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.
You forgot about WTC 7. What was the construction flaw in that building, and what did we learn from it?
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ipsedixit
Not eeeven one whistle blower, huh? Are we going to have to wait for 50 years to get JFK style deathbed confessions?
Would you blow the whistle if you were paid big money and were told that your family would die as a result of you talking?
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer
You forgot about WTC 7. What was the construction flaw in that building, and what did we learn from it?
I guess you didn't bother to click the link in my previous post.
Column 79 was the Achilles heel.
It's the next thread down. Sorry.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer
Would you blow the whistle if you were paid big money and were told that your family would die as a result of you talking?
How do you explain 'big money' to your brother? Neighbor?
You can't hind 'big money'. Others will be jealous. Others will talk.
You also have to pay 'big money' to the death squads too.
With that overall line of reasoning there must be some super secret bureau in charge of 'Keeping the Secret'.
More people in on it.
Where does it end?
Why doesn't this bureau silence Richard Gage?
Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?
NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.
Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?
And how exactly do you and they know that column 79 was the problem? Do you have any evidence? Or just a very implausible theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever
originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.
Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.
NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.
originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.
Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.
NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.
Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.
NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.
Thats interesting, considering this video…
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst
Blah, blah…
I asked you how a hurricane compares to a jet liner?
We can't 'discuss' anything if you keep dodging that question I asked you waaay back…
I will assume there are some topics that you are not emotionally attached to, that you are capable of adding to discussion in an intelligent manner, and forgive your obstructionism and childishness.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: ISawItFirst
What I am wondering is what makes those inner load bearing walls different from the WTC outer load bearing walls?
ESB has a latticework of steel beams throughout.
WTC only had this in the inner core.
The exterior could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced.
The bracing came from light weight floor trusses attached to the inner core.
The inner core could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced either.
Again the floor trusses braced the inner core.
ESB steel work could stand with no bracing at all.
Check construction websites.
They all say that no sky scraper will ever be constructed using the same method as WTC again.
We learn from our mistakes.
originally posted by: intrptr
ETA:I see soul waxer beat me to it. It is a blast, people need to claim this occurred at building 7, which is fine, just prove it did. Prove it…
originally posted by: soulwaxer
originally posted by: intrptr
ETA:I see soul waxer beat me to it. It is a blast, people need to claim this occurred at building 7, which is fine, just prove it did. Prove it…
Well, the firemen are very close to WTC. You can tell by all the dust and debris from the exploded twin towers.
But yes, the blast could be coming from another building than 7, but then you need to ask yourself why this wasn't reported and questioned in the news or in the 9/11 commission report. All we got from them is that there were no explosions on 9/11 except for the planes hitting the buildings. There were however several reporters who were live at the scene describing explosions, even controlled demolition, but none after the day of 9/11... Then there are the many witness testimonies describing explosions in the buildings. And of course we have all the video footage of WTC 1 and 2 exploding and WTC 7 dropping exactly like a controlled demolition. All that is more than enough proof for me.
soulwaxer
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst
I will assume there are some topics that you are not emotionally attached to, that you are capable of adding to discussion in an intelligent manner, and forgive your obstructionism and childishness.
You said, 'we construct buildings to withstand hurricanes' as though that proved some theory you hold about how planes couldn't have destroyed the twin towers, right? That is your talking point, right?
So show me how planes compare to hurricanes…