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: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...
Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.
The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...
Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.
The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?
originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: mrthumpy
I could join in, but I thought I'd put it on this site as I don't believe the official version. I have to wonder just what West and Co. actually have as a motive to set up the site....I mean, there's some work to do with all those calcs in his answers, is he not busy enough with his home life and work ?
I tried a quick web search for who is Mick West but didn't come up with much. Structural engineering is not my forte, others have more skill in that field so there's a lot of back and forth over there.Are Mick West and his band of provers solely setting up the site to spread the good word or are they employees of another agency that allows them the time and details to continue their hobby? It appears to me that there's a fair bit of work going on there for someone who's not doing it as a main source of income.
I have no stance on HRC's involvement though she is corrupt to the core.
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...
Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.
The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?
Impossible, with uniformity, absent the use of explosives.
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...
Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.
The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?
Impossible, with uniformity, absent the use of explosives.
originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: mrthumpy
From your post history I could envisage you already are on the debunk train. So I'll ask you, why do you think it's necessary to 'debunk' all the CT's that abound on here. Are you the real truth seeker or just to disseminate your own version.
IOW, what are your motives? Altruism?
originally posted by: Fermy
Neither of the above posts answer my question on what your motives are. However, you've both been jumping on ant responses to this thread quickly, where are you guys based? I'm in Europe.