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.
Originally posted by zerotime
Originally posted by commonsense4u
The Titanic comparison is very ridiculous. The people that made the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable were most likely rich and extremely arrogant men that believed they could conquer GOD. The claim that a ship can be unsinkable is just as silly to say that a plane is uncrashable. There would be no conspiracies back then because most level headed people know that ships aren't and never can be unsinkable. At the most, it would confirm people's beliefs before this "unsinkable" claim was made.
The people who said the Titanic was unsinkable where the engineers who built it. The people who said the World Trade Center was built to withstand a planecrash were the engineers who built it.
There were and still are Titanic conspiracies. Pull up Google and search titanic conspiracies - there are hundreds.
Originally posted by commonsense4u
I don't think anyone here believes that the towers were undestructable. There is just WWWAAAYYYY to many inconsistencies, to many coincidenses, to many eyewitness accounts, to many improbable things going on that day to blindly believe the official story. Why do you refuse to understand that????
Of course people believe the towers were indestructable - that why they need the squib theory. Read the post directly above your own. The guy says there is no way that a huge skyscrapper was taken down by an airplane. Really? what science did he use to come to that conclusion? I can tell you right now it goes something like this: building is big. Plane is small. Plane can't hurt building.
What inconsistencies? What coincidenses?
Witnesses saw government agents placing bombs in the buildings?
I read that witnesses heard what they said were explosions as the buildings where collapsing. These were 500,000 ton buildings falling down violently from around 1800 feet in the sky. How are they suppose to sound? Like feathers drifting down in the breeze? Millions of pounds of concrete is falling with walls breaking and floors smashing together, steel twisting together. It was violent and it was noisy.
[edit on 18-5-2006 by zerotime]
Originally posted by vor75
For the third time I have suggested that vibrating steel may have caused windows to shatter and, more importantly, allows parts of floors to collapse lower down - thereby compressing air and blowing out windows.
Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead.
And in reference to your new picture: in order for your simple mathematics to work, you are going to have to provide proof that the floors were collapsing perfectly symetrically, and that floors were not collapsing within the intact frame slightly (perhaps 5 floors or so) ahead of the cloud.
Wtf? Like a pinball? Air doesn't behave like that dude. It equalizes; more compressed air thins out into less compressed air. It doesn't fly around in a little stream, without decompressing, heading towards the core and then turning around because of a mere OFFICE DOOR to blow solid debris out of the face of a building! It equalizes with surrounding air.
Originally posted by vor75
I think you are intentionally misconstruing all my points, or you are just unable to grasp them. Either way ...
Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead."
- The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
- There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
- There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
- The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
- The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
- All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.
Originally posted by jmanunc
This will be my last time posting. It has become very clear to me that people who believe that it was the government behind all of this will never change their minds no matter what evidence and facts are put in front of them.
Originally posted by jtma508
Let's assume, just for the moment, that the official story is entirely correct. The buildings were hit with a plane --- except WTC 7 --- but all three fell from some combination of fire and impact damage. This would be HUGE. This would call into question all of the fire safety engineering, structural engineering, building code and architectural standards for large commercial buildings.
There were never any actual tests done to verify what caused the collapse.
Seriously. Think about this. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Gulliani's actions getting rid of all the evidence? And at record speed to boot?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm curious, what exactly was the previous record for removing the debris of the Twin Towers?
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How about at least long enough for the fire inspectors take a look at it?
Long enough so Fire Engineering magizine doesnt ask the mayer to "stop destroying the evidence?
First time a steel and concrete building fell by fire and three fell that day, we needed at least a year to look at all the evidence.