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.

 

Pull IT

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you have the ones that prove it was a demolition? Please post them.

The burdon of proof is on the "official" reports which do not include these much needed calculations. How can I do any calculations without knowing the true construction of the buildings? Get me the construction documents and then we'll talk calculations.


Exactly. NIST and probably some teams under FEMA had access to the drawings and didn't do squat with them. They're de facto classified. You can't even find general safety factor figures anymore, because NIST cut them out. Wayne Trumpman referenced safety factor ratings from NIST back a while ago, and now where can you find them? I think they mention one core column FoS and it's a good deal lower than what Trumpman cited, requiring only a 3rd of the total core columns to go before a floor could no longer handle its own weight, whereas with the earlier figure it was 2/3. And NIST says itself that one third wasn't even compromised pre-collapse. They say, in all likelihood, it was only a few of the 47 (less than 10, I know, and more like 5 or 7 or something), and then some slightly larger number that were at least somewhat damaged, and the chances of them being warped by heat to cause a failure, to my knowledge, wasn't even seriously discussed. And that would make sense, because you are not going to fail one of those beasts in an hour-long office fire that can't stay in one place. So the story became that the trusses were what warped and that they pulled the outer columns inward. So what happened to the core again?


If the buildings fell on their own, not much theory would be needed. End of story. Let alone a constantly-evolving and intentionally vague "theory" like NIST's, which doesn't even try to explain either of the global collapses, but only how they started. I don't get why people aren't bothered by that. There is no "official explanation" anymore on why the towers fell down to the ground.

I say this as someone who is familiar with the kind of math engineers have to use, which can take into account even forces in motion and everything you would need to know. We would have had calculations by now if they could get any to work, and they would be logical and come out showing exactly what went wrong, and where, and by how much. It wouldn't even have to be that detailed or in-depth.

They could just say, x structure had to be compromised for this floor to be overcome by the mass it was holding up, and this is what caused it, and this is the energy that was consumed to do so, and this was the energy available as time progressed when the top floors became kinetic, and this is how much it took to destroy all of the lower floors. And here's the difference, if there is one. And they would show their math, and do their tests accordingly to back up their major assumptions.


In reality, what happened was they avoiding safety factors, so now we don't know how many columns it would've taken to fail, before a whole floor would've lost it. But you know what? It would have to be an awfully damned low one, because there weren't but a handful of BUCKLED perimeter columns to be observed on any given floor, out of some 240, in addition to the ones severed and etc. to start out with (




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I have never seen explosives placards on fire trucks at all. If the fire fighters were going to blow a building I am pretty sure there not going to have explosives on the old hook and ladder and I am pretty sure I have never seen one placarded for explosives and those are mandatory for explosive laden vehicles.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcgilligan02
I have never seen explosives placards on fire trucks at all. If the fire fighters were going to blow a building I am pretty sure there not going to have explosives on the old hook and ladder and I am pretty sure I have never seen one placarded for explosives and those are mandatory for explosive laden vehicles.


Why do people still use the straw man of "the firemen did it"? Obviously, the firemen didn't demolish the building. "They" in the statement that "they made the decision to pull" could be anyone.

As far as the burdon of proof is on me to prove the CD theory, I don't think so. The burdon of proof is on the official reports to prove what they say happened actually did happen. So far, all I've seen are tweeked out computer models.

Where are the calculations of what happened from impact to global collapse? If this "theory" is so true, it should be easy to prove. Why haven't they yet?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

OR

"We have a sufficient death toll; no one will believe we did this anyway so lets go ahead and pull it"

[edit on 23-1-2007 by freakyty]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Actually, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove something.

In the case of the official story, the burden on them is to show how the building collapsed from the documented structural damage to the building.


It is not on them to prove a negative, as in, proving that bombs were not used.

As far as the CD theorists go, the burden is on them to prove their theory as well.

The same goes for any theory be it elephants, or leprechauns, or occult magic.


If you are going to tell people that elephants brought down WTC 7 because the official story wasnt good enough for you, then people will laugh at you.


If you want people to believe your theory, then present some solid positive evidence in favor of the theory.

There is no evidence that bombs were even in Building 7, just as there is no evidence that elephants were in the building.

