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 kinnerarity
...and steel construction. Things don't fall down or blow away here.
Originally posted by hooper
Huh? "Resistance should resist"? And exactly how did you establish that NO resistance was offered? Your Mickey Mouse watch and Youtube videos? As far I know there were no accelormeters in those buildings so how was it that you determined that the resistance was a perfect zero?
At the same time AND in the correct sequence?? Well if its at the same time then the correct sequence must be 0.
As you can see from the quote above "footprint" is an ever changing definition.
Originally posted by VonDoomen
how did buildings 1,2, and 7 collapse in the EXACT same fashion, whilst experiencing VASTLY different forms of damage?
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan
Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.
I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.
You contradicted yourself, truther.
How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"
WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by VonDoomen
how did buildings 1,2, and 7 collapse in the EXACT same fashion, whilst experiencing VASTLY different forms of damage?
Just pointing out that 7 collapsed VERY different than 1 and 2. It didn't destroy itself and project debris laterally as it did. It didn't have a plane crash into it. It burned for FAR longer. Want me to find more differences?
The FACT that the collapses were complete and didn't stop, that is the proof there was no resistance.
If you understood Newtons laws of motion you would understand why.
Colliding objects experience the same equal forces.
All the floors were destroyed, the only thing according to the OS doing that work was other floors.
When a floor dropped on a floor, equal mass would result in equal damage to both floors (Newtons 3rd law).
So if the floors were being destroyed as they impacted each other, as according to the OS, you would have ran out of dropping floors before the bottom section floors were all destroyed, 30 floors dropping on 80. The collapse could not have been complete without another force to keep the collapse going. Something removed the rest of the resistance from the lower building.
But remember no one has yet explain how the whole collapse sequence started to begin with, let alone continue through the path of most resistance completely ignoring the known laws of motion.
You guys like to pick on semantics don't ya? You think it makes you look smart? It just shows what your real motivation is. Timed explosives must be set off in the correct sequence, is that better?
No it isn't. Once again if the outer walls are sitting ON TOP of the debris pile then the building landed in its own footprint. You will be VERY lucky to get 100% of a building to land in its footprint. You are being ridiculous with this semantics games you like to play.
You have nothing to add to the discussion other than make me re-explain what's already been said, so I thank you for the chance to clarify. I love you debunkers, you all keep the "9-11 truth movement" alive and vibrant as you give us all the ammo we need to make the OS look stupid on a daily basis
Originally posted by hooper
Uh, no its not. It only proves that the resistance offered was not sufficient to cause an obseervable abbreviation of the collapse.
Well, so much for the Master of Physics!
According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
What does this mean?
This means that for every force there is a reaction force that is equal in size, but opposite in direction. That is to say that whenever an object pushes another object it gets pushed back in the opposite direction equally hard.
What about the stuff that was holding the floors up? Did that just disappear?
It wasn't that neat brother.
Very neat theorizing, however, it its completely removed from reality.
Yeah, they have, you just don't understand it.
Sorry, but words are important. If you keep repeating the footprint lie I am going to keep calling it out. None of buildings fell into their own footprints. None.
Me? You're the one telling everybody that the demolition had to happen all at once and in the right sequence
How could the resistance not be sufficient? Nothing was added to the weight the buildings were not designed to hold many times over. To think there would be no resistance at all is simply ludicrous.
I can't believe you don't know this.
What other stuff? All there was were floors, that were steel pans, concrete and trusses.
What has that got to do with it?
How? Your opinion means nothing, provide proof. I have provided lots of proof for my claims, all you are doing is offering your opinion with nothing to support it.
It's NOT as lie. You can't offer anything to prove this but your opinion. WTC 7 fell in its footprint, if you say it didn't YOU are lying. The evidence it landed in its footprint is the FACT that the outer walls waited until the middle collapsed before they collapsed on top of it. I have already shown the proof there is only possible one way to do that, controlled implosion demolition. YOU fail or refuse to except the physics that makes that impossible from a natural uncontrolled collapse.
Originally posted by hooper
Read it again - I said observable (noting I misspelled it, sorry). All you have to go on are the videos.
I do know Newton's Thrid Law of Motion. You seem to think it somehow applies here. Do you really think it means that when a stationary object is struck by a moving object the objects share the same reaction?
... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs...
Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision....
Don't forget "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" The reaction must be equal and opposite, but may not be the same. A tennis ball hits of the pavement of the court - does the surface of the court act the same way as the surface of the tennis ball? No.
And the trusses were connected to....?
Think about the idea of point load.
Yeah, right, all that proof. You repeating the word physics two thousands times does not constitute proof.
There you go. Repeating the word "physics" like its some magic tantra.