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

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

no..... first flash - right hand side , happens right before the *topple* , work on yours , use that video to work on yours, keep looping it , youll see LOTS of charges going off , up and down both sides of the tower. and theyre going off behind the smoke demolishing the *toppling* top.

Why tapdance around it , its there, its scary to think of at first , but when you accept it , and everyone else does, THEN we can get justice for what happened.

Nope. It's all during the collapse. Not sure who this "everyone else" is. I've talked with people all over my college campus, and only one person thinks it is demolitions. She thinks there were bombs in the basement. You might want to revise your rationale, because the only things appearing are when the collapse is already beginning, not before it starts.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


who said theyre not worth listening to ? i havnt seen any of them say anything along the lines of " i knew it would come down because the tower lost its structural integraty on impact" .. then proceeded to explain how and why they thought that ..... i`d listen to them, i`d look into it .....

But what is truly amazing is these kids who sit there waffling on about how burning carpets and plastic can melt steel.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


This might interest you:



The NYPD saw that the tower was leaning, and within a few minutes, it came down. Demolitions would not make the tower lean slowly before collapsing.

reply to post by Varemia


honestly ..... you are one ignorant fool. Study it , if you cant see that explosion on the right playing a part in the collapse , you need special help , but im guessing you see it and your purpously denying it to by time so you can spin some more sh1te about carpets and paper ..... oh , and batteries

and by "everyone else", i meant when every one realises what actually happened ... as in ... controlled demo , THEN we can fight for justice.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Could that not be supports failing? Demolitions take place seconds before the collapse, not during the same second as collapse.

See my post above.

Edit: You can't ignore the truth forever.

reply to post by Varemia


seen it , that`s the north tower , and this whole OS was already made up weeks if not months before 911 , so it wouldnt be hard to radio all feet on ground and say , the towers leaning ..... C`MON

watch the video i put up earlier , all the charges from all different angles , study that one and explain it , i`m still waiting for your explaination as to how the fire (carpets paper computers tables) brought down both towers.

did you notice the comment about , someone thinking there was a van in there with explosives ? hmmmm, once again .... second time lucky eh?

reply to post by ReptileRipper


See, this is what I'm trying to reveal to you that you are doing. You are actively ignoring all evidence that is contrary to your already established beliefs. You dismiss it all as staged or faked.

I can't talk to someone who has blind faith in what they believe.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper


who said theyre not worth listening to ? i havnt seen any of them say anything along the lines of " i knew it would come down because the tower lost its structural integraty on impact" .. then proceeded to explain how and why they thought that ..... i`d listen to them, i`d look into it .....

Look up the testimony of fire chiefs Hayden and Nigro. Both of them said they expected Seven to fall given its situation. Like the vast majority of firefighters who were there, they remain unsurprised that the collapse occurred. You're saying that people don't listen to the firemen who claimed to have heard explosions, and yet those same people conveniently ignore the eyewitness reports of those who don't agree with them.

But what is truly amazing is these kids who sit there waffling on about how burning carpets and plastic can melt steel.

Literally nobody says this.

reply to post by Varemia


What am i ignoring ? what evidence have you put forward ? Are you willing to explain - in depth - how the buildings collapsed due to scrutural damage caused by the fires ? by in depth i mean , what columns were effected , what failed first , what dropped onto what causing a pancake collapse which left no pancake ....

you do know that the stuff EXPLODING from the towers was the concrete right ? so what caused all that concrete to EXPLODE ? and where is the driver ? what is pushing the towers down during collapse ? the top of the south tower was pulverised in seconds , and the north tower just fell, no force at all pushing it down.
please explain.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Read your own words and tell me this is not pure speculation that is just an excuse to say that evidence is not real:

this whole OS was already made up weeks if not months before 911 , so it wouldnt be hard to radio all feet on ground and say , the towers leaning

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Varemia thinks so ...... burning carpets and paper brought down the towers

reply to post by Varemia


it wouldnt be hard to do it i saw no lean or kink , did you see it ? highlight it in a still ......
2nd

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Varemia thinks so ...... burning carpets and paper brought down the towers

He didn't say that. And he didn't say that burning carpets can melt steel.