So, enough dodging, does anyone have positive evidence for the existence or use of explosive devices at Building 7 that day?

Or is it as I said, that there is no positive evidence for bombs?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Here is a pretty decent site about WTC 7.


www.911myths.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Ok, I don't know how to say this without being rude, but all the evidence one should need to see that it was a controlled demolition is the simple video of WTC7 falling. Common sense alone should have told everyone that. But these days, common sense is just not common. Let me get specific, yet stay in laymen's terms.

The Game Called Jenga.

If you haven't played it, or don't know what Jenga is, then it is probably because you have been living under a rock or somewhere similar.

Look at the picture above. Now, try to imagine that Jenga game on a table that is only about 3 inches bigger than it on all sides. Now imagine pulling 2 pieces from the bottom, and the game falling symmetrically straight down, and no pieces falling off the table.

Oops, wait, if your brain can actually imagine the above, then you have failed my IQ test. The above is not possible, no matter how you stack the pieces. Try it, it will just fall to one side, off the table.

Why does it do this? Because of the Second law of thermodynamics.
en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, it means that, naturally, things like to move where there is less pressure, or less resistance. The air inside of a balloon, always wants to escape because there is less pressure outside of it. Cut a small bit out of the side of a tree, and the tree will want to fall towards that cut, because the side without a cut has more pressure than the side that doesn't. I don't know how else to explain it.

The only other way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, like WTC7, is to damage the side of it, and burn it, like WTC7. LOL j/k. Seriously, the only way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, is to stack it in columns, and take out each level as it is falling, from the bottom, up. There may be other ways, but it includes taking out several floors at the same time, with some type of external force. Or else, the second law of thermodynamics will force the pieces to fall to one side or another. Just like this building did...



...and if you believe in the official story, WTC7 should have fallen like the building above. Remember this is a steal building, held together by welds and rivets. Unless you break each weld and rivet at the same time, one side will have more pressure than the "structurally damaged side", and the "burnt side" of WTC7.

Does that make sense?

To sum it all up, the "fires" would have had to burn every load bearing steal beam at exactly the same temperature, and at exactly the same time. Also, since there was "structural damage" (which really only looks cosmetic from pictures), the fires would have had to burn fast enough as to mimic an instant "cut", in order to reproduce the symmetrical downward collapse.

Just look at this picture...



...no damage to that side, and no visible fires. That means, if you agree to the official story, the building should have fallen away from the camera position, right on top of the still standing (at the time) WTC 6. But it didn't, it fell straight down into its own footprint.

Common sense rules out "structural damage do to fires and debris", and it is absolutely controlled demolition. No doubt.

Cosmetic damage should not be confused with structural damage.

I find it hard to believe Controled Demolishion companys waste so much time and money knocking down a building with syncronized explosives, when they can just damage a few supports, and light it on fire..

[edit on 23-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1150111but all the evidence one should need to see that it was a controlled demolition is the simple video of WTC7 falling. Common sense alone should have told everyone that.


If "all the evidence one should need to see" consists of the collapse "looking like" something, and common sense, then your standard of evidence has to be very low.

While "common sense" and similarity is all it takes for you, it is not enough to prove it to anyone else.


Common sense rules out "structural damage do to fires and debris", and it is absolutely controlled demolition. No doubt.


Please explain how that is even logical, those are not the only two possible choices. And that is negative evidence anyway. You can no more 100% rule out the "official story" by proving a negative, than you can 100% rule out the existence ofbombs by proving a negative.

Where is the positive evidence in favor of bombs?

Please hold the CD theory to the same standards as you would hold the official story.


None of your post contained any solid positive evidence of the presence of explosives, let alone the use of it.

I don't care how impossible the "official story" is, I want to know why the demolition theory should even be considered plausible with no positive evidence pointing towards the use of bombs.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If "all the evidence one should need to see" consists of the collapse "looking like" something, and common sense, then your standard of evidence has to be very low.

While "common sense" and similarity is all it takes for you, it is not enough to prove it to anyone else.


