The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
Conspiracies

$1,000,000 prize .... who can explain why all three buildings fell at freefall sp

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 ...9 10 11 · >>
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#31New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:10:04
And here is an absolutely priceless picture of WTC 2:



I guarantee that you will never, ever be able to show me a controlled demolition where the top third and bottom third of a building are largely intact while the top third of the building falls over to the side like you see in the image above.

And here's a picture of the floors at the impact site sagging over time before collapse:



Finally here are some diagrams illustrating the sag and how the sag and loss of structural integrity *at the impact site and only at the impact site* led directly to the collapse:

jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#32New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:24:47
Now we hear the crickets chirp.
Pete On March 28, 2012
Master of Unlocking





Central Scotland, United Kingd
#33New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:26:08
Woah, that first photo is amazing, (i don't mean that in a sick way)
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#34New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:27:36
@pete Said
Woah, that first photo is amazing, (i don't mean that in a sick way)


I think that photo, all by itself, conclusively proves that there was no demolition of the WTC towers. No controlled demolition would *ever* look like anything that. No controlled demolition would occur 2/3 of the way up a building, and no controlled demolition would result in the top third of the building falling that far over to the side.

Ever.
henry_ireton On May 27, 2015




London, United Kingdom
#35New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:27:59
@jonnythan Said
Now we hear the crickets chirp.


You and your confounded technical details.
torrentwolves On February 04, 2009




Grand Rapids, Michigan
#36New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:39:13
Firstly, in the top photograph with the top of the first tower falling off to the side there... that's the section containing the 110th floor of the building. The y-axis of the graph clearly states that it describes the distance of the 110th floor from the ground. The graph does not describe the building itself in free-fall, it describes the rate of decent of the top floor... which SHOULD (considering the angle at which it is falling 'off' the remaining 2/3rds of the building) SHOULD accelerate into free-fall. The text below it also states that the actual fall time could not be seen due to the debris.

Second, the sag sequence of the bottom pictos shows the buildings falling to their sides, but the videos from CNN (hehe) show them falling directly downward.

https://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

^ Shows both towers collapsing.

And how do we explain the damage to the other buildings? Completely destroyed with no explanation or reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=related


I can give a bit doubt, but not much... it's all far too "coincidental".
torrentwolves On February 04, 2009




Grand Rapids, Michigan
#37New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:42:31
@jonnythan Said
Now we hear the crickets chirp.


Almost noon in the middle of winter, I hear no crickets. =)

Internet is being slow currently and I'm also fighting for string theorists on the physics boards.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#38New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:46:19
More "movie logic." The top third of the building you see in the first image at the top of this page does not (and indeed cannot, ever) fall way over to the side because the steel structure is not strong enough to push it that far over. It's simple physics. As soon as it starts listing to the side, the *lateral force* causing acceleration disappears almost immediately, whereas the *vertical force* due to gravity pulls it down rapidly.

The top corner of the building did indeed fall slightly outside the foundation area, but just barely. This is visible on the videos. There is a large collection of them here:

https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

The damage to the other buildings is explained by the fact that thousands and thousands of tons of steel, concrete, and other materials just fell over a thousand feet onto the ground. Material was ejected far and wide.
torrentwolves On February 04, 2009




Grand Rapids, Michigan
#39New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:46:25
@jonnythan Said
I think that photo, all by itself, conclusively proves that there was no demolition of the WTC towers. No controlled demolition would *ever* look like anything that. No controlled demolition would occur 2/3 of the way up a building, and no controlled demolition would result in the top third of the building falling that far over to the side.

Ever.


See, that's the problem, you can't say what is and what isn't "controlled"... I can see the point you're trying to convey, I just cannot grasp how easily you can write this off. I personally think that if it were made to look "accidental" (which it wasn't, by any means) then covering their tracks would be a priority.

So tell me then, how do you know the planes weren't a part of a planned conspiracy? There is evidence both ways that the collapse was or was not controlled... but what about the planes themselves?
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#40New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:47:47
https://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_demolition_waves.mpg

Here's another great video. It shows that the entire bottom two-thirds of the building were completely intact as the top fell through it.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#41New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:48:53
@torrentwolves Said
See, that's the problem, you can't say what is and what isn't "controlled"... I can see the point you're trying to convey, I just cannot grasp how easily you can write this off. I personally think that if it were made to look "accidental" (which it wasn't, by any means) then covering their tracks would be a priority.

So tell me then, how do you know the planes weren't a part of a planned conspiracy? There is evidence both ways that the collapse was or was not controlled... but what about the planes themselves?


