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.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.
Yeah, a human being who helped design the WTC towers.
Had explosives not been used to bring the buildings down, both towers would still be standing today.
Versus placing our faith in the words of professional debunker Swampy?
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to believe that two of the tallest buildings in the world...just happened to collapse uniformly and symmetrically due to airliner impact and a subsequent approximate one hour fire.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I have always said to do the research yourself, rather than believe everything that comes from Loose Change, DRG, Craig and Aldo etc.
Originally posted by dereks
Another lie from a truther!
Originally posted by Finalized
To extend on this further, the impacts damaged the buildings differently, different angles, different amount of damage, yet they both collapsed in the same fashion? Without even getting into the physics, this is highly improbable.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Had explosives not been used to bring the buildings down, both towers would still be standing today.
The sad part is that you truly believe this. From the moment the towers were hit, they were coming down as a result.
Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
How many different ways can one fall?
Quite a few actually.
google 'pictures of building collapses' and you start to get an idea of the way buildings usually fall on days that werenot 9/11/01.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, even a tower that wasn't hit or severely damaged was guaranteed to come down, thanks to Larry "Pull It" Silverstein.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Finalized
Exactly how many different ways are there to fall other than down? And exactly why is it improbable when two virtually identical buildings suffer damage in virtually identical manner to then finally react in virtually the same manner. What would be improbable is if one building eventually failed and one did not.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
That is a great question! After hundreds or even thousands of similar buildings have suffered far worse fires, far worse impacts, and not collapsed, and after buildings (even in controlled demolitions) have collapsed in much more chaotic and unpredictable fashions, and after hundreds of videos of the top portions of buildings collapsing and failing to create a "pancake" collapse, but rather tilting and falling off and leaving lower sections still intact.............then how improbable is it for two buildings to suffer two predictable impacts for which they were built to withstand, but then collapse in identical fashion, in a uniform pancake style collapses, the first of their kind?
The answer is very very improbable, so improbable as to be called impossible even for one, and out of the wildest realm of possibility for two on the same day!
[edit on 4-12-2009 by getreadyalready]
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.
Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.
so just because the gov says something is true that makes it true then ?