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

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You are totally ignoring that I was talking about WTC 7. You explain how a burning steel structure building collapses into its own footprint? It's never been done before. So why are you asking to explain why it couldn't have happened. It's designed not to. It's that simple. Wrap your head around it.
Once you figure out that WTC 7 was demolished then you can try and figure out what happened to the WTC 1 and 2.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You are totally ignoring that I was talking about WTC 7. You explain how a burning steel structure building collapses into its own footprint? It's never been done before. So why are you asking to explain why it couldn't have happened. It's designed not to. It's that simple. Wrap your head around it.
Once you figure out that WTC 7 was demolished then you can try and figure out what happened to the WTC 1 and 2.

Your contention is that WTC 1 and 2 were demolished. All I'm asking is that you explain why and how.

Obviously you're unable to do so.

Please explain how the concrete was pulverized. Also the towers and building 7 fell at the speed of gravity no burning building will fall at the speed of gravity. You're either a troll or a OSer so anything anyone posts or link they provide will not satisfy you so why keep this thread going?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You are totally ignoring that I was talking about WTC 7. You explain how a burning steel structure building collapses into its own footprint? It's never been done before. So why are you asking to explain why it couldn't have happened. It's designed not to. It's that simple. Wrap your head around it.
Once you figure out that WTC 7 was demolished then you can try and figure out what happened to the WTC 1 and 2.

Your contention is that WTC 1 and 2 were demolished. All I'm asking is that you explain why and how.

Obviously you're unable to do so.

edit on 26-9-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)

WTC 7. Reread what I wrote. WTC 7. WTC 7. WTC 7. You getting it now? Slower...W....T....C....7.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Truly pathetic effort. I'm inviting you to describe why this is impossible in a few simple sentences.

Surely you can do this? It's a simple thing, right?

It's already in a million threads, why should I waste time typing all out again?

I explained it in one sentence. Now you want me to explain the laws of motion? Can't you learn that all by yourself?
Or is it how the laws of motion apply the collapses? You could learn that all by yourself too.

Learn, and understand the laws of motion, and you wouldn't have to ask this question constantly baiting people so you can argue with them.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You are totally ignoring that I was talking about WTC 7. You explain how a burning steel structure building collapses into its own footprint? It's never been done before. So why are you asking to explain why it couldn't have happened. It's designed not to. It's that simple. Wrap your head around it.
Once you figure out that WTC 7 was demolished then you can try and figure out what happened to the WTC 1 and 2.

Your contention is that WTC 1 and 2 were demolished. All I'm asking is that you explain why and how.

Obviously you're unable to do so.

edit on 26-9-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)

WTC 7. Reread what I wrote. WTC 7. WTC 7. WTC 7. You getting it now? Slower...W....T....C....7.

stop trying because i posted why i dont think with the proof......and he totally ignored my post go back to first page and look,

Your really going to sit there and not even say anything about the pentagon? Sorry a plane did not hit that building period. All it takes is common sense.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Um, no offence, but I started this thread. We're discussing the WTC towers 1 and 2. If you don't think they were destroyed by demolition then fine, we're agreed.

If you do think they were the show me your evidence. But I have a feeling you can't

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Truly pathetic effort. I'm inviting you to describe why this is impossible in a few simple sentences.

Surely you can do this? It's a simple thing, right?

It's already in a million threads, why should I waste time typing all out again?

I explained it in one sentence. Now you want me to explain the laws of motion? Can't you learn that all by yourself?
Or is it how the laws of motion apply the collapses? You could learn that all by yourself too.

Learn, and understand the laws of motion, and you wouldn't have to ask this question constantly baiting people so you can argue with them.

Okay, good effort. You can't.

One nil to the "paid disinfo agents"

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Oh oh another thread that wants to mislead you to argue about silly conspiracy that shift blame away from the true executors of the 911 mission.

Google Israel 911. Start there.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Yet another antisemitic answer that wants to encourage you to hate Jews.

Really? Whats with the complete ignorance lately on ATS? What a weak tactic, Israel's involvement has nothing to do with Judaism. Just like the Iraq war has nothing to do with catholics.

Read this link theinfounderground.com...

Originally posted by Guarnere09
Your really going to sit there and not even say anything about the pentagon? Sorry a plane did not hit that building period. All it takes is common sense.

Seriously? You want to talk about the Pentagon?

This is a thread about WTC 1 and 2. If you think they "couldn't fall that way" explain how.

Nobody has manged it yet.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Awww. Did you start this post all by yourself? I guess you are the overlord of this post. Oh mighty post overlord, I ask ye permission to bring up WTC 7 in your presence oh mighty post overlord.

It is you that can't argue WTC 7 and don't wanna go there. Come back when your more read up. I'll be waiting.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Really? What with the complete ignorance lately on ATS? What a week tactic, Israel's involvement has nothing to do with Judaism. Just like the Iraq war has nothing to do with catholics.

It might be a "week" tactic, but not quite as weak as ignoring the question.

Why couldn't the towers fall that way? So far nobody has answered...

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Awww. Did you start this post all by yourself? I guess you are the overlord of this post. Oh mighty post overlord, I ask ye permission to bring up WTC 7 in your presence oh might post overlord.

It is you that can't argue WTC 7 and don't wanna go there. Come back when your more read up. I'll be waiting.

Okay. So you can't explain why WTC 1 and 2 are demolitions.

Still waiting...

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


They fell downwards. end of story.

Now lets get back to who did it.

Originally posted by Calex1987


stop trying because i posted why i dont think with the proof......and he totally ignored my post go back to first page and look,

Give me a chance.

Your contention is that they could not have fallen that way because in a previous accident a much smaller plane hit a building at a much slower speed and it didn't collapse?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay, good effort. You can't.

One nil to the "paid disinfo agents"

This thread is exactly what I thought it was, bait from a troll.

Like your other thread where I did post on why the collapses were controlled demolition, but you ignored anything and everything in order to continue just arguing anything and everything that was irrelevant to my point.

If you think my lack of desire to play your game is an inability to explain the collapses I couldn't care less, who the hell are you to think what you say matters mate. Your post will simply disappear like the rest, and I will still be here making honest and factual posts in response to the nonsense that passes as support for the OS. Yes nonsense, most of you don't even know what the NIST report says. You all argue for an hypothesis even they rejected.

The 911 debate used to be challenging, but now it's just a joke.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

They fell downwards. end of story.

Now lets get back to who did it.

Okay. The towers couldn't fall that way because

"They fell downwards"

I'd be hard pressed to see in which other direction something would fall. But even given that, this doesn't seem like much of an argument.

Next.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


This thread does a pretty good job of that. I don't feel like transcribing 3 posts worth of that thread, so I'll just give you a little teaser

The top of the South Tower, on the other hand, falls with an angle of 22* as seen here: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b40d94b147e6.jpg[/atsimg] How can it crush the building symmetrically if it's falling off center? As seen in the following video, as well as the clip at 1:20:10 in the main video, the damage pattern is symmetrical:

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Awww. Did you start this post all by yourself? I guess you are the overlord of this post. Oh mighty post overlord, I ask ye permission to bring up WTC 7 in your presence oh might post overlord.

It is you that can't argue WTC 7 and don't wanna go there. Come back when your more read up. I'll be waiting.

Okay. So you can't explain why WTC 1 and 2 are demolitions.

Still waiting...

I've answered you over and over. It's because WTC 7 was a demolition. This is why I know WTC 1 and 2 where also. It's call deduction. If one out of three was a demolition it is only reasoning that the other 2 were as well.

You may not like the answer but it is an answer the same.