It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: andr3w68
Well you have people called STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS many THOUSANDS of them worldwide yet you dont see them jumping to claim it was demolished.
I have very regular contact with people like that due to my job and have NEVER heard one back that theory.
originally posted by: DarthFazer
originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: _BoneZ_
Interesting that there have been no responses yet, but three flags on this.
I don't believe what this man is saying is true. There have been many books out that have debunked these conspiracy theories on 9/11.
There are also books out that prove without a doubt 9-11 was an inside job. Common sense and rules of science say what happened was impossible hence it is all a lie on behalf of the official explanation. I question your logic and reasoning, people have infact responded to this thread.
Tell me fire can melt iron beams.
Not possible apply occams razor , still not possible.
Do you have a bridge and swamp land in florida for sale ?
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008
And guess what, it was falling onto thousands of pounds of undamaged material would damage the falling materiel.
We all know newtons 3rd law and that does not change that day, or well some people think it did.
But we see the top section just fall straight down, nothing changes it's speed or direction, how is that possible if it is falling onto itself? What is causing the core to just give way?
Why does the core not resist anything? Was that being held up by the trusses and exo as well?
Or is the core from the top section just obliterating the core below the whole way down?
originally posted by: BilboBaggins3
originally posted by: Iwinder
originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: andr3w68
He lacks the years of schooling that it takes to get a degree in engineering. Like the people who say that this was MOST LIKELY not a controlled demolition.
You can't say "OH, he was there, so that makes him infallible in his testimony."
I respect him for his service to the public, and this man is braver that 99% of the population. But I don't think he knows what he is talking about.
But within half an hour or so the MSM was quoting the famous Harley guy that was supposedly just a citizen on the street.
He took the time to explain the "Pancake Theory" to us peons on National news and on every channel.
And I ask this......What were his qualifications that day?
Interesting how that narrative/lie was conveniently planted in everyone's mind so early on by someone who just knew how it all came down!
Now this is the IMPORTANT part when the collapsing MASS IMPACTS the floorslab/core area below it's ONLY THE CONNECTIONS SUPPORTING THAT SLAB THAT RESISTS THE BULK OF THE IMPACT FORCES the core is a far smaller target area than the floorslab.
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: signalfire
Thanks for writing, you are correct that in the 9/11 forum, I say that a lot.
In the immortal words of somebody or other, "Whoaaa, man. Chill out, dude."
Maybe stick to your beach, you'll be happier there. You seem like a good sort of chap but I wonder why you bother asking your questions, if you can't be bothered to look into it for yourself and come to your own conclusions?
I've got two reasons for denying personal knowledge of the subject and asking questions.
1.) I really don't know, and I'm looking for answers. I don't have infinite time and I'm not prepared to go down every "rabbit hole of massive proportions." If I followed that logic to it's extreme, I could study things until I was 90, then come to ATS and say "I've nothing to ask, I know everything."
Further, it occasionally points out an issue that had been neglected in the discussion, a fresh pair of eyes, so to speak.
2.) The people who have studied this at some length have formed their opinions. Posters can (and do) shout at each other all day long with no effect other than getting the whole forum shut down for a while.
I would have thought it would have dawned on people here, that you have to try to persuade the people who are undecided, and poorly informed on this issue. People, in short, like me.
I'm an ideal test subject, I'm starting with a very slight leaning towards the government story. Not that I agree with it, because I'm not completely sure what their story is, but because the marshaled a whole lot of people to look at it. But I could change my mind in a flash.
Forgive me, but it seems the main occupation is to tell other posters that they're blind if they can't see it, it's obvious and incontrovertible, endlessly coming up with new bits of information and going back to the "it's incontrovertible " cycle.
We're all here trying to parse it out,
You've persuaded me that this subject is still worth discussing. If the group's advice is that I go explore the issue on my own until I'm fully up to speed before I come back in, I can do that.
I can, but I won't.
YOU people always look at as 12 floors destroying the rest it's not it's 12 destroy one then 12+1 destroying 1 then 12+1+1 destroying one we can see pictures online of sheared cleats and bolts which fixed the trusses to the walls.
The problem with the tower floors was the fact they could drop internally within the structure.
The flooslab impacted could only resist the impact up to the point that the cleats/bolts would absorb the load.
I have asked to try the impact calculator you haven't like the rest I wonder why.
As for the fires in WTC 7 there are plenty of pictures showing the fires even video.
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
As for the disingeniuos mob at Architects for the truth the internal steelwork failed the penthouse
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"
As for explosions when large structural components fail guess what they make a lot of noise
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide.
LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".
[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.
Stick in a 10kg mass use the height between floors of the towers as the drop distance
NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".
Again, what do melted beams have to do with the WTC - or do you think there were melted beams there?