Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame

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


It was in the design, the inner columns helped center the collapse. Many of them were still standing seconds after the collapse, this is overlooked even by "sophisticated truthers" like Richard Gage.




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.


Fair point. It may not have been the best word to use, but I meant "noticeable" in a very simple, non-scientific way - i.e., that in watching the video footage it seemed to me that there was no slowing effect. In analyzing the footage closely and measuring the speed of acceleration, I would agree that my perception was wrong - they fell (symmetrically and into the path of greatest resistance) at near free-fall speed, and not at free-fall speed. That still seems improbable to the point of impossibility to me, given the amount of resistance the standing structure should provide.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Nice baiting post, is it not getting you the flags expected?

So you get a simple answer and dont like it, but you dont want to educate yourself either. Guess ignorance is whats left, ah and "jew race" card.

The towers should not have fallen the way they did because of its design, its as simple as that, tube in a tube structure, glaring point being the 1st tower tilting but then forgetting it had any angular momentum, to plunge through the 40+ core columns.

But, if you did not understand the explanations before... Nvm, forgot this is a baiting thread.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The planes hit too high on the towers.
What I mean is that the amount of weight above the mid part of the towers needed to exceed the base to collapse them both, but how could that happen with planes that would shred instantly upon impact, unless there were explosives timed to detonate by remote when the planes impacted, thats why I believe there was a third party observing the attacks on CCTV
possibly an attack timed with the plane attacks to give the illusion of a bigger plot than initially planned.
Those terrorsts actually hijacked those planes, the only difference is that some domestic or foreign agnecy/govt/splinter faction etc... got word of it and decided there were much bigger plans at hand for this small terrorist cell, most likely on their payroll down the line anyways through pakistani ISI tricked by saudi royals and mossad imo lol.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
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.'

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



If you would just like to provide some proof to support your claim about the photos all being staged - we'd all have something to consider - otherwise...yawn...

So, if you have no evidence to support your Pentagon claims, then why would we listen to your claim that we *didn't* actually see planes impact the WTC - we just saw what "we were supposed to see"?

What you've done is taken a totally unproven allegation and used it as a cornerstone to build yet *another* totally unproven allegation.

Prove your first allegation - and PLEASE, don't even try to bring your personal "expertise" as a photographer in as proof - it just doesn't make it as an argument. Sorry, but let's be real - who are you as far as we know?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


The WTC towers 1&2 were the result of a controlled demolition. The proof is....
1. The towers fell into the foundation.
2. The debris cloud, height and radius: Classic in a controlled demolition.
3. The fires were not widespread enough to cause the structure to weaken.
4. No skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire, or to a plane hitting it.
5. If it was fires or the plane that caused the collapse, the towers would have fallen on an angle (the weaker side were the planes hit)

Hope i gave you the facts that you want to know



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by scojak


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.



So then your argument is nothing more than personal ignorance and incredulity.

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame

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.


So then it was a natural collapse and your belief is LIHOP.

Cool



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



When watching closely the above footage of tower 1--it really does look like a collapse to me. I can see the top section begin to sag just above the glowing red heat. Here's what I don't get about the explosives theory--perhaps someone can help me out with this (or point me to the answers, I'm new here):

1: Why/how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this be done so precisely?

2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, a massive explosion, and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the building? It seem like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error.

3. Why would the perpetrators have rested assured that all would go perfectly as planned despite so many unknown variables inherent in such a violent inferno? Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do often go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional 767 impact subsequent to the preparation.

4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers). Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?

Thanks.
edit on 27-9-2011 by lunarasparagus because: Type-o



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


A few days before the Twin Towers fall the elevator shaft was closed for maintenance, i believe in that time the explosives were planted, not all explosives need to be set off my a charge of some kind, belief is that they used a hand-held remote.
Here's a thread that might help.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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.


Does your Python program re-accelerate - due to gravity - the falling mass during the 12' of air space between floors?


If all of the masses are identical then the total collapse takes 12 seconds with NO SUPPORTS TO BE BENT OR BROKEN.


2 points:
1- the ext columns weren't impacted by the falling debris, and so it wasn't accelerated and as such should be dropped from the Python program
2- core columns show little evidence of being bent much. It was a common truther claim - for years - that many of the core columns were cut cleanly into 36' lengths to make trucking easy, and that this was their "proof" of cutter charges. Breaking at the welds is the obvious reason that they were in these lengths, and as such, your Python program should account for the difference in "using up" momentum, since I believe that weld breaking is easier. THEN, you must attempt to quantify broken vs bent columns, AND give some reason as to why you believe in your quantification that they were bent/broken in the collapse vs impact with the ground vs bent in the pile after heating.


