World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: jaffo

I'm curious why you think that what I say is a complete logical fallacy - to me it sounds more logical than the official story you seem to be willing to accept

My theory explains exactly WHY it happened, HOW it happened, WHO did it and why they did it WHEN they did it. If you find any flaws in my theory, by all means, tell me what is wrong with it and I will either stand corrected - and thank you for it - or give a polite rebuttal.

BTW: I'm not privileged in any way here, just a "normal" member.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: jaffo

I'm curious why you think that what I say is a complete logical fallacy - to me it sounds more logical than the official story you seem to be willing to accept

My theory explains exactly WHY it happened, HOW it happened, WHO did it and why they did it WHEN they did it. If you find any flaws in my theory, by all means, tell me what is wrong with it and I will either stand corrected - and thank you for it - or give a polite rebuttal.

BTW: I'm not privileged in any way here, just a "normal" member.

No it isn't. There are no aliens. So it kinda falls apart. I can't believe I had to type that sentence

a reply to: scottyirnbru



Now, say there were - humour me - does my theory make sense THEN?

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruScience is replicable in experimentation. I can hear steel and watch it fail. You can't show me an alien or indeed any evidence of aliens. One is science. One is a fantasy.

You can't come up with a working model that explains how the WTC buildings fell unless you accept that additional energy was added. Not even NIST can. Their model of say WTC7 was visually flawed beyond belief and is not even open to public inspection. Their pancaking theory was just that - and later formally withdrawn due to massive resitance by "fools" like me. Had we not said anything they would have gotten away with their "scientific" nonsense.

Alien ray. Told ya.

Why is this idiotic drivel, which is nothing more than a complete logical fallacy, still being allowed to post on this board, mods? What does this guy have on ATS?!

I can`t believe you want someone banned from the thread because he talks of alien weapons.
I think maybe it`s because he`s frustrating you with his great research and knowledge.
Maybe alien weapons had nothing to do with it but something that`s not known to us certainly helped those buildings come down in my opinion.

a reply to: skyeagle409

OMG, do you really believe all that?

I suppose you also believe that Osama was killed as Zero Dark Thirty said. Yikes!

a reply to: Shadow Herder

There is a fitting statement within the Secret Covenant. Unfortunate for the majority that do not believe fortunate for the ones that are behind it all. But first let me clarify truth. 1. Directed Energy Weapons are very real. 2. WTC7 was collapsed using Conventional Controlled Demolition techniques. However the 2 towers were destroyed with Energy Weaponry that does not exist. With that said- here is the quote from the Secret Covenant. Too far out there in koo koo land it almost doesn't have to be classified Top Secret anything.

"An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception.

Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur.

"We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute.


Standing firm in truth gets you more entertaining spooky surveillance---trust me. Makes them waste a whole bunch of resources. I realize they think I am going to be held responsible for paying it all back which they are sadly mistaken. Just a heads up.

And just the day before Cheney said the Government lost over a trillion dollars. Wtf??

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru



Now, say there were - humour me - does my theory make sense THEN?

No. All the stuff you believe must be the addition of alien energy rays can be explained. So no.

Where in Holland are you from?

originally posted by: scottyirnbruNo. All the stuff you believe must be the addition of alien energy rays can be explained. So no.

I can't explain why the top of the building did not topple further, but instead fell straight down - can you?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
I can't explain why the top of the building did not topple further, but instead fell straight down - can you?

Simply physics - the hinge point was not strong enough to support the mass of the building above. Very basic, actually!

originally posted by: superluminal11
a reply to: Shadow Herder 1. Directed Energy Weapons are very real.

Indeed and they aren't kept secret either.

2. WTC7 was collapsed using Conventional Controlled Demolition techniques.

I believe you may be right.

However the 2 towers were destroyed with Energy Weaponry that does not exist.

Alien ray. Told ya.

And what's your opinion w/regard to the Pentagon?

a reply to: hellobruce

Well, we already saw that the top 20 or so floors of the building were still in one piece. It acted as one block. That block started a sidewards movement. We can see that. Now, there is inertia - why then did that sideward movement stop?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, we already saw that the top 20 or so floors of the building were still in one piece. It acted as one block. That block started a sidewards movement. We can see that. Now, there is inertia - why then did that sideward movement stop?

No brainer because it was a demolition of some sort.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
why then did that sideward movement stop?

