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.
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by john124
Hmm. the laws of physics state that gravity will pull an object throught the path of least resistance. So while gravity brought them down there were certainly other forces at play in the equation. Its too bad to date no one has been able to illustrate these forces.
Originally posted by johnmhinds
Originally posted by demonseed
2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.
What kind of stupid argument is that.
A, I can't show you a photo of another 400m+ collapsing after a Boeing 767 has crashed into it because that's never happened to a building anywhere else before of after 9/11.
Why don't you provide me with a photo of a 400m+ building that didn't collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767.
You can't because it hasn't happened anywhere else.
Having no evidence for an imaginary event isn't proof that it didn't happen in New York to the twin Towers.
B, They didn't collapse symmetrically anyway!
Look at this large shard of one of the towers that didn't collapse at the same speed as the rest of the tower.
[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]
[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]
[edit on 9-9-2009 by johnmhinds]
Buildings just dont collapse the way they did on 9/11. Not to mention 3 of them.
Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?
WTC7. GOOD GAME.
There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.
In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.
Originally posted by demonseedI didnt ask for a photo of a boeing 747, i asked for a photo of any airplane.
No, I meant the people who were either on the plane, or allegedly on the plane from your perspective. Therefore my point still stands
Can you explain where the people went if their plane did not crash.
Gravity if what keeps you on the ground, acceleration downwards of any objects mass due to the Earth's gravity affects every single object on this planet.
Yes supports that were on fire due because of burning jet fuel Have you seen the videos of the fire, it was an inferno of burning glass, steel and wall & flooring materials.
The collapse wasn't exactly symmetrical...
but since the towers were built approximatetly symmetrical, you would expect a roughly symmetrical collapse downwards for some of the structure, but not all of it!!
Originally posted by john124
Nobody really understood my comment, it's a shame that nobody else on this thread has used their brain yet.
1. I didn't say there were no photos of this, only that is was irrelevant. What would that even prove if that were the case - nothing substancial!
2. The collapse was not symmetrical, it's only from a long distance away that it appears so. There has been videos from youtube showing similar collapses, but only from smaller buildings probably because there has been no other large tower demolitions/collapses as to date. If you set such impossible criteria, then you'll have to wait until a tower has been demolished to satisfy your curiosities!
3. It's interesting how you all feel it applicable to poke holes in the official theories, yet you feel your own theories are beyond criticism. Where did those people go then?? It's a perfectly valid question.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?
WTC7. GOOD GAME.
There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.
Fires were NOT responsible for buildings falling SYMMETRICALLY. Symmetry is completely unrelated to fires. And how is the 14+ second collapses anywhere CLOSE to freefall speeds? It is not, so why are you claiming it?
In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.
FALSE. The unfought fires during WWII bombing raids caused thousands of steel-framed buildings to collapse. The historical record, including the actual steel and photographs, are preserved in museums in Dresden, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere.
Now, tell me, where do you 9/11 "Truthers" come up with your nonsense? Well, we know, don't we? You are determined to believe what you want to believe, to hell whether it is true or not.
Originally posted by johnmhinds
None of those videos can be compared to the WTC collapse because they aren't the same buildings.
You can't even compare them to each other and then say there is one single way for a building to collapse because they all react differently.
What you are trying to do is the equivalent of comparing a 30mph highway crash to a 200mph nascar crash and then saying the nascar was full of explosives because it acted differently.
There are completely different levels of forces going on in all of those videos, and using them as any kind of scientific comparison is stupidity of the highest order.
Originally posted by hgfbob
this is an incorrect analogy because, you use different velocities to justify your comparison
the vids show how, a building, acting as a SINGLE UNIT, which it is, is affected by GRAVITY.
if you noticed, the 'tipping building', starts s-l-o-w-l-y, hits the 'other' buildings, WE SEE it STOP, just for a millisecond, because it has to transfer it's energy of falling to what ever it hits, and then WE SEE it break apart in HUGE chunks, w/very little dust and debris SHOOTING out from all 4 sides