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
a reply to: wmd_2008
You said you had never heard of any structural engineer who believed that the buildings came down due to demolition. I gave you three names. I believe we're done.
originally posted by: VVV88
None of the black boxes for the four planes were "officially" recovered, is that correct? And how many black boxes from US commercial plane crashes had not been recovered prior to 911?
originally posted by: Mr Headshot
I think, honestly, there is at least a somewhat reasonable explanation for this.
Why not assume that, yes, those buildings were wired, but as a safety measure?
Perhaps this is a long shot, but to me it would make sense to have the buildings wired to demo in the event that their structure was compromised. The reason for this would be to, obviously, save the surrounding buildings from damage caused by a tower toppling over.
Not saying the whole event wasn't shady as hell, but surely the whole thing can't be that covert.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: Mianeye
Let's compare that one boom to a real demolition.
Hmmm...something is wrong ?
Yes something is wrong.
I noticed a similar type of thing when I moved from City to Open country in Montana.
In your theory, it would be much louder, but two things.
1) They were not using weapons grade thermite on your building. Thermite is quieter.
2) In an open environment, the sound will not be muffled as it would in a place congested with other buildings.
Just as my loud exhaust was quieter with no buildings to reflect the sound.
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
This toppled over nonsense. Go look at the sampoong department store in South Korea. Structural failure. Straight down. That's what happened here. All this primary school nonsense about melting steel. 1st year university level structures and materials. Steel loses 50% of its structural strength at about 500°. Then the graph really plummets. A candle is about 1000°. It's note Tring to bend physics.
Really, not one report from ANYONE can agree with your claims of superheated air, a pyroclastic flow, sand blasting or burnt and tossed toys.
EVERY report claims the air was warm not more than 100 degrees, not hot, Noone died from the dust cloud, and the cars were tossed BEFORE the dust cloud, and AFTER, but in no way matched some supposed volcanic flow, and people too, for blocks and DID NOT DIE….like a magic carpet.
originally posted by: Unknown88
Hello new on ATS and am going to jump right in.
After so many years and it looks to me that nobody is yet to ask the right questions.
All i ever see is the discussion about was it controlled demolition, termite so on.
When in fact that is the least important part of it all.
I don't trust the official story ether, but what was in the buildings they destroyed?
Any sensitive documents in a office building this large, whats the connection?
Look at the corporations in the buildings and find the reason, find ther reason find the means, find the means you find the guilty.
Thanks for reading.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Shadow Herder
There are people who claim that there were no explosions.
& now that this has been shared, they will move the goal posts. Again.
Prepare for some mental gymnastics.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So damaged and for safety reasons they brought it down.
Since when does the FDNY use explosives to demolish buildings?
When did they carry the tonnes of explosives into the buildings?
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So damaged and for safety reasons they brought it down.
Since when does the FDNY use explosives to demolish buildings?
When did they carry the tonnes of explosives into the buildings?
Some people know.
IF the building was not controlled/pulled that September after noon, the building could of caused more loss of life
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.
Nobody believes that. You've also misunderstood what happened. Carry on though.
as they pancaked down
The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 78th and 79th floors of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another close call at the Empire State Building.[61] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.[62] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was, ironically, lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[63]