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.

 

Why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on their own taking WTC 7 without explosives

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
For a change?

I have yet to see a detailed analysis of how the buildings were rigged and what the sequence might have been.

Why don't we see at least one cohesive theory on how the demolition was accomplished and then we can pick it apart the way many of you imagine you pick apart the NIST report.

Let's see if anyone can come up with positive evidence for demolition.




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Sorry to intrude on a great discussion but being from australia none of these theory,s get any coverage in mainstream media down here. i have read through all posts on this thread and also the flt 93 thread by esdad.

Do these conspiracy theory's carry much weight in the US. Are they prominent in media outlets.Would the US govt seriously consider conducting such subterfuge on its citizens.I must admit that some of the evidence provided has me thinking.

But please remember im an outsider and definately not an expert, just an interested bystander.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
What we never did is compare the 2 events.

Event 1... tower 1 and 2
Event 2 .. building 7


What I wana try is compare them not in the way they were constructed
but the way they went down.

The way they went down is a bit diferent.
At the twin towers we got this sort of fire works made out of dust and objects from the towers on the top where the top of the building falls out on the exterior but the other half from the bottom falls in like an implosion.

At building 7 it all falls in it's interior from top to bottom top included.

So to say, there is a diference betwen the twin towers and building 7.

Now if the shockwave did it I ask.

1 Why did it go from the top outwards(exterior) and not inside it's self like it supose to.
2 free fall of the bottom section means that it had to be from the foundation of the building.






Now there is a violent reaction up there, something had to add to the propultion so objects can obtain
an exterior tragectory.

Results of after shockwave does not do this, this can only be caused from explosives.
If it were the sockwave it would go down and nice with out the top of it going wild.
Like this one

I see no wild motion on top of building 7.


So either way fire and shockwaves do not justify what hapen with the twin towers.

There were explosives in the twin towers , no doubt.
Comparing the 2 events.
I say a big bomb went up there.
What ever hapened fire and shockwaves do not justify this.



[edit on 28-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   


proof, anyone? the inside can't fall faster than the outside. and yet, it does.
bombs. maybe it COULD have fallen without bombs, but it didn't.




top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join