You'll have to do this better if you want to actually advance your points.

reply to post by Varemia


www.youtube.com...

When ever I see this title on the recent post board; I want to quote my granddaughter,

"No, Duhhhhh! Me-Me!"

Originally posted by Varemia

Edit: You can't ignore the truth forever.

edit on 18-10-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

glances at siggy

and I suppose it is convenient to ignore truth when you have no answer? Truth is, you are either lying or a total fool so which would you have us believe, that a tower that is beginning to lean will stop its lean and instead correct its falling nature contrary to all known physics? Or that the sounds of explosions weren't explosions but mere flatulence by all the witnesses?

here, explain this one too while you are at it... I take it that you do have functioning ears?

Google Video Link

Maybe I should add that link to my siggy too because I know you will ignore this post as well because you have no reasonable explanations to 'splain it away either... other than character assassination of the guy who filmed it, or drifting off on a tangent to detract from the main point here... demolition that was seen, heard and reported by many..

Yet you would have us believe you instead?

puh-lease. Get a grip on reality

Originally posted by anoncoholic
that a tower that is beginning to lean will stop its lean and instead correct its falling nature contrary to all known physics?

Just as a matter of interest, how do the bombs correct the falling of the tower and stop it from continuing on its "leaning" trajectory?

reply to post by anoncoholic


If the fulcrum drops before the object can achieve full parabolic motion, then it will have more vertical motion. The top of the tower still fell. It just didn't fall as far, and stayed with the smoke of the tower where it was concealed.

Look at it closely, and you can see that the floors collapsing beneath the upper floors are not able to provide a stable fulcrum for it to topple off of. Without the resisting downward force, the tower simply moves downward. This is simple physics.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Your post had no comment, violating ATS rules.

For everyone else, it was the BBC News video, where they mistakenly reported the collapse of WTC 7 too early.

This is very, very old and already explained. BBC made what's called in the world of journalism, a mistake.

In an urgent, but misguided, attempt to be the first to scoop other news organisations in the UK, they flubbed it, big time.

I know the "conspiracy believers" think this indicates some sort of foreknowledge re: WTC 7. But, it doesn't.

So, where were all the []other news organisations that also reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it happened?? Where?

That's right....there aren't any. Because, once again for understanding, BBC News miscommunicated within itself, being all the way across the Atlantic didn't help either, and someone probably saw a that a reporter on scene conveyed the message from the NYFD that is was impending to collapse, and misunderstood.

In fact, if you search hard enough (away from the ridiculous "conspiracy" websites) you will find that months afterwards, a red-faced BBC News had to admit the mistake. I bet if you also look, you might find people gotten sacked over it.

RR, I think WTC 7 (although called one of the "Towers") is off the subject of this thread, so just will leave you with this, it is a lot to read, but it clears up many, many misconceptions that are continually peddled by the noisy (and ludicrous) "conspiracy" websites:

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by anoncoholic
that a tower that is beginning to lean will stop its lean and instead correct its falling nature contrary to all known physics?

Just as a matter of interest, how do the bombs correct the falling of the tower and stop it from continuing on its "leaning" trajectory?

What was done was the tower was brought down so it couldn't progressively lean even more than what it was. (which would be evident IF the heat and buckling were plausible. Not all would give out at the same instant) The only way that can happen is ALL supports beneath itself were cut at the same time. If it were anything other than at the same time then the top of the tower would have twisted out from beneath itself.

This is my conjecture and isn't what happened though. What happened was the towers were brought down to prevent the top from falling off which would have left 2/3 of a building laced with cutter charges for a controlled demolition.

911 saw us with not only the crime of the century, but a suspension of the laws of physics if you would believe the OS