Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
Long story short, the way the buildings were constructed and the unequal damage inflicted on both makes it effectively impossible for them to undergo a uniform collapse.

Add in building 7 which also did not have uniform damage or fires just suddenly collapsing uniformly across itsentire structure in what is effectively a picture-perfect BAU controlled demolition (which by logical extension would seem to relate to buildings 1 and 2) and it takes quite a bit of pre-determined will to assume these collapses were the natural and expected result, in the expected fashions, of the damage inflicted.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay, good effort. You can't.

One nil to the "paid disinfo agents"


This thread is exactly what I thought it was, bait from a troll.

Like your other thread where I did post on why the collapses were controlled demolition but you ignored anything and everything in order to continue just arguing anything and everything that was irrelevant to my point.

If you think my lack of desire to play your game is an inability to explain the collapses I couldn't care less, who the hell are you to think what you say matters mate. Your post will simply dispensary like the rest, and I will still be here making honest and factual posts in response to the nonsense that passes as support for the OS. Yes nonsense, most of you don't even know what the NIST report says. You all argue for an hypothesis even they rejected.

The 911 debate used to be challenging, but now it's just a joke.

edit on 9/26/2011 by ANOK because: typo


So no, you can't even explain in a brief precis why it's impossible.

Great work.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive


I've answered you over and over. It's because WTC 7 was a demolition. This is why I know WTC 1 and 2 where also. It's call deduction. If one out of three was a demolition it is only reasoning that the other 2 were as well.

You may not like the answer but it is an answer the same.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


Okay. So there's no evidence from the collapse of 1 and 2 that suggests a demolition.

Cool. I'm off to bed



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


They fell downwards. end of story.

Now lets get back to who did it.


Okay. The towers couldn't fall that way because

"They fell downwards"

I'd be hard pressed to see in which other direction something would fall. But even given that, this doesn't seem like much of an argument.

Next.


I can clarify that for you.

Given the nature of the damage and the buildings, with non-uniform impacts and fires, you would expect part of the building to give way with a toppling effect to one side, while the intact structure below would in some part remain standing, as evidenced by prior high-rise fire damage.
edit on 9/26/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by AtlantisX99
I believe that this explains it well enough.

ATS Post...

It is often worth using the search function to find what you are looking for.



So your answer is a reference to another post? One I find wholly inconclusive.

If this stuff is simple you should be able to describe, in a couple of sentences, how the towers could not have fallen that way.


In all fairness, you posted, what 7 minutes after I posted? That says to me that you didnt read it. Although you might argue that you read it when it was posted, but I don't believe that and I also don't believe it is inconclusive as you suggest.

The REAL truth here, regardless of what I 'should be able' to do, is that you believe that it IS possible for the towers to fall in that way and despite any evidence that might be put in front of you to contradict this fact, even if it is in the 'couple of sentences' that you are asking for, will just be ignored as all you want to do is troll. I will not be wasting any more time on this thread.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Really? What with the complete ignorance lately on ATS? What a week tactic, Israel's involvement has nothing to do with Judaism. Just like the Iraq war has nothing to do with catholics.


It might be a "week" tactic, but not quite as weak as ignoring the question.

Why couldn't the towers fall that way? So far nobody has answered...


because the law of motion says it cant


1.First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.[3][4][5] Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.


if we follow these laws and use the towers
lets use this video.....


now the way the towers fall if we use the law of motion is impossible...because as it collapsed it should of hit resistance by falling into itself....the floors below would push back against the floors above slowing decent.... but the buildings appear to fall at free fall speed...which would mean law one comes into play saying the body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force....so by falling and coming into contact with the lower floors it should of slowed down the decent of fall (collapse) but it didnt...instead it free feel at terminal speed.....so therefor the resistance of the lower floors had to be removed.(explosions) by knocking out the lower floors at the right time the resistance is therefor eliminated and free fall can reach terminal velocity...


also...at the same time if the buildings we're to come down they should of if anything gone towards the side...(the tops atleast)...the reason this is because when the plane impacted the side it took out structure..so the lack of structure to hold up the building means when it finally started to come down the building should of went with the path of least resistance....and it didnt....hope this helps...


so there proof. weee now go back to my post on the first page and it proves why it should of never happened at all...



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive


I've answered you over and over. It's because WTC 7 was a demolition. This is why I know WTC 1 and 2 where also. It's call deduction. If one out of three was a demolition it is only reasoning that the other 2 were as well.

