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.

 

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

page: 50
17
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


So basically, what you're saying is that the towers were brought down in such a way to make it look as natural as possible, so that even if everything was proved to be possible and likely, that people such as yourself could still claim demolitions. Gotcha. Kay everyone, this guy's made up his mind!




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

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


You haven't answered the question, really. You mean that the bombs removed the fulcrum? But how can you know that that part of the building didn't - as Varemia points out - fail without demolition? A huge plane had, after all, crashed into it.

You assert that every support has to fail at the same time for this to occur. But why? What if 80 per cent failed. Surely that would be enough to allow for what happened? The weak 20 per cent could hardly hold the tower top in a constant position.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
I hope your major is 'creative writing', because you're taking an awful lot of time away from your 'studies' in order to make your silly posts. If you insist upon this charade, then expect a refutation from me. This is how it's going to work. You say something like 'fulcrum...' and then I say, 'fake'. Everytime, until something you say makes even a little bit of sense, which up until now you have not been able to do.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
I hope your major is 'creative writing', because you're taking an awful lot of time away from your 'studies' in order to make your silly posts. If you insist upon this charade, then expect a refutation from me. This is how it's going to work. You say something like 'fulcrum...' and then I say, 'fake'. Everytime, until something you say makes even a little bit of sense, which up until now you have not been able to do.



It's fall break. What can I say.

I'd like to ask you though, why is it that almost every post you make now is accusing people such as myself of having ulterior motives?

You do know that a fulcrum is a point at which something is balanced? It acts as an upward resistance to allow tilting. Without a sturdy fulcrum, you have falling, basically.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
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.



Interesting that you would use a clip (probably 911mysteries in origin?) that was plagiarized from 911 eyewitness which is the pristine clip from Hoboken and yet the sound of explosions pre-collapse are still more than evident.

You quote simple physics and yet still fail to explain the speed of fall as if there were no resistance of the building to change. Further, you still ignore the obvious, the tower changed direction of travel contrary to the simple laws of physics, an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by a force and yet the only force after initial impact was demolition charges, not any bs fuel air bomb from the planes fuel supply. Someone tried to explain this all as if the plane was a giant hypodermic needle injecting the fuel into the elevator shafts and that is why the basement exploded and yet again, common sense is that unless the building were a vacuum any change in air (inside of the plane compartment ) would be counteracted immediately by the open wall where the plane entered.

This doesn't fit with the explanation of why there were explosions though and is merely another "tale" that liars will spin to lie with.

You talk fulcrum as if it were all a balanced floor on a single center of gravity which ignores equal force on all contact points of the floor. Removal of all of them at the same time is the only way the upper section would fall straight down but still doesn't explain the tiny bone fragments still being found on rooftops. That requires explosive force by simple logic.

... and evil nature to coverup



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by anoncoholic

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


You haven't answered the question, really. You mean that the bombs removed the fulcrum? But how can you know that that part of the building didn't - as Varemia points out - fail without demolition? A huge plane had, after all, crashed into it.

You assert that every support has to fail at the same time for this to occur. But why? What if 80 per cent failed. Surely that would be enough to allow for what happened? The weak 20 per cent could hardly hold the tower top in a constant position.


oh really? And I suppose the tower leaning and falling over into Manhattan is what happened because only 80% of the structure failed?

Give it up, suspension of belief is one thing, suspension of logic is another.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
I hope your major is 'creative writing', because you're taking an awful lot of time away from your 'studies' in order to make your silly posts. If you insist upon this charade, then expect a refutation from me. This is how it's going to work. You say something like 'fulcrum...' and then I say, 'fake'. Everytime, until something you say makes even a little bit of sense, which up until now you have not been able to do.




I find it remarkable that you're still allowed to post here. I've never seen a contribution by you that adds anything to the debate except for unwarranted ad hominem attacks and innuendo.

Take the above. You either think that the word fulcrum isn't real, in which case you're beyond help, or you're unwilling to allow it into the debate. Either way your response is to shut down any discussion because you clearly don't have the tools to debate your side.

