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: ForteanOrg
There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.
We have all seen the quality of their "research"....
This is their leader!
also www.csicop.org...
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: jaffo
I'm just a fortean - we are neither skeptics nor believers, just observers and note-takers.
About the manuals that weren't changed: you seem to have information I do not have. Do you have any sources to quote (apart from yourself)? My opinion is based on conversations with engineers and architects. There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: enlightenedservant
1. I did not question the WEBSITE, I said they all went back to the same bullsh*t story told by a PAKISTANI Diplomat that no one supports. If ABC (CNN, FOX, REUTERS, SKY, BBC etc....) linked to the same Paki diplomat I would treat them the same.
2. The pipeline, stopped being a concern of the United States Government in 1998. What Karzai did afterwards is irrelevant.
3. I said that the Pentagon has a room full of war plans...up to and including extraterrestrial attack....it does not mean that anyone is actively moving to put those plans in play. And again, see the part about a UN conference that the Paki diplomat attended where he came up with his story. The same conference that did not have any members of the US Government in attendance. At worst, it was a drunken statement made by a retired individual with no active knowledge of what was going on in the US government.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
To take down the massive World Trade Centers, you would need to shatter all of the support beams at the same time, from the top to the bottom of the buildings. Otherwise this happens:
Planes alone aren't going to shatter all of the support beams (as even controlled demolitions have to be executed properly or else they fail, like the video shows). That's why I said I would've been more inclined to believe the official story if it said terrorists used a combination of controlled demolitions & airplane collisions. That would have also explained Building 7.
More importantly though, why do you care what I believe? It's my opinion.
YOU believed softer objects could not damage harder objects so we have already seen your understanding of physics,materials and kinetic energy are WRONG so what else could be WRONG!!!
Well since my FIRST job leaving school was in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company also doing a course of civil engineering while working there and have spent 35+ years in the construction industry mostly on technical roles you are talking BS.
They don's need to shatter beams and like I said if you look at the shape of the entrance holes they match up with the column tree joint system.
If you look at the impact areas and when they fell the South tower was hit second but FELL FIRST, greater load above the impact area, it also fell towards the area of impact.
The Towers did not fall in their own foot print, they did not fall at free fall speed (if you watch the videos debris from above overtakes the collapse) the dust was not STEEL it was all the material I listed before , sheet rock , fire protection etc.
Your entitled to your opinion BUT when you come out with statements that are wrong , someone will correct what you think.
originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: enlightenedservant
I too don't believe the damage caused by the planes could have brought down the towers.
Something else HAD to have been used......
Especially the speed they came down.....it was like no resistance at all.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Huh? I never said I "believed softer objects could not damage harder objects". That's a straight up lie.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.
The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.