You may not like the answer but it is an answer the same.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


Okay. So there's no evidence from the collapse of 1 and 2 that suggests a demolition.

Cool. I'm off to bed



Goodnight. Maybe tomorrow you'll wake up enlightened to the world around you. Until then. Sweet dreams.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


The still-standing part of the buildings did not slow, or affect in any noticeable way, the movement of the collapsing part of the buildings.

That's the simplest way I can think to explain the reason I thought, and still think, the towers couldn't have collapsed that way. I've read a lot of detailed explanations of the physics involved, but you asked for a simple sentence. And I've seen you commenting on all the threads I've read here, so I assume you've read the detailed analysis too.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

The still-standing part of the buildings did not slow, or affect in any noticeable way, the movement of the collapsing part of the buildings.




David Chandler has confirmed that the towers collapsed at around 2/3g acceleration rate.

therefore, the intact lower structure was in fact slow/affect in a noticeable way, the movement of the collapsing parts.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


The still-standing part of the buildings did not slow, or affect in any noticeable way, the movement of the collapsing part of the buildings.

That's the simplest way I can think to explain the reason I thought, and still think, the towers couldn't have collapsed that way. I've read a lot of detailed explanations of the physics involved, but you asked for a simple sentence. And I've seen you commenting on all the threads I've read here, so I assume you've read the detailed analysis too.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Explosives were used on the towers. You wanna know why I say that? And with confidence?

Because the Pentagon post crash evidence and group lawn photos are all clearly 'staged.'

Now I read through that long 'outside energy' thread where two camps debated whether or not the towers fell right or fishy like, all with the aid of physics and equations (from both sides), and they never seemed to get to any clear outcome.

Most in the thread were looking for evidence one way or the other, something that would indicate that YES it was fishy or that NO it was just like we been told it was... and they were using physics and equations to do it.

Me, I know a lot more about photography than I do physics...

And really, when people try and deconstruct the tower collapses they're really looking hard for some smoking gun physics, some breaking of some Law, that will point out once and for all that something was truly UP with the whole thing. But you need not dwell on physics to do that, especially if some other area of interest or expertise is more to your aptitude and liking.

Maybe some laws of motion or physics were broken on 9/11 with the towers and can be demonstrated - it doesn't really matter to me.

The Pentagon photos are STAGED. They're staged. I invite Everyone, to go now and dig up as many as you can and look at them all. Do it. Make a folder on your hard drive and dig dig dig, get every pic of the Pentagon you can find and throw it in there. Now look at them all. Those photos are staged...

Now ok, so how does the staging of those photos mean explosives were used on the towers? Good question.

One that's pretty simple to work out. It goes like this...

You have to look at the pics and make a determination, Real or Staged? Do what I said and decide. I have decided. And so the next thing for me to naturally ask is:

Why would 'terrorists' stage post crash Pentagon photos? I mean surely crashing a plane in there is enough work for one day! The answer is they wouldn't do that.

BUT nevertheless, those photos are staged. (Go on look at them all... it's obvious to me.)

So, therefore explosives were used on the towers. Not following? Ok. Why would you PLAN post crash Pentagon photos and not PLAN the complete taking down of those buildings? The answer is You Wouldn't. You get me?

Oh, you're gonna plan to take staged post crash Pentagon photos but just leave the felling of three giant buildings to random plane crashes, random fire and mere gravity?! Yeah, sure you are... I DON'T THINK SO.

Showing you staged photos is to show you something that covers up something else.

THIS IS 9/11: SHOWING YOU SOMETHING THAT COVERS UP SOMETHING ELSE... That's what it is.

At the Pentagon the photos are staged and it's a cover, in NYC you are SHOWN planes going into the towers... hmmm... must be what brought 'em down!! Not!

When the physics smoking gun is finally found and agreed on and demonstrated it will agree completely with what I just typed here. And you will know exactly why it does.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

I've answered you over and over. It's because WTC 7 was a demolition. This is why I know WTC 1 and 2 where also. It's call deduction. If one out of three was a demolition it is only reasoning that the other 2 were as well.



Your belief about the towers requires that your beliefs about 7 is correct.

That is opinion, not an explanation.

IOW, you have no idea either...



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Now I read through that long 'outside energy' thread where two camps debated whether or not the towers fell right or fishy like, all with the aid of physics and equations (from both sides), and they never seemed to get to any clear outcome.




