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: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: samkent
I can say that because the steel below the fire was untouched and at ambient temperature, therefore uncompromised. If the top of the structure indeed went into freefall due to heat diminishment, when the falling mass hit the first section of uncompromised steel it would have either stopped and sat there or toppled off to one side or the other. The loading retained far too much symmetry to be natural.
If the top of the structure indeed went into freefall due to heat diminishment, when the falling mass hit the first section of uncompromised steel it would have either stopped and sat there or toppled off to one side or the other.
originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
that as the floors fell on top of the supporting columns
differential loading from the collapse would have caused an uneven collapse of the structure below causing the crumbling mass on top to shift to one side or another. You will never understand,
If you had any instruction in steel design you might understand that as the floors fell on top of the supporting columns that they were actually putting the columns into compression
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Sremmos80
I think a mass of about 150000kg hitting the building at over 200 metres/sec had something to do with it.
m.v^2/2 remember and then there was subsequent heat from fire to produce enough lateral force to cause remaining intact core column welds to break.
originally posted by: Flatcoat
The heat from the fire caused lateral force? And enough to break 80 floors worth of untouched steel columns??
Why are you here?
Are there any CT's that you do believe in? Do you always believe the gov's official story?
You seem pretty well versed in both the OS as well as the CT's regarding 911. That seems pretty unusual for someone that believes the OS.
So really, why are you here?
So what took the cores down in both towers?
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Guys!!!!
In this last page we have all gone a little off-topic like i said in the OP this thread is about why there has so far been no legal action taken against those the 9/11 truth movement believes were responsible for the attacks.
Can we please try to stay on topic
a reply to: BennyHavensOh
Question for you then?
If you are so sure that based on your expertise that there is no way those buildings should have fell the way they did then why have A&E for 9/11 truth not taken legal action against the American government to prove this lie?
Its all very well and good making all these accusations but until they do something serious like putting together some kind of legal case, all they will ever have is accusations.
Here is a video. Its quick and to the point, a must watch and SFW
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Just curious why denbunkers and thruthers alike always drag the conversation to the collapse of the wtc and not the planning and execution of the attacks?
It has been revealed that debunkers pose a thuthers promote Space weapons, and collapse theories as to keep the discussion in the waters of conspiracy rather than available facts.
Here is a video. Its quick and to the point, a must watch and SFW