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.
Started to dig other sources of seismologists.
""Shyam Sunder : F.F.Acc. would mean there is no physical resistance under it.""
How do demolition firms get such a massive work of force done.....?
You guessed it :
E X P L O S I V E S !
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux
If I hold your comments to the same standard--the source of the claim--you're in deep trouble in the debate process. That, because your entire case is built upon the claims of government figures with a strong reputation for mendacity.
Really, how solid can a case be when it is built upon the claims of known liars?
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop
How many thousands of bone fragments did they find while they examine the debris of the WTC at the investigation staging ground. Yet no fragments or remains of charges, shaped charges, cut steel, blasting caps, remote detonators, evidence of steel being worked on by explosives, detonation systems. I think you are the one that needs to stop falling for truther lies. Everything you referencee is held to accountability by who. They are govern by what academic standard? You are an obscenity to those that shifted through debris to find human remains and evidence. You are a joke to those at MIT, Purdue, and the insurance company over the WTC 7's policy who tried to truly understand what caused the buildings to fall.
originally posted by: samkent
Once again this conspiracy is supported by speculative claims from people who have no degree in the associated field and who have not personally examined the physical evidence.
It's more of a witch hunt.
Why aren't these so called experts filling law suits in court ?
Why do they only present their claims at paid conventions ?
Why do they publish for profit books ?
originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: bastupungen
Next. What do you think caused 2.25 seconds of truly free fall acceleration during the onset of the global collapse of WTC 7.?
Do you have any other explanation, based on solid physics, math and engineering rules, than EXPLOSIVES causing an implosion.?
Truly free fall acceleration? This claim is wrong. The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below. You should know this by now....
The editors are examining acoustic and visual evidence of the EXPLOSIVE events in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, especially in this case the WTC7 collapse.
They compare an animation of a free falling iron ball with the speed of fall of 100 meters of the WTC7 height. There's no difference to be observed, just as David Chandler later proved to NIST, who then did their own NIST calculations and came even closer to the speed of fall in a vacuum. In other words, free fall acceleration.
Rick Siegel's tape recorded a large explosion 9.5 seconds before any signs of "collapse" were visible.
Tony Szamboti agrees that an 8 story buckle can achieve ffa. No explosives needed. You know who he is, correct?
MrBig2430 : Truly free fall acceleration? This claim is wrong. The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below. You should know this by now....
The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page:
I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.
The building went from full support to zero support
I N S T A N T L Y