Argument from incredulity. There is nothing suspicious about the initial tilt of the south tower. One side of support failed prior to the other.
AH, but what is to prevent this one side failing before any other, from happening at any time during the "collapse" event for either tower?
You know that the failure mode was a shearing, and exactly how do you know this? and what would prevent at any possible time during the "collapse" event, for the same sort of failure that caused the tip of the top of the south tower?
Ah, but in the case of the South Tower, its then asserted that the tipping can be a product of gravity acting on a structure where the parts of the structure break in an asymmetrical manner. Therefore, what is to prevent tipping any time throughout the "collapse" event of either tower? The fact is, the forces applied by a mass if rubble falling down can not be considered to be uniform in nature, and in addition the structure itself is not perfectly uniform in strength of connections within, therefore there must be huge opportunity for the same sort of tipping as was observed in the south tower, to happen at any time during the collapse of either tower. what magic kept the collapse event uniform so as to progress straight down rather than slipping off to one side or another? and given the tipping of the south tower, its already a given that under the influence of gravity, part of the tower can get off-center.
and your simplistic answer doesn't account for the tip of the south tower or the fact that at any time in the "collapse" event, the upper mass could have gone off-center and therefore, dumped major quantities of rubble over the side of the tower thus stopping the action.
Does anyone have any explanation as to why the pix in post #23 of this thread is not at least as likely to have happened as any other outcome.(?) What?
So what makes the hypothetical penetration of the South Tower wall by the alleged "FLT175" anything other than a cartoon by that standard?
where is the "thousands" of eyewitness reports were the individual indeed spotted a commercial airliner crashing into the WTC tower and indeed positively identified the object in question as an airliner and not a drone, missile, flying saucer ..... or? and also the TV pictures do not count, the video that is alleged by the MSM to be the record of "FLT175" striking & penetrating the South Tower, is BOGUS! its a fake video!
Sorry kiddo,but there ARE accounts by eyewitnesses,you've been linked to them repeatedly,but you ignore them,and there was media in New York from all over the world,are you saying they were 'in on it' also,and that their film of the airliner hitting was 'bogus' too? Sorry,but until you can PROVE it was 'faked' with airtight evidence,it willremain proof that an airliner struck the tower You're really starting to grasp at straws now,and I'm becoming a bit embarassed for you..
embarrassed ? really? BTW: I have always known that the video of "FLT175" was fake, where have you been? this entire scene is psychological warfare.
at one time you likely 'knew' santa claus was real too Show the proof that the video was 'faked',and answer about the rest of the world's news services filming it as well
There are a limited number of videos that actually allege to show "FLT175" striking the wall of the south tower, the major network shots have the south wall of the south tower obscured by the north tower at the time of the hit. http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/ The whole "FLT175" bit is a total fiasco. an airliner can NOT strike a wall and do what was alleged to have happened. "oh but the plane was going SOOOO fast!" really people? all logic & reason has been so badly bent out of shape that people believe this stuff? Fact is that there were NO airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001
Yes,I bothered,and why should I take anything at face value from a site called 'The WTC2 media hoax'? Might you have an unbiased source?
