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

Absolute free fall in nothing but air, for any freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers is just over 10 seconds, factoring in air resistence, 9.2 in a complete vacuum.

Actual destruction time, for both buildings - about 13, 14 seconds.

= a difference of about 3 or 4 seconds.

The North Tower was impacted around the 95th floor, of a 110 story building.

Are we to believe that the top portion CRUSHED the remaining structure, in about 3 or 4 seconds, since that is the only alloted time within which all the breakage and crushing could have occured.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4bb5b32abbe4.gif[/atsimg]

Something vs. nothing

I was hang gliding from London to California when this terrible event happened, and I saw everything. There was a gremlin with a gamma-ray gun shooting at the support beams over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until they collapsed. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

The buildings were not designed to take such severe impacts, especially from jetliners. The theorists don't really understand this and its not surprising considering they're not willing to be open to actual science and logic regarding to the collapse of the towers.

Now before I'm called a "sheepie" by the "truthers" let me just say I do believe the Bush administration received numerous warnings and memos about the oncoming attacks....but good ol' W. thought it'd be more fun to spend time on vacation instead of actually investigating.

However, the whole idea of the government plotting and carrying out the attacks is illogical, moronic, insulting, and downright delusional.

But to each their own. Some of us rather know history, the others rather make it up.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

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.

This was just a lazy attempt by the OP to get stars and flags.
If he had some common sense he would of used that handy lil seach box, or at least gone to google and done some research for himself.
Some people.


Cartman.. or OP?

I can almost picture the smug grin on th op's face each time he/she types something meaning weak attempt or similar. What bugs me more than anything is repeatedly this person or people similar start threads like this thinking they are clever. A true sign of intelligence is to do your own research, rather than trolling with a 'prove it' post. Do your own investigations and put together an op with your views and supporting evidence as to why the towers were NOT destroyed in a controlled demolition. Actually... use the search feature and read the many sides to the arguments and inconsistencies in both sides of the story. Digest every bit of evidence reported or observed, make you own conclusion then post. Otherwise you are merely someone with a smug grin full of self importance that actually beleives you are being clever.

Here are some more topic idea's for you:
Prove to me God doesn;t exist
Prove to me the loch ness monster is false
Prove to me that you exist and are not merely part of my imagination.

See top of this page re: proof.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Are we to believe that the top portion CRUSHED the remaining structure, in about 3 or 4 seconds, since that is the only alloted time within which all the breakage and crushing could have occured.

No, the top section did not remain intact and drop through the remaining sections floor by floor. No one but truthers are asking you to believe that. As each floor failed it added to the falling mass challenging the floor below it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Ask yourself this, if i dropped a brick of steel on an egg, would the very real resistance the egg offered actualy meaningfully slow the brick?

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Like any cult, the truther cult doesn't allow meaningful debate. You're either with them or against them.

Also, take a look at this analysis of projectiles

The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g.

The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. What I found particularly surprising is that the ignition of the material in an unconfined space where it was free to expand three dimensionally would provide sufficient thrust due to expanding gasses alone to cause what was probably a 4-ton wall unit to accelerate 50% faster than gravity. The fact that the unit continued to accelerate close to freefall thereafter is an indication of an ongoing thrust capable of largely canceling the effect of air resistance.

reply to post by hooper

You're right that the top section didn't remain in tact. In fact, it blew apart right away, while the fountain of cascading debris was explosively ejected, as the debris wave moved all the way down the remaining structure to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall.

What you are asking us to believe is impossible and violates the three laws of motion.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Not one of them really have an intelligent answer, and that is the truth.

They will only tell you "physics wouldn't allow it" but if you ask them to explain what they are talking about all they would say is "they couldn't have fallen that way"... or "they fell at freefall" despite the fall that they didn't, and if you prove the towers didn't fall at freefall then they say "the towers collapsed ALMOST at freefall"...

It's a merry go around.

I come to this wbsite to look for REAL conspiracies, not for rumours, lies, and exagerations, and it gets tiresome to see in the front page such rubish continuously.

I really miss the old days when members ACTUALLY HAD TO PROVE the conspiracies they were talking about.

Now-a-days as long as they claim "they couldn't have fallen that way" or " anyone who knows simple physics knows it couldn't have happened this way" they think is enough to prove their point.. (despite the fact that NONE of them can describe what sort of physics they say prove the towers couldn't have fallen that way)

Not only that, if you can prove they are wrong they just claim you are a government agent, or start insulting, or belittling anyone who tries to bring some sense and intelligence to the arguments...

These people are never going to learn, they NEED for 9/11 to be a conspiracy in which the government is involved.

There are PLENTY of REAL conspiracies that the government is involved in, and sometimes it feels there has got to be a conspiracy bringing up continuously such nonsense about 9/11 in websites like this one so that noone pays attention to the real conspiracies and what is really going on.

Thanks again OS myth protectors and supporters for giving us yet another opportunity to present the truth to the uninformed.

Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by hooper

 

You're right that the top section didn't remain in tact. In fact, it blew apart right away, while the fountain of cascading debris was explosively ejected, as the debris wave moved all the way down the remaining structure to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall.

What you are asking us to believe is impossible and violates the three laws of motion.

If at that point there were any explosinves THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD ALL OVER NEW YORK CITY... but of course the explosives" were silent"...

BTW, anything that doesn't fall at freefall is NOT FREEFALL... What did you expect for the debris of the towers to stand still for 20 seconds to a minute?... Now that would really be a conspiracy...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Watch this video, and there's some audio in it for you as well

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Thanks again OS myth protectors and supporters for giving us yet another opportunity to present the truth to the uninformed.

Regards,

NAM

Again, tell us, if that was caused by explosives WHY WEREN'T THEY HEARD?... and please, no nonsense about "silent explosives"...

You obviously have no idea how tall the towers were, or the fact that dust is not only concrete.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Watch this video, and there's some audio in it for you as well

Those are not explosions, it is the sound of the rubble falling. Or are you going to claim as well that the fallen rubble should "have been silent"?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And the firemen..?