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: samkent
a reply to: RomanMaroni
You might want to try a separate thread.
But I doubt you will get much in the way of activity on your topic.
Most of the CT believers only want to talk about the collapse.
They can't get their minds around the physics involved and therefore it must be some conspiracy.
Well the trouble is that the vast preponderance of the evidence works against the official story.
It is 100% stupid to accept that the buildings would even
fall the exact same way under different circumstances obviously.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: randyvs
I am right on the money!
Ok, are we talking about just some sort of centrally placed large blast, or is 'bombs' just being used as a catch-all term for cutting charges, et al?
Oh, and could you possibly provide some context or background information on the pictures you linked to? The first one certainly does look like the center of a blast zone caused by something like a backpack bomb, but the other two are rather ambiguous. The third one could have also been the result of a structure fire, and the second one really is open for interpretation without any reference.
I challenge anyone to bring an ironworker to this forum
who believes that total bullsh#t. And if he can first pass
my interagation to prove he is an ironworker. Then he'll
yet have to prove to me he actually believes the OS. It's
impossible for an ironworker to believe it.
From now on all I have to say is the risers should have held.
From day one when I got home from work that night I said to
my wife and I quote myself. " That is a controlled demolition,
Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?
"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event...We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Centrally-placed bombs. To properly drop the WTC buildings, they would have had to be gutted. Stairwells and shafts would have had to be cut and weakened, and firewalls removed and steel structures pre-weakened even before cutter charges are placed, a process that would have generated high noise levels, tons of debris, lots of dust and would taken about a year for each WTC building and such an operation was not likely in a fully occupied building.
The towers should have held EEEEEASILY! No problem!
I KNOW THIS!
I don't understand why the first collapse wasn't a topple.