again. It's a complete waste of my time!
[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]
Originally posted by Copernicus
You cant "win" a argument about 9/11. How often do you hear "yeah i was wrong, now I believe you"?
[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]
ya, the way to win the debate is to bring up WTC7. first they lied and said a load of fuel from the plane caused the building structure to fail, and no kerosene fire can be hot enough to burn steel. second if kerosene fire COULD burn steel how would the building just suddenely colapse in less than 7 seconds at nearly free fall sped when there were only a couple small fires inside the building. third, 5 days after the colapse they tested the temperature of the rubble and it was 1,341 degrees and this high of a temperature is an indication of exploses. but the real truth is they said they couldnt handle the fire inside anymore and the smartest thing to do is pull the building so they did...then they lie agan. it is impossible that anyone could run around and plant all the bombs at the exact place within 7 hours when it takes skilled pros weeks to plan and place the charges. that means there were allready bombs planted inside. if you dont belive look it up yourself
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by king9072
There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.
Small fires?!!! LMAO!! Witnesses described the tower fires as an inferno, and these transferred to smaller building during the collapse because of fiery debris causing lots of smaller fires in building 7 that gradually built up into even larger fires, which eventually led to its collapse in a similar fashion and for similar reasons.
Firstly the collapses weren't symmetrical, and secondly you're contradicting Newton's Laws of Motion.
[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]
In Chapter 10, “From Thermal Expansion to Global Collapse: Fabrications and Contradictions,” Griffin shreds the last pillar of NIST’s account: its claim that thermal expansion of steel floor beams and girders caused “global collapse.” He shows that this claim is based on highly implausible assumptions, outright fabrications, denial of the existence of structural elements that did in fact exist, and fabrication of a “differential thermal expansion” result from its computer simulations by modeling heating of the steel beams but not of the floor slabs! Griffin delivers the coup de grace by showing that NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 did indeed fall at free-fall speed for more than two seconds during its collapse, which would only be possible if all resistance to the fall had been eliminated by removal of the lower portion of the building by explosives. This demonstrates that NIST has resorted to a miraculous “explanation” of the collapse of Building 7, in which no explosives were used and yet free-fall still occurred, and has thus violated the scientific principles of non-contradiction and impermissibility of claims implying that laws of nature have been violated.