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 Sahabi
reply to post by GenRadek
No, my feelings aren't hurt. Why, are you trying to get a rise out of me? Thank you for your consideration.
I know that you and me are fellow humans, which makes us family. I have learned to see others as my Self, so I don't get mad too easily anymore.
Can't we share information and debate points without the hostilities?
The whole point by me being here on ATS is to realize truth. Who really wants to be an ignoramus? Not me.
In my opinion, the original story does not make sense in regards to Tower 7, the Pentagon, or even the faked bin Laden confession video. This does not make me your enemy my friend.
Peace.
Originally posted by FenderWolf
I, like all of you, fully believe 9/11 was an inside job. I have talked it to death with my parents, at least everything I know and they think im full of it. What is some sure fire way I can convince them?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
DUH! What's the Square-Cube Law?
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
DUH! What's the Square-Cube Law?
Uh, OK.
Not sure why you're rolling your eyes about that, since you haven't given any indication of understanding it yourself. But whatever.
Got a question for you concerning your amazing physical model.
So your model proves that it is possible for a structure not to collapse entirely when a fraction (15% as you say (not counting the broomstick, no doubt)) of its own weight is dropped a foot or two.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
You haven't addressed the substance of my post, actually. I do believe that your model is flawed, but that's beside the point. The greater error is the fallacious reasoning that is done based on the model.
I'm being entirely serious and earnest, right now, so here is an example of the fallacy without p's and Q's.
The supports of any structure must be strong enough to support its own static load.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
You haven't addressed the substance of my post, actually. I do believe that your model is flawed, but that's beside the point. The greater error is the fallacious reasoning that is done based on the model.
I'm being entirely serious and earnest, right now, so here is an example of the fallacy without p's and Q's.
If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.
Do you see how your assertions about your model resemble this argument?
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The supports of any structure must be strong enough to support its own static load.
You always bring up the same thing. "static load"
Well static load has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.
15 floors traveling at 'x' mph is a dynamic load. The dynamic load is what brought down the WTC. To my knowlege the only dynamic loads the engineers have to design to are to each individual floor. Clearly each floors designed dynamic loads were exceeded when 15 and more floors came crashing down on them.
Maybe that's why the 'worlds physicists' don't bother to build a model.
You want to use ridicule because my model uses paper.....
Originally posted by FenderWolf
Everyone who wanted to help teach my parents,, my Mother is Verrrry skeptical now Shes one of those who worshiped W.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Sahabi
WTC 7 and the Pentagon don't make any sense to me either in terms of an internal conspiracy to wage war and introduce repressive legislation. Same with making a hole in a field in Pennsylvania.