I don't know if you work for the government, but what would it take for you to believe in a CD scenario? I mean, obviously, we can't go back and find a shape charge or etc. What about physics? I guess the laws of physics don't hold any equivalent to evidence? And yes, the physics doesn't match what we are being told. How many times do we have to tell you this before it sinks in? This physics problem can only be solved with the use of another force....i.e. some kind of controlled demolition or the "foot of God" theory. Finding specific evidence of bombs is a straw man tactic. You know there is no way for us to find evidence. The physics alone should be enough. Or do you believe a bullet can go through a man's chest, hit another man in the wrist, do a 180 degree turn, hit the second man again and then hit the first man? Magic bullet theory if you don't know what I'm talking about. Only the government can make such claims of defying laws of physics when they have something to hide.

I don't care what anyone says. A building that has damage to one side WILL NOT fall symetrically.

Since the burdon of proof is on the one trying to prove something. Why don't you, LeftBehind, show us the proof of your theory that a building CAN fall symetrically with asymetric damage. Prove YOUR theory before you start picking apart other's. I doubt you can, therefore you resort to asking us for evidence of bombs. PROVE YOUR THEORY FIRST!!!!!!


Please explain how that is even logical, those are not the only two possible choices. And that is negative evidence anyway. You can no more 100% rule out the "official story" by proving a negative, than you can 100% rule out the existence ofbombs by proving a negative.


Funny how you always use the word bombs. How about the fact that it is physically impossible for a building to fall symetrically with asymetric damage? Prove that one can. Show us a pic, video or even an anectdote showing us that this has EVER happened before or is physically possible with some physics calculations or something. PROVE this and I'll change my stance on my theories. I bet you won't be up for the challenge.


Where is the positive evidence in favor of bombs?


We don't need evidence of bombs to understand that gravity alone could not have done that to the building. Why can't people understand the laws of physics and understand that a building that is damaged on one or two sides WILL NOT fall symetrically?


Please hold the CD theory to the same standards as you would hold the official story.


Please hold the official story to the same standards of the CD theory. I.E. look into every single one of the so-called engineers from NIST and find something that they have mistaken in their lives. Meaning what you guys all do to people like Jones, Rodriguez, Wood et al. Lets try and demean them. How about asking the official story people for positive evidence of a building falling symetrically due to asymetric damage? Funny how the double standards start to appear when you actually look at it huh?


None of your post contained any solid positive evidence of the presence of explosives, let alone the use of it.


I haven't seen one post from you in the time I've been here that contained any solid proof that a building can fall down symetrically with damage to one or two sides.


I don't care how impossible the "official story" is, I want to know why the demolition theory should even be considered plausible with no positive evidence pointing towards the use of bombs.


Because without some form of control, a building WILL NOT fall symetrically with asymetrical damage. That leaves us to the conclusion that SOMETHING else happened that they are either covering up, lying about or covering their buts for.

I want to know why the official theory should even be considered plausible with no positive evidence pointing towards asymetrical damage causing a symetrical collapse.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I'm not trying to prove any theory Griff, I am trying to get some actual proof that would convince me that the CD theory is real. As I have said, I don't care if there are problems with the official story, I just want to see the proof of the CD theory.



Finding specific evidence of bombs is a straw man tactic.



You must be kidding. Please explain how asking someone to prove their theory is a straw man.

I suppose that during a murder investigation, asking to see the murder weapon is some sort of straw man? Please.


I don't care what anyone says. A building that has damage to one side WILL NOT fall symetrically.


Ok, why does that automatically mean that bombs were used? There could be a number of different ways for this to happen. They could have snuck in and weakened the structure during the fire, they could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it. It's no more or less elaborate than the bomb theory.

My point is that there is nothing that points to the use of explosives other than that's what people choose to believe. Just because it looks like it could have been taken down with bombs, does not prove that it was.

Basically you are rationalizing your belief that bombs were used in the face of no evidence for their existence.


PROVE this and I'll change my stance on my theories. I bet you won't be up for the challenge.


I don't know why you said this, I don't care if anyone believes as I do, nor do I care what you believe. I just want to see proof of bombs, which judgeing by the responses, does not exist.

If you can still accept the theory with the lack of evidence, well you have greater faith than I.


Why does this have to be turned around on me? Why is asking for evidence responded to with "Nuh uh, YOU show ME evidence."

It's a simple request, and if any evidence did exist someone would have shown it by now.