So where does the conspiracy theory part come in?

There's absolutely zero evidence that this was a demolition. They didn't freefall, the destruction looked absolutely nothing like a demolition. What do you see that makes you think it was a demolition?
torrentwolves On February 04, 2009




Grand Rapids, Michigan
#42New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:51:54
@jonnythan Said
More "movie logic." The top third of the building you see in the first image at the top of this page does not (and indeed cannot, ever) fall way over to the side because the steel structure is not strong enough to push it that far over. It's simple physics. As soon as it starts listing to the side, the *lateral force* causing acceleration disappears almost immediately, whereas the *vertical force* due to gravity pulls it down rapidly.

The top corner of the building did indeed fall slightly outside the foundation area, but just barely. This is visible on the videos. There is a large collection of them here:

https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

The damage to the other buildings is explained by the fact that thousands and thousands of tons of steel, concrete, and other materials just fell over a thousand feet onto the ground. Material was ejected far and wide.


I cannot accept ANY theory that supports gravity as a pulling force. There is no pull. Steel (and whatever else is falling from these collapsing buildings) is more dense than the air in our atmosphere.

And explain this "movie logic".

But I do understand the fact that the top of the building would not entirely clear the standing portion. THOUGH, the matter falling from the top would "choose" to fall in that direction rather than fall down into the remainder of the building.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#43New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:55:28
@torrentwolves Said
I cannot accept ANY theory that supports gravity as a pulling force. There is no pull. Steel (and whatever else is falling from these collapsing buildings) is more dense than the air in our atmosphere.


?!

I don't even understand what this means.

Gravity is, by definition, a force. The force on an object due to gravity is directly proportional to the object's mass.

@torrentwolves Said
THOUGH, the matter falling from the top would "choose" to fall in that direction rather than fall down into the remainder of the building.


Objects accelerate in whatever direction the forces on them act. The matter at the top of the building, as soon as it is no longer supported from underneath, begins to fall downward due to the force of gravity.

The top portion of the building experienced some rotational force as the lower portion gave way, but not a whole lot. Just enough to cause it to lean over to the side slightly. That force was very transient and only lasted a couple of seconds. As soon as the force accelerating the top sideways was taken away (the moment the floor gave way completely) motion in a lateral direction slowed and stopped.

At this point, gravity was the only force acting on that matter. Therefore it accelerated straight downward until it hit something (the lower portions of the building).
torrentwolves On February 04, 2009




Grand Rapids, Michigan
#44New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 16:56:19
@jonnythan Said
So where does the conspiracy theory part come in?

There's absolutely zero evidence that this was a demolition. They didn't freefall, the destruction looked absolutely nothing like a demolition. What do you see that makes you think it was a demolition?


Because they flew two planes into the buildings. If it weren't bombs planted inside the buildings to cause them to collapse, then the planes DID.

I'm no expert on the relations between Bin Ladin/al-Qaeda and the government/military... but I seem to remember that we actually trained the bastard. I'm drawing multiple lines to possible connections between his planning and the destruction of the towers and the fact that we haven't found a body yet.

I was also told, I don't know how reliable the source was, that he was flown out of the country just prior to Sept. 11.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#45New Post! Jan 23, 2008 @ 17:00:11
@torrentwolves Said
Because they flew two planes into the buildings. If it weren't bombs planted inside the buildings to cause them to collapse, then the planes DID.

I'm no expert on the relations between Bin Ladin/al-Qaeda and the government/military... but I seem to remember that we actually trained the bastard. I'm drawing multiple lines to possible connections between his planning and the destruction of the towers and the fact that we haven't found a body yet.

I was also told, I don't know how reliable the source was, that he was flown out of the country just prior to Sept. 11.

The US never "trained" or even funded bin Laden. He wasn't one of the 9/11 attackers and he sure as hell wasn't in the US shortly before 9/11. He had been wanted in the US as a terrorist LONG before 9/11. An order for his arrest or assassination was signed by Clinton in 1998 and we even tried to kill him with cruise missiles that same year.

And, yes, the planes did cause the WTC collapses.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 ...9 10 11 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Technology & Internet
Fri Dec 03, 2010 @ 19:03
15 36700
New posts   Science
Thu May 07, 2009 @ 20:46
104 3978
New posts   US Elections
Sun Jan 03, 2016 @ 00:43
9 5292
New posts   Conspiracies
Sun Aug 24, 2008 @ 22:33
8 671
New posts   Celebrities
Sun Dec 23, 2007 @ 15:12
2 2267