Because the floors underneath it could not hold it up, so it collapsed down - this is just basic physics, something truthers appear to have no knowledge about!

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruNo. All the stuff you believe must be the addition of alien energy rays can be explained. So no.

I can't explain why the top of the building did not topple further, but instead fell straight down - can you?

You need to visualise where the centre of gravity of the mass is. This is acting on one direction only, vertically down. Imagine a spider Web of columns and beams. Pull one and many others move. Twist and many others twist. Snap one and the loads instantly transfer to other beams. Fail one node and this affects the whole structure.

So the top tilts but the load is still acting vertically downwards. The columns at the other side are still providing resistance. The floors are now pulling the outer columns in and the inner columns into the floor area. This progresses down the structure. You want the collapse to stop? If you gently lower one floor onto the other maybe. However we are seeing 20 floors impacting on the floors below. Next impact is 21. Then 22. Then 23. The mass increases with each level. And each time it is an impact. Not a gentle lowering. There is no possibility of stopping the collapse after it initiated.

I think you have reverted to jenga physics. Thinking about solid blocks. Ignoring the space in between the floors. A jenga tower may slide the top off but that's jenga. Not real life

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, we already saw that the top 20 or so floors of the building were still in one piece. It acted as one block. That block started a sidewards movement. We can see that. Now, there is inertia - why then did that sideward movement stop?

No brainer because it was a demolition of some sort.

Explain to us how explosives would stop the rotation of the top block.

originally posted by: hellobruceBecause the floors underneath it could not hold it up, so it collapsed down - this is just basic physics, something truthers appear to have no knowledge about!

I'm aware of the term "truthers" but find it confusing. We all try to find the truth, of course.

By simply stating that I am not aware of basic physics you wave the red flag of referral to authority instead of evidence. You can't know whether or not I'm aware of basic physics. I might be a nitwit, I might be a professor that teaches physics. All you can do - if you want to, which costs time and effort and is much appreciated here - is explain it to me, prove it. Which may be quite difficult - even NIST had just theories, not much proof and that bit of proof that was left was carried away in a hurry before the official investigation even really started - I believe it was 18 months before the commission started its work.

Now, about that toppling. Let's refer to the say 20 floors above the point of impact as "the block" (I like suggestive names too). Let's call the lower portion of the building (below the point of impact) "the pillar". Note that I am aware that it was not a real block, no more than the lower pillar was a pillar; I know it was a construction of partially aluminium clad steel beams, window panes and concrete. I also will refer to 'left' and 'right' according to what can be seen in the picture I posted before.

• Now, 'the block' clearly toppled do we agree?
  
• This to me indicates that its structure was in tact (at that moment) do we agree?
  
• So, the center of gravitation was NOT in the middle of the block anymore - it shifted slightly to the left - do we agree?
  
• Now, given that you seem to assume an equal resistance / force applied from "the pillar" against "the block" over the entire width of the block / pillar we can (for now) ignore this force, agreed?
  
• Now, movement tends to continue (Newton's first law: "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force." - do you agree that Newtons first law applies here?
  
• So, a 'leftward' motion was set in, and it should have continued "unless acted upon by an external force." - do we agree?
  

So, the leftward motion was stopped by an external force, do we agree?
Since we established that the external force of the pillar working against the block was a) relatively weak (given the speed of collapse that set in immediately and remained almost constant) - I ask: what external force was that?

Alien ray. Told ya.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Thanks for that explanation - I disagree. I have just posted a rebuttal which largely addresses your arguments too. I kindly ask you to check it out and tell me what is wrong with my rebuttal.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
You can't know whether or not I'm aware of basic physics.

Your comment shows you do not know about physics

I might be a professor that teaches physics.

Your knowledge of physics shows that is not possible!

Now, 'the block' clearly toppled do we agree?

One side started collapsing.

So, a 'leftward' motion was set in, and it should have continued "unless acted upon by an external force."

No, it obviously could not continue. You seem to ignore the weight of those 20 floors, and expect one corner of the building to stop the downward movement of all 20 floors. So what happened is one corner collapsed first, then the remainder of the building followed - no aliens, no silent explosives, no mini nuclear weapons, no nanoo thermite.

originally posted by: waypastvne
Explain to us how explosives would stop the rotation of the top block.

Hush a boom explosives have some amazing properties!