This leaves Varemia looking like he's at least honestly trying to engage. And you looking like you don't care to uncover the "truth". Presumably because you're frightened or something. Whichever it is you're not emerging with much credit.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
All you've done is to further illustrate my point. The only 'fulcrum' you're qualified to expound upon, is the one on your teeter-totter they let you use at recess. Your fight for credibilty is futile.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

oh really? And I suppose the tower leaning and falling over into Manhattan is what happened because only 80% of the structure failed?

Give it up, suspension of belief is one thing, suspension of logic is another.


Why is it illogical to assume that the fulcrum formed at the base of the top part could fail if compromised by 80 per cent?

You are claiming that only explosives can explain the tower top "righting itself". I'm asking you to explain why. You seem unable to do so.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


So basically, what you're saying is that the towers were brought down in such a way to make it look as natural as possible, so that even if everything was proved to be possible and likely, that people such as yourself could still claim demolitions. Gotcha. Kay everyone, this guy's made up his mind!


while you use the age old tactic of making this about me the truth is that it is about the murder of 3000 people that day and subsequent millions since.. Perhaps you can reconcile your lies to yourself, I am still of the opinion that the wrong thing for the right reasons is still wrong.

Perhaps you don't believe in God and can lie until your dying breath, in the end you will know truth and justice even it it isn't from man whose laws you hide behind in confusing the issue with conjecture and half-truth facts. Making up facts as you go along (like implying the floor of the tower is acting like a fulcrum rather than a support network of failing columns) to explain away the lies and coverup of mass murder is what makes me look at you as if you are as guilty as the murderers themselves. Invested in oil or something?

Take any standing structure and undermine one side and then tell me it fell straight down into itself. Then try and take out a few support columns at a time and have the pile land in upon itself rather than tip over. The only way that can happen is for all support to be cut at the same instant and that isn't happening in any ordinary fire and you know it as well as anyone else so why lie about it?






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



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeWhy do I lack credentials here because I refuse to let BS pass as fact? If those that I disrespect had anything to say that promoted discovery, I would change my tune in a heartbeat. So, take it like a man.
 



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So Varemia , are you planning on letting us in on your theory ? how the towers collapsed , like i said - in depth - what, how , what failed first , what landed on what , how was there no support for the falling floors ....

You see, your sitting there picking away at little things like one line from a ten line post , and highlighting silly little trivial things, youve asked me for proof , and i have gave you all the proof you need to back up my theory of controlled demolition .... that IS if you were taking notice and not just thinking of stupid things to say ...

ive shown you a demonstration on how to use thermite to blast cut - which the mainstream media says is impossible -
ive shown you the charges going off in both the north and south towers ..
ive shown you a slideshow of the steel from WTC in which you can see many peices of steel melted / bent / even proof of the steel expanding and the bolts tearing out of the side....
ive shown you a controlled demolition which is similar to the collapse of both towers ...
ive shown you eye witness accounts of hearing / seeing / and running from , "bombs" in the towers ,
ive even shown you that america wanted to blame iraq for the 1993 WTC bombings ..

So please ............. show me some hard evidence to support the official story ..... preferably nothing from the likes of FEMA..... who were there the night before "911" and just so happened to have ALOT of man power and trucks at the scene


And ontop of that you agreed that you saw charges exploding ... so .... where do you stand on this ?
edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Take it from someone who has worked structural iron for over twenty five years. The 46 center columns are 46 reasons why the towers could not have fallen that way without being compromised. Explosives were heard and explosives had to be used. Period.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeWhy do I lack credentials here because I refuse to let BS pass as fact? If those that I disrespect had anything to say that promoted discovery, I would change my tune in a heartbeat. So, take it like a man.
 




Why don't YOU ever say anything to promote discovery rather than just denigrate anyone who you don't agree with? Post something thought provoking, make an argument, do SOMETHING ffs...