But if the masses get heavier toward the bottom then the conservation of momentum slows everything down more


Well, since the ext columns should be removed from the equation IMHO, and you haven't quantified the core columns yet, NOR explained how or why core columns should be accelerated since it violates the visual evidence of the "spires", then I'm pretty sure that the slowing isn't as much as you think.


But what happens when you add supports that must be crushed from above.


You shouldn't add much if accuracy is your goal.


The only source of energy supposedly is the kinetic energy of the mass falling from above.


Supposedly?


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.


About the only supports that would add up to anything at all would be breaking the floor connections. Accelerating the stationary mass would be limited to floors again. "X" out the ext columns. Corrrect for the core columns.


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.


I believe that a model such as yours fails in an important point - there isn't 12' between floors to allow enough time and distance to re-accelerate the falling mass.


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


And you say this mainly cuz of your Python program results?

I think it has serious flaws.


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.


NIST did.

edit on 27-9-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
That still seems improbable to the point of impossibility to me, given the amount of resistance the standing structure should provide.


You need to quantify the resistance you believe is correct first before you can hold this belief.

Otherwise, it is nothing but incredulity

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




Does your Python program re-accelerate - due to gravity - the falling mass during the 12' of air space between floors?


The maximum velocity under that scenario is just slightly over the maximum velocity that can be attained over that drop, and that is being optimistic.

That is quite a different thing from constant near free-fall acceleration.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Tupac gives a reference to everything OP is asking for and then some. Then OP leaves and goes to bed, without addressing. Imagine that!



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Surely the top half of each tower would of just fell off and you can't blame the structure failure because the planes hit the upper floors and the fires were under control according to the fire fighters.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


If you would like to hear why it was impossible then why don't you campaign for a full and independent investigation of the events of that day? One that does not stop at the moment of collapse as the OS did.

The core of those buildings was structurally a different design to the floors, which more or less 'hung' from the core. For those floors to 'pancake' as the story goes we would have been left with a free standing core. Except that’s not what happened, what happened was the laws of physics were defied... 3 times. Either that or it was a controlled demolition, and without getting into other points that point alone is enough to warrant a proper investigation.

That is the only way you will have your proof. A proper investigation.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The towers did not collapse in the usual sense of this word. If that had been the case, you would have seen floors dropping and impacting in succession. Instead, you see each floor being blown to smithereens in turn, with massive sidewise ejection of steel and concrete pulverized into fine dust with velocities that cannot be explained by kinetic energy accumulated during vertical fall, as well as squibs being seen dozens of floors below the destruction level due to some detonation charges going off prematurely (and, no, it wasn't just smoke expelled under pressure - the squibs were hundreds of feet below the few floors where the fires had been, so that smoke would have been expelled from windows where the smoke was densest). Such a level of destruction would never have been possible if floors had been merely dropping like pancakes on one another. Even NIST rejected that possibility eventuality.

Paul Laffoley, who worked for a while on the design of the South Tower, revealed in two interviews on Mike Hagan's radio show on February 27, 2007 and May 21, 2007 that WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to be pre-wired during the construction so that explosives could be added whenever the decision was eventually made to bring down the towers in a quick way that would not damage neighbouring buildings.
www.mikehagan.com...
www.mikehagan.com...
This is a person who accepts the official story of 9/11, so he has no motive to lie about the towers being designed for demolition. What he did not realize is that his revelation removed one of the objections against the towers being demolished, namely, there was no opportunity to pre-wire them in an unnoticed way - a process that takes weeks. All that was needed was for the explosives to be secretly added, and this could have been down during the power-down over the previous week-end, as reported by Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower:



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtlantisX99

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.


So that's a "no" as well.

Come on, someone must be able to do this!



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

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)


Why would you expect that?

I wouldn't.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by dizziedame

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.


So then it was a natural collapse and your belief is LIHOP.

Cool


No , not a natural collapse.

Let me change the second sentance.

I still maintain the buildings fell just as they were planned to fall because the explosives placed in the building before the planes hit were expertly placed to cause the buildings to fall as they did.





new topics




 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join