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 ignorant_ape
some replies to points raised , in no particular order :
" dust "- what exactly does dust proove ? the mechanical collapse of the structure would produce all the dust you could ever want and more besides
" squibs " - a quick look at just what a squib is: en.wikipedia.org...(explosive) pay particular notice to " very suseptible to EM radiation "
" missile / plane " half the audience are back peddling , and the rest claiming " remote control " - KISS in any senario you have to dispose of the jets and passengers , so flying them into buildings is the best " solution " for any senario
Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I'm simply waiting for any PROOF of anything happening other then what 90% of experts claim happened... with the other 10% not being able to make up their minds.
Understanding construction & controlled demolition, how else would those towers have fallen? Fall over like a tree? Open like a banana? Make no dust?
Looking for answers to questions that have been answered with PROOF, though you may not like or even understand, does not constitute PROOF or even plausible DOUBT in a rationally thinking person's book.
One minute you claim they fell “too straight” and another you “80% out of footprint” or some such nonsense… of course I’m paraphrasing, but you need to find a theory & stick to it.
Do you even understand how idiotic YOU sound by saying “nothing but freaking dust” or “no large chunks”. That is almost shameful… though the floors were each huge, each about 50,000 square feet, they were only 4”-6” thick, poured onto metal substrate. I would expect nothing but for them to be totally pulverized.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking
Originally posted by LoganCale
bsbray11: It would seem to me that the top section of the tower correcting its tilt means that it's hitting something on the way down to straighten it out. Otherwise, would it not continue to free fall down at an angle if it had no resistance?
The puffs of dust seem more likely to me to be crushed powder from concrete and wallboard being forced out of broken windows, because of their randomness. There isn't a uniformity I would expect to see if there were explosives on each floor.
I find it more likely that an explosive was set off in the sublevels, damaging or destroying the base of the core and causing the core to drop down, caving in the floors. There is a video where you can see the spire on the tower dropping faster than the outer walls. However, I don't know if that alone is indicative of this happening. Does anyone know how far up the core goes? Does it go to the roof level? I would suspect it would to support the weight of the antenna.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Not all of the concrete was reduced to dust.
If anything the debris from WTC being outside the footprint argues against controlled demolition, IMHO.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Only if the center of gravity wasn't still in the footprint, but it was. The debris didn't just fall off one side, etc., like you'd expect from a gravity-driven collapse. It was ejected out pretty consistently in all directions, outside of the footprint, while still being centered around the footprint of the building. That's not indicative of a gravity-driven collapse. That's indicative of some force ejecting materials laterally.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
From what I understand, nothing would have been strong enough to make the buildings fall to either side, with the forces involved, demolition or not, the only way they could have collapsed would have been straight down.
I agree that the dust was shot out in all directions.
Some do look odd, but in the loose change video they point to jets of air only a few floors down from the collapse which I don't think lend weight to their explosives argument.
Do you know of any controlled demolitions that shoot debris out like that?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like to argue that air caused the squibs? I would have no problem with such an argument, but you would have to prove that jets of compressed air could move down air shafts and halfway across whole floors, offices and all, without equalizing. Then you would have to prove that, after accomplishing this, compressed air could pulverized concrete/sheet wall/etc. into dust and eject it over 100 feet laterally into the NYC sky. Because that's pretty much the air compression argument on the squibs.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
What I was talking about was your contention that 80% of the debris lying outside the footprint proved controlled demolition.
I don't see why it seems impossible that air pressure blasted down elevator shafts to fly out windows 20 stories down.
Another thing is the time scale of the collapses. If in the half second before the collapse reached said floor dust reached the window, why wouldn't it burst out? The pressure seems more than adequate in that timescale.
Again, I'd like to keep this civil, there's no need to act patronizing, mock me, or roll your eyes. I am just trying to clarify things.