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeWhy do I lack credentials here because I refuse to let BS pass as fact? If those that I disrespect had anything to say that promoted discovery, I would change my tune in a heartbeat. So, take it like a man.
 




You misunderstand. I'm not discomfited by you. I find you amusing.

You don't "refuse to let BS pass as fact". You just - by your own admission - shout "fake" as soon as you hear any comment from someone you disagree with. You usually gild this with a few ad hominems. And the only thing you never, ever do is provide any kind of evidence or logic for why you think as you do.

No wonder the "Truth" is struggling.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Maybe I can try to explain a fulcrum principle with a simple mind exercise.

Picture a see-saw (or, "teeter-totter") on a children's playground.

When viewed from the side, you see the fulcrum is in the center, correct?

Objects on either side of the fulcrum, wherever they are on the plank supporting them, will be equally balanced as long as the distance multiplied by their respective masses is equal. Meaning, objects of the same mass, same distance from the fulcrum on either side, will balance

The distance from the fulcrum to the center of gravity of the mass is called the "moment", or "moment-arm".

If you have one mass of 1 unit, and another of 2 units, then the lesser mass much be placed exactly twice as far as the greater mass, on the lever (plank), in order to balance level.

Got the principle? OK...

Now, let;s use that see-saw, and stack a pile of bricks on it, in the center.....so we have a column of bricks in a manner that is even on both sides of the fulcrum, and thus, in balance. Obviously, from life's experience, we know that removing some bricks from just one side will cause the stack to topple over.

But if, just as it begins to topple, the fulcrum is removed because it begins to crumble from too much uneven weight above that it was not designed to support, then the toppling sideways will not occur, because the entire thing will be under the influence of gravity, which is acting straight down.

To further illustrate, now imagine not one, but dozens of see-saws, all stacked upon each other, with the same bases as the top one, constructed the same way holding the fulcrums.....and the top stack of bricks, once it begins to accelerate downwards, overcomes the support capability of all the ones beneath, one by one.

THAT is a simplified version of the WTC Towers' progressive cascade collapse.

The buildings were designed to support a static load, vertically --- with some measures to also allow for normal swaying due to wind forces. However, when lateral loads were applied, due to uneven damage, and subsequent breakage and failures, that happened progressively, there came a time when enough had broken, and the whole thing let go. Now, it is no longer a static mass above the (still intact) lower portions.

It is now a dynamic, accelerating mass, and that is a much higher force than the structure was designed to withstand. Too many laypeople seem to not comprehend that the buildings weren't solid walls, standing there vertically (like Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes "demonstration"), but individual bis, all held together by the technique common in many buildings....individual bolts. But, the Towers employed a design different from conventional skyscrapers, where each floor is better supported by interior columns.

A floor truss design, that spanned much farther lengths than just about any other high-rise ever designed.

It was the design of the Towers that was their undoing.....



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You haven't answered the question, really. You mean that the bombs removed the fulcrum? But how can you know that that part of the building didn't - as Varemia points out - fail without demolition? A huge plane had, after all, crashed into it.

You assert that every support has to fail at the same time for this to occur. But why? What if 80 per cent failed. Surely that would be enough to allow for what happened? The weak 20 per cent could hardly hold the tower top in a constant position.


oh really? And I suppose the tower leaning and falling over into Manhattan is what happened because only 80% of the structure failed?



It's pretty simple, really, as the tower-top begins to tip over, it begins to apply lateral forces to the vertical structural elements (columns) which are not designed to recieve such loads. The farther it tips, the greater the force. Eventually, one element fails, and the lateral load is distributed to the remaining elements, which are thus under a greater lateral load, and they fail more or less at the same time, and presto, the fulcrum/support for the tower top is gone and it starts falling down into the floors below.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
may i just suggest that anyone who beleives the official story watches the whole video from beginning to end - provided by anoncoholic on the last page... if you want it painted in fcuking 600,000 feet letters with sparkly lights , then that video should just about do it ....