There was indeed a clear outcome.

But just because truthers can't, or won't acknowledge that they are off their collective rockers does not mean that they were defeated in that, and in every other thread.

Do you know Monty Python? truthers are the Black Knight. they are deafeated since day one and don't realize it.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The WTC 1 and 2 could not have collapased any other way than the way they did fall because they were planned to fall as they did.

My question remains as to who was responsible.

We all can agree the towers and WTC3 did fall.

In my humble opinion, I believe the "who did it" should be the more important point.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
The WTC 1 and 2 could not have collapased any other way than the way they did fall because they were planned to fall as they did.

My question remains as to who was responsible.

We all can agree the towers and WTC3 did fall.

In my humble opinion, I believe the "who did it" should be the more important point.



10 guys in 2 hijacked planes did it.

Now answer the OP correctly and on topic if you can.....

If you cannot, then admit it



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


WTC One, WTC 3 sounds to me TrickoftheShade you believe the offical story eh? that story has full of holes
and the fact some of these 9 11 hijackers are still alive today.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


no, my contention is that for both buildings to collapse vertically is a million to one. it's tough to make it happen on purpose, so for it to happen on accident twice is a rather large coincidence.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.


We are dealing with two simultaneous factors. The Conservation of Momentum and the fact that the towers had to hold themselves up against gravity. Therefore they had to get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom. In addition to handling the wind so the bottom had to cope with the sway.

Suppose you had 109 masses floating in air one above the other all 12 feet apart. They are held up by magic in this thought experiment. Most of them will not move until they are hit from above. Suppose the top 15 start falling and eventually the 15th hits the stationary 16th. The velocity of both masses change due to the conservation of momentum. The falling one slows down and the stationary one speeds up. The new velocity is determined by

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 +m2) * v3

m1 is the falling mass v1 is the impact velocity. v2 is zero because m2 was stationary. So if m1 and m2 are identical then v3 will be half of v1. But if m2 is heavier than m1 then v3 will be less than half of v1.

So the double mass m1+m2 continues down but now mass 14 is gaining on it from behind. So either it hits 17 first and slows down more or gets hit by 14 from behind and speeds up. So this is what my Python program simulates. If all of the masses are identical then the total collapse takes 12 seconds with NO SUPPORTS TO BE BENT OR BROKEN.

But if the masses get heavier toward the bottom then the conservation of momentum slows everything down more so discussing this for TEN YEARS without having accurate distribution of steel and concrete data is complete nonsense. So depending on your assumptions about distribution of mass this MAGICAL COLLAPSE with no supports could take up to 15 seconds. So why do we have EXPERTS saying the buildings came down in ranges from 8.4 to 11 seconds?

But what happens when you add supports that must be crushed from above. That crushing requires energy. The only source of energy supposedly is the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above. So the falling mass has to lose energy and therefore slow down in order to break the supports in addition to accelerating the stationary mass. That is what this model is about.

www.youtube.com...

But then everybody complains about the paper and I have to explain the square cube law and it is just simpler for most people to BELIEVE whatever they prefer.

The bottom line is that there is no way the top of the north tower could have enough energy to make all of that mass come down that fast. But then I must be a liar since I point out the fact that we don't have the exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete. So why haven't all sorts of experts been demanding it for TEN YEARS? Where is the engineering school that has built a physical model that can completely collapse due to the drop of its top 15% on the rest?

What engineering school has even mentioned trying?

9/11 is a scientific travesty.

You can't even accurately compute the potential energy of the building without knowing the steel and concrete on every level.

psik



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.


As someone mentioned earlier building 7 is the smoking gun here. If that building was previously rigged with explosives and was "pulled" its easy to deduct the other two buildings were also previously rigged as well.

In his own words, Larry Silverstein.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by dizziedame
The WTC 1 and 2 could not have collapased any other way than the way they did fall because they were planned to fall as they did.

My question remains as to who was responsible.

We all can agree the towers and WTC3 did fall.

In my humble opinion, I believe the "who did it" should be the more important point.



10 guys in 2 hijacked planes did it. answer the OP correctly and on topic if you can.....

If you cannot, then admit it


The planes and the men in the planes were only tools of the "who did it"

I still maintain the buildings fell just as they were planned to fall

They could not have fallen any other way.

I did answer correctly and on topic.






top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join