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.
Here is your fundamental problem with the whole issue, it wasn't a brick dropping on an egg more like 15% of a brick falling on a whole brick, or 10% of an egg falling on a whole egg.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
As I explained (and as anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge understands immediately) the buildings got progressively less rigid and able to sustain the downward pressure as the collapse bit destroyed more and more of the outer shell. I'm not sure if you guys are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the towers or if you actually just don't understand what a large role the shell had in keeping them upright...?
On top of that, if you watch those french demo vids, which are done WITHOUT explosives, you can see that a much smaller number of floors CAN and DOES destroy a larger number of floors. And it doesn't take much to make it happen.
- Welded/bolted steel is only as strong as the welds and bolts. The debris didn't have to go straight down through steel, but simply wreck the welds and bolts enough to make the structure, (not the beams them self) collapse.
- You're belief is predicated on a mystery technology. That's extremely silly. Those French vids show EXACTLY the same behaviour as the WTC, with no mystery tech.
- As the OP said, the collapse accelerated up to free-fall. In a demo, even one using your exciting new mystery tech, the collapse is essentially immediately at free-fall. In other words, there's no gradual acceleration. So unless the bogeymen in your fantasy have used their mystery tech in a way which gradually speeds up the collapse, your theory is false.
- There's no evidence of any of this exciting new mystery tech in any of the videos.
Again, one of the big problems with the whole truther world view is the circular nature of the logic. When you start pulling calling out the little bits of nonsense (mystery technology, unexplained demo techniques, dismissing other rational explanations, the buildings "looking like demos," etc etc) the whole thing falls apart.
The truther house isn't strong except for a few bricks; it's a house of cards. Each silly belief is just as silly as each other silly belief. None of it is backed up by evidence or common sense.
For the record, Bush and Cheney should be in jail, the neo-cons should be hunted down and ... a best locked up for ever... but... none of that changes ANY of the evidence.
....does not account for the floors both being ejected...
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
3. You can disagree all you want. Learn about demos and why they look like a building "falling into a hole". In addition to that, you're belief that the building never should have been at free-fall is utter BS. I imagine you're just parroting that from another truther. Once the debris above had the mass to crush the floor below and the floors below were significantly weakened by the progressively weakened skin of the building the collapse would OF COURSE hit free-fall speeds.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
They simply do not understand (whether willfully or through ignorance) that a massive overload of anything can cause a near instant failure in a fraction of a second, and so they will never understand how the buildings fell at the speed they did.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
1. Floors weren't "ejected"
If they were not then where did they go?
110 concrete floors, and the rubble pile was less than the height of the lobbies.
The floors had to go somewhere,
and they were not in the footprint post collapse.
This is not 'truther' fantasy, it's fact, as observed and documented by FEMA.
It's sad that for you to cling to your OS fantasy you have to try to be deceptive about the facts.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
They simply do not understand (whether willfully or through ignorance) that a massive overload of anything can cause a near instant failure in a fraction of a second, and so they will never understand how the buildings fell at the speed they did.
What massive overload? 15 floors falling on 95 is not a massive overload.
15 concrete and steel floors can not crush 95 concrete and steel floors to the ground.
You still need to explain how the 47 core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance also.
[You have not explained anything. I have yet to hear any of you mention the laws of motion, equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation. Until you address those laws in your hypothesis then you have not addressed the physics. You are just repeating what you have read elsewhere.
Originally posted by hooper
They were in the pile of rubble and the tons of dust.
They were in the pile of rubble.
They did, in a big pile with all the tons of steel and all the other material that made up the World Trade Center towers.
Yes they were.
Please show us all were FEMA stated that all the floors disappeared and were never seen again.
Well, considering what is being passed off here as "facts" the OS is practically the word of God Almighty.
Originally posted by kro32
Have you ever thought in your head about what you would do if the government asked you to create an event that would trigger the Iraq war and the Patriot Act without getting anyone involved caught? Serioiusly sit down and think about it and tell me if you would have come up with something as intricate as 9/11.
Think about how you would start going about this. How many people are you going to have to contact to be involved on all levels for this to work. How are you going to begin contacting them and making sure they don't leak your plan. What are your security concerns.
Not one single person other than terrorists have been connected with this and the only proof people have is things like what color the molten metal is.
The odds of this actually happening with no one getting caught are astronomical. But as I said I won't argue your guy's proof so i'll just have to leave it at that.
Thanks for the lively debate though
I don't think my OP has been debunked at all. Can you point me to the posts that undoubtedy debunked it?
Don't forget that the OPs video was repeatedly debunked and that if there was anything like definitive proof these conversations would have stopped years ago.
There's the molten steel and iron spheres.
Then there's the missing jolt when the top section contacts the bottom section.
Then there's the fall of the spire which falls straight down.
Then there's the flawed Crush-Down/Crush-Up theory that supposedly explains the collapse.
Then there's the eutectic steel.
Then there's the free-fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC7.
Then there's the active nano-thermite chips that were found in the dust.
Tell me where all of those things have been debunked
Originally posted by kro32
Nobody has ever answered why they would go through all the trouble to stage 9/11 and at such great risk to exposure when something far simpler would have achieved the same results.
Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act when a simple plan would have acheived the exact same results with a far less risk of something going wrong?
A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.
If the government asked you to create something that would mobilize the American people is 9/11 what you would come up with? There are 1000 different things that have to go perfectly right for this to be pulled off. The amount of people with knowledge is far too large for comfort.
Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.
Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers.
Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown
Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?
Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
1. Floors weren't "ejected"
2. This 50% idea is both factually inaccurate and silly. The floors above only crush the floors below one floor at a time. If you don't understand why I'm saying that it's pretty obvious why you don't "get" the physics behind the tower collapses.
3. You can disagree all you want. Learn about demos and why they look like a building "falling into a hole". In addition to that, you're belief that the building never should have been at free-fall is utter BS. I imagine you're just parroting that from another truther. Once the debris above had the mass to crush the floor below and the floors below were significantly weakened by the progressively weakened skin of the building the collapse would OF COURSE hit free-fall speeds.
4. If you build your beliefs on something not based on evidence you are not being scientific or logical. Especially when you dismiss logical and sound explanations for illogical beliefs which you have no evidence to support.
5. You say buildings don't collapse that way w/o help. In fact, they had "help" in the form of a hey crashing into them and un-fought fires.
6. Man, your "understanding" of physics is laughable. There's a reason why only 1/10th of 1% of active architects and engineers sign onto this nonsense.
7. IF you don't get why I put that in, you're truly lost in this debate.