Why do we need to wipe your arses and help you tie your shoe laces every step of the way ?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Maybe I can try to explain a fulcrum principle with a simple mind exercise.

Picture a see-saw (or, "teeter-totter") on a children's playground.

When viewed from the side, you see the fulcrum is in the center, correct?

Objects on either side of the fulcrum, wherever they are on the plank supporting them, will be equally balanced as long as the distance multiplied by their respective masses is equal. Meaning, objects of the same mass, same distance from the fulcrum on either side, will balance

The distance from the fulcrum to the center of gravity of the mass is called the "moment", or "moment-arm".

If you have one mass of 1 unit, and another of 2 units, then the lesser mass much be placed exactly twice as far as the greater mass, on the lever (plank), in order to balance level.

Got the principle? OK...

Now, let;s use that see-saw, and stack a pile of bricks on it, in the center.....so we have a column of bricks in a manner that is even on both sides of the fulcrum, and thus, in balance. Obviously, from life's experience, we know that removing some bricks from just one side will cause the stack to topple over.

But if, just as it begins to topple, the fulcrum is removed because it begins to crumble from too much uneven weight above that it was not designed to support, then the toppling sideways will not occur, because the entire thing will be under the influence of gravity, which is acting straight down.

To further illustrate, now imagine not one, but dozens of see-saws, all stacked upon each other, with the same bases as the top one, constructed the same way holding the fulcrums.....and the top stack of bricks, once it begins to accelerate downwards, overcomes the support capability of all the ones beneath, one by one.

THAT is a simplified version of the WTC Towers' progressive cascade collapse.

The buildings were designed to support a static load, vertically --- with some measures to also allow for normal swaying due to wind forces. However, when lateral loads were applied, due to uneven damage, and subsequent breakage and failures, that happened progressively, there came a time when enough had broken, and the whole thing let go. Now, it is no longer a static mass above the (still intact) lower portions.

It is now a dynamic, accelerating mass, and that is a much higher force than the structure was designed to withstand. Too many laypeople seem to not comprehend that the buildings weren't solid walls, standing there vertically (like Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes "demonstration"), but individual bis, all held together by the technique common in many buildings....individual bolts. But, the Towers employed a design different from conventional skyscrapers, where each floor is better supported by interior columns.

A floor truss design, that spanned much farther lengths than just about any other high-rise ever designed.

It was the design of the Towers that was their undoing.....




please, I wasn't educated in America so get over trying to explain how a fulcrum works. Bottom line it isn't what is on the ends that matter but the center of gravity and if you have more weight on one side over the other it will tip, not collapse straight down, unless of course if it was spinning in which case it would have gyroscopic tendencies so are you implying the towers were spinning and had that center of gravity confined within its weight distribution?

You also imply the towers couldn't take the lateral stress and simple observation alone shows it could. The planes hit the towers and the towers stood. In fact any high-rise and even the CN Tower regularly have lateral motion due to wind and yet the floors don't collapse yet by your reasoning any change in weight distribution triggered a design flaw that all tall building have inherent in them?

The only flaw I see is in the perpetual lying and why the need to lie? I again glance at my siggy and question why truth needs lies to sell it?

Truth is self evident and needs no lies to stand on its own merits. Lies need perpetual lies to keep them viable and not everyone is on the same page hence every liar being caught under direct scrutiny.

edit to add: It didn't happen progressively like the weakened floor started to buckle, it all happened instantly on every floor. Explosive like and no amount of tilt or leaning can make a buckle into a disintegration of matter.
edit on 18-10-2011 by anoncoholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
Alright, how's this? Where is the 'airplane' at the pentagon? Where is the 'airplane' ay Shanksville? Those are just TWO of the dozens of questions I have that have not been answered fully. I know that I piss YOU off, and I really do get a perverse satifaction out of that fact. Because I honestly believe that every single one of you here at ats that back the OS are fraudulent, I don't feel obligated to anyone to prove my authenticity. So, man up, and until I see ONE of you birds question something concrete about the official story, you can expect my disdain for your efforts.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join