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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 





Okay. Show me evidence that a plane can take down a 100 story building into its own footprint without citing any reference to WTC 1 & 2, NIST reports, or anything dealing with 9/11. I'll be patiently waiting. Thank you for your circle logic thread.


That's the same argument they had at the beginning of WW1. Whether a single plane could take out a battleship.

Since no large jet has ever been flown into a sky scraper before how would you know exactly what would happen?

What if some nut flys another into the Willis tower and it falls essentially the same way. Is that another conspiracy or confirmation of WTC 1&2?




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
If you dropped a quarter from the top of the WTC as it began to collapse.. the quarter and building would hit the ground within seconds of each other (single digit seconds). That defies the laws of physics. Even if the pancaking explanation were true.. it would not account for out absurdly fast the tower fell without being slowed by the tons and tons of steel framing below. The tower fell straight down which is the path of most resistance, yet it fell at nearly free fall speed.


edit on 9/27/2011 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
The reason your physical model is flawed has been explained many times. The most important flaw is that each paper ring is carrying the load off all mass above it. In the WTC the floors only carried the mass of the floor itself.


So what was carrying the load above? What was holding up the building?

You talk about the floors and pretend the core want there. The floors were attached to the core and perimeter columns and they had to get heavier and stronger down the building.

So we end up with lying propaganda physics to support the psychological bullsh#.

My model is not a tube-in-tube design. Even if I knew how to build one with the proper strength to mass ratios I bet it would cost thousands of dollars. My model has the advantage of being really cheap and anyone can test it for themselves.

But what is your excuse for not building a model that can completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15%?

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I remember watching them fall live and the only thought I had was that this was a controlled demolition. I do not accept any explanation contrary to a controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I am still on the fence on it.. it "looks" wrong, but perhaps someone can answer me this..

most of the force was applied to one side of the building.. kind of like Jenga, the side that is crippled, would apparently be the side that the tower falls on.. These towers did not appear to fall at ANY sort of angle. They collapsed straight down as if there was suddenly NOTHING holding any of it up any more.




LOL, rog, you're not on the fence, bro.


I think I know what side you are on.



But seriously... I have NEVER seen a good explanation for this........



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


you haven't been paying attention then



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


there's an awful lot wrong with your understanding of what happened.

the weight above didn't have to crush an entire building, all it needed was enough mass and momentum to crush a single floor, repeatedly.

this little mistake is soooooooo common, and often from people who claim to know a lot about physics or structural engineering, etc.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Man, this is pretty funny. I'm sure you've seen all comments made to prove the case of the truthers and of the OSers. Why start another one?

There's no need to prove towers 1 and 2 if #7 is stinking. 7 came down with controlled demolition. Doesn't matter about anything else really if you can't show that 7 wasn't anything but. So let's move the discussion in that direction. I haven't seen a non-truther disprove #7. They only worry about 1 and2. Let's deal with one issue at a time and then we can worry if the others need discussing.

It takes weeks at least to plan that kind of distruction placing thousands of cutter charges in the exact spot they need to be in. Not eight hours. If the only explanation is residual fire from the towers, that's weak. No doubt about that.

Part of our problem is that most of us are not experts and have to rely on expert accounts and study to show us evidence and then non-truthers want to exploit that. It's not cool. You know most of us have given this much thought and have had the strength to see it through. I do realize some people crack due to the lack of any kind of resolution and they need to definitively eliminate all opposing thoughts to ensure their own piece of mind. It's almost like they are the types that need to see everything in black and white. It all has to fit into an equation that balances out. When you have an anomoly laying around or a remainder, you've got to do something with it.

The anomoly is that not everything is as clear as day and you have to negotiate through the darkness to find your way. Most folks don't like that and want to be lead around by the nose, because then they don't have to think. Equations don't always add up.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



My model has the advantage of being really cheap and anyone can test it for themselves.


And that test will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what happens to loops of copy paper, metal washers and a broomstick when you pick them up and drop them. It proves nothing else.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

First off It should be noted that in engineering terms, nothing can be build to withstand something as random as a plane hitting the building. This is due to LSRD methods of factors of safety and probability and statistics, which cannot account for something such as a plane crash. Things like wind, earthquakes and different loading can be accounted for. The WTC collapsed not because the planes knocked them over, but the fired that ensued afterwards. Steel and most other metals start yielding at a high temperatures in essence they become more malleable so the top floors that failed caused a domino affect.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


All I know is they went from top to bottom to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall from the same height in nothing but air. Absent explosives, this violates the three laws of motion.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



My model has the advantage of being really cheap and anyone can test it for themselves.


And that test will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what happens to loops of copy paper, metal washers and a broomstick when you pick them up and drop them. It proves nothing else.


So where is your self supporting model made of whatever material you want that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



My model has the advantage of being really cheap and anyone can test it for themselves.


And that test will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what happens to loops of copy paper, metal washers and a broomstick when you pick them up and drop them. It proves nothing else.


So where is your self supporting model made of whatever material you want that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?


Its called the world trade center towers, and until you can prove something, its all the "model" that is needed.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


dont forget that the world trade centers were built to withstand plane crashs


Don't forget, Titanic was built to withstand sinking

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



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

Originally posted by hooper

Its called the world trade center towers, and until you can prove something, its all the "model" that is needed.


For which the NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete.


psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Give up the ghost already. What are you doing here bro? What the hell are you doing here? How many bloody times do people need to go over the same old crap again and again.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:44 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.


I am not here to talk about proof because the proof would never be enough for those of us who have a belief system beyond reason. Most of those that come on here looking to start arguements about something that in my mind is already fact. I would like to say that it's not up to us truthers to provide proof that two planes could take down three buildings! I believe it's up to you truther debunkers to prove that! When i look at factions of the US government letting rescue workers with nothing but ill equipped filter masks on and telling these brave men and woman that the atmosphere is safe for them to work when they knew all along that the air there was toxic.
When i think how close I was to being there amungst those poor bastards whom are now sick in so many different ways I get panic attacks. I don't need any more proof and if you were an open minded logically thinking individual you would feel the same! We are all different but we can only lead a thirsty horse to water but we can't prove that this source is safe to drink no matter how much we consume! Wake up people these factions of our government are all just men and woman, all the same men and woman that are capable of any atrocities that history has shown is part of humanity!



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

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what was carrying the load above? What was holding up the building?

You talk about the floors and pretend the core want there. The floors were attached to the core and perimeter columns and they had to get heavier and stronger down the building.


You are kind of answering your own question, the core and perimeter columns were carrying the load above.


My model is not a tube-in-tube design. Even if I knew how to build one with the proper strength to mass ratios I bet it would cost thousands of dollars. My model has the advantage of being really cheap and anyone can test it for themselves.


So you should also understand that it is not telling us much about the WTC.


But what is your excuse for not building a model that can completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15%?

psik


My "excuse" is that I do not have issues with the explanations that are available, so I do not need a model to prove it is possible.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Why do people who believe the OS feel a need to discuss it or argue their point? It's not like they have anything to fight for.. they have the government on their side and a majority of the fluoride-consuming population.

So what's there to talk about for them?

Why not let truthers believe what they want to? It's not like truthers having their beliefs are having any sort of negative impact on people who believe the OS



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bacci0909
Why do people who believe the OS feel a need to discuss it or argue their point? It's not like they have anything to fight for.. they have the government on their side and a majority of the fluoride-consuming population.

So what's there to talk about for them?

Why not let truthers believe what they want to? It's not like truthers having their beliefs are having any sort of negative impact on people who believe the OS


Because if everyone just smiled and nodded, threads would be really boring.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join