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.

 

More Evidence That Airplanes Can't Bring Down Buildings

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
...

Tower 7 fell after being bombarded by millions of tons of concrete and steel weakening the entire structure of building 7, the resulting fire torched all the interior structures which were weakend by the debris of tower 2 ? and since the fire burnt for many hours, resulted in the failure of some of the steel support structures and the building collapsed under its own weight.

no where near capable of comparing the two events


...




be careful, writing 'millions' is easy, explaining such surreal numbers, otoh, isn't.

500k tons
the towers were pulverised for the most part, certainly reducing impact damage, one tower weighed approx 500k tons and collapsed into their own footprint.

building 7 never appeared fully ablaze, did it? are you seriously suggesting that a few smoldering fires uniformly collapsed wtc#7?




posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I haven't read any reports that suggests only the wings of the C130 clipped the building in Tehran. If that is so where did the rest of the plane go? Everything I've read so far says the plane slammed straight into the building. Some have said into its base and others at higher levels.

There were reports that the wing/tail caught fire prior to the aircrafts crash.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Tower 7 fell after being bombarded by millions of tons of concrete and steel weakening the entire structure of building 7, the resulting fire torched all the interior structures which were weakend by the debris of tower 2 ? and since the fire burnt for many hours, resulted in the failure of some of the steel support structures and the building collapsed under its own weight.




Ha ha ha, oh, man, hold on, you're killin' me...

Whew. OK. My bad for that string of smilies, but that's the only way I could show how ridiculous the reasons for the official story are becoming. MILLIONS of tons of debris? Uh, 2 things...

1) How come I didn't see this massive amount of debris fall on bldg 7?
2) How come buildings closer to the twins, which remained standing relatively intact, weren't pelted by this mammoth amount of debris?

And, sure, I may be wrong, but damn it if I didn't see bldg 7 fall precisely the same way that the twins did, with no airplane impact. You would expect that it would have caved in and fell all sloppy, with MILLIONS of tons of debris falling on it.

I'm too tired to laugh anymore.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by MERC
Partial being the operative word here...

The main point being the WTC complex was so unique in its height and engineering design, you can't compare it to a run-of-the-mill building.


Man, you gotta love the doublespeak. The complex was one-of-a-kind, incomparable to mere ordinary buildings. It was a glorious achievement in engineering, the pinnacle of architecture...but it still fell after being hit by planes. Oh, yeah, and diesel fuel fires...and jet feul fires. And magic gravity created by the uber terrorist Osama bin Saddam Abu Musab Hussein Laden al-Zarqawi.




Boy, this site sure is entertaining.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
It's not the plane that brings down a builing, it's the heat that bends the steel and causes a collapse. And anything that can burn, burns and the heat just destroys the structure.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join