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 phishyblankwaters
reply to post 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.
P.S.
How many of these threads do we need? honestly, how many times do "we" have to explain the same facts to you guys? Every 3rd thread it seems is a "ok stupid anti-american truthers, riddle me THIS" BS fest and it's getting tired and old.
The weight bearing down on the top would have caused the top floors to collapse down but....there is a big BUT, they would have stopped in the middle somewhere because a force bearing down on something is met with an equal resistance (another opposing force).
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.
Corpus delicti (plural: corpora delicti) (Latin: "body of crime") is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
The maximum velocity under that scenario is just slightly over the maximum velocity that can be attained over that drop, and that is being optimistic.
That is quite a different thing from constant near free-fall acceleration.
IT SICKENS ME TO THINK ANYONE COULD DO THIS TO THERE OWN PEOPLE AS A REASSON TO INVADE Afghanistan FOR WHAT A PIPELINE FOR OIL
THEY SAY THEY ARRE IN Afghanistan TO GET A OLD MAN THAT LIVED IN A CAVE WHAT A LOAD OF BULL
Originally posted by dizziedame
No , not a natural collapse.
Let me change the second sentance.
I still maintain the buildings fell just as they were planned to fall because the explosives placed in the building before the planes hit were expertly placed to cause the buildings to fall as they did.
Originally posted by GnabeCA
we can disregard FIRE as a cause for the collapse due to the uniform distribution of debris
Apply the scientific method to the evidence available, my friend. You are basically saying that the "Physics" argument, as you call it, is invalid, and for no more reason than your pig is wearing boots.
Originally posted by dragonseeker
Actually 7WC was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed anyway. that's a controlled demo. and if 7 was wired, so were 1 and 2. 7 proves conspiracy. the rest is filling in the holes and connecting the dots, but 7 is the linchpin.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by spacegremlin
IT SICKENS ME TO THINK ANYONE COULD DO THIS TO THERE OWN PEOPLE AS A REASSON TO INVADE Afghanistan FOR WHAT A PIPELINE FOR OIL
THEY SAY THEY ARRE IN Afghanistan TO GET A OLD MAN THAT LIVED IN A CAVE WHAT A LOAD OF BULL
Your perceptions are waaaaaaay off. Maybe you should check a few facts before you solidify your opinion.
Afganistan ranks 179th in oil production.
Even the Bahamas rank higher.
Originally posted by GnabeCA
What there isn't evidence of is buildings collapsing symmetrically, ever.
Also no precedent for a steel high-rise collapsing due to fire.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by GnabeCA
What there isn't evidence of is buildings collapsing symmetrically, ever.
So then incredulity, and not structural engineering and physics is your argument?
Fail
Also no precedent for a steel high-rise collapsing due to fire.
Nor is there a precedent of big jets being flown in buildings.
Nor is there a great many buildings that were built over an electrical sub station that resulted in: a)long span, assymetrically framed floors that; b) had floor connections that weren't designed to deal with the effects of thermal expansion.
So again, you base your objections on incredulity and not on structural engineering or physics.
Fail.
Originally posted by XLR8R
But I do not know of any way nor have I read anything that can prove with out a doubt the the towers fell by themselves. If they did fall by themselves then there must have been some major construction flaws.
IMO and through the research that I have done, the probabilities of the towers colapsing as they did are slim to none.
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
How many of these threads do we need?
honestly, how many times do "we" have to explain the same facts to you guys? .
Originally posted by nh_ee
Well since we aren't allowed to discuss the TRUTH in physical science
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
How many of these threads do we need?
Honestly, this is one of the first with this twist.
The OP is asking for just a simple statement.
If I was a truther, I would answer with something like: " It couldn't have happened because (for instance) it has been shown that the laws of motion require that the collapse should have taken 25-30 seconds. AND HERE IS MY MATHS TO PROVE THAT MY STATEMENT HAS VALIDITY.
You see that capitalized part? I've never seen it from truthers....
honestly, how many times do "we" have to explain the same facts to you guys? .
You have few facts that support your position.
And they are inconclusive at best.
fail