So I guess you can continue on with your faith-based bomb theories now that we have established that there is no evidence for the existence of bombs in Building 7.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm not trying to prove any theory Griff, I am trying to get some actual proof that would convince me that the CD theory is real. As I have said, I don't care if there are problems with the official story, I just want to see the proof of the CD theory.


So you dont care if there are problems with the official story?? Why are you even replying on this topic?? If you don't care there are problems, then that is YOUR biggest mistake. If you want proof of CD, then you have to look at the lies in the official report's. NIST's report, and the FEMA/NSCE report. Thats when the big picture comes together... You got 3 government controlled organizations lying about one of the biggest controversys in the entire world, and you don't care??? Wow man.. that screams ignorance, it does. The proof of the CD theory was already explained to you, mentioning thermodynamics, and comparing that with the official reports, and the video of WTC7 collapse. Its right under your nose man, but you don't care. You want to join in on the debate, and oppose peoples positions in the debate, but you don't care, and don't have any information to back up your claims. Thats just insane.


Originally posted by LeftBehind

I suppose that during a murder investigation, asking to see the murder weapon is some sort of straw man? Please.


Obviously you don't have any experiance with homocides. News flash, there isn't always a murder weapon to see. What do the investigators do when they can't find the murder weapon? They use other evidence, like a VIDEO. Wow, you mean a video can be used as evidence? YOU BET, a video is probably the second best piece of evidence any murder investigator can have. Now they just need to piece together the rest of the evidence, like the 100's of pictures taken during the murder, and also, the 100's of eye witnesses that say they heard explosions, etc. Is that all? No, we are in contact with the suspect (the government). Lets question the suspect, and see if his story matches the other hard evidence. Ok, so the suspect tells us their side of the story (NIST reports, FEMA reports), and what do you know, it doesn't hold water! Oh yeah, you dont care if the suspect lies!


..to be continued..

[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ok, why does that automatically mean that bombs were used? There could be a number of different ways for this to happen. They could have snuck in and weakened the structure during the fire, they could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it. It's no more or less elaborate than the bomb theory.


What other device do you know, that can cut 6in. thick steal instantly? Listen to what I have typed in other posts!!! WTC7 fell symmetricaly.. got that? Symmetricaly, straight down, in its own foot print. Got that? That can not happen in a steal building, unless 90% or more of all the load bearing supports are taken out AT THE SAME TIME. With current day technology, some type of explosives is the only way to accomplish such a "perfect" collapse. Heck there are 100's of CD businesses that would love to find out a way to bring down a building like WTC7 came down, without explosives. Usualy CD companys take weeks, even months to plan such a demolishion, yet on 9/11 WTC7 came down with some "small damage and fire" in 9 hours?!? Somethings wrong here... and you can't see it, its a shame.

"The could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it".

What good would that do? WTC1 and WTC2 fell on top of WTC6, and it was still standing. Heck 80% of the entire middle of the building was gone and it was still standing. I have video of the CD crew saying "we are getting ready to pull building 6". There is that word "pull" again. I'd say WTC6 recieved 99% more damage than WTC7 and WTC6 was still standing.. now thats odd too.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
My point is that there is nothing that points to the use of explosives other than that's what people choose to believe. Just because it looks like it could have been taken down with bombs, does not prove that it was.


So you are saying video evidence of a steal building falling symmetricaly is not enough evidence? Sure ok, lets ignore facts that no steal building as ever collapsed do to fire alone, except WTC7. Lets ignore the laws of physics, and thermodynamics. Let's ignore video evidence. Lets ignore eye witnessess. Let's ignore common sense. Heck, lets believe every word the suspect says, and stick with it! Surely the suspect would tell us the truth.

You know whats funny? Here in california, a single picture automaticaly taken when you run a red light will some how be enough evidence that you ran it. Even though there is no evidence to show someone made fake licenses plates that matched yours, and wore a mask that looked like you, and somehow drove the same type of vehicle...


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Basically you are rationalizing your belief that bombs were used in the face of no evidence for their existence.


Basically you are saying video evidence, is not enough evidence of controlled demolition.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
I don't know why you said this, I don't care if anyone believes as I do, nor do I care what you believe. I just want to see proof of bombs, which judgeing by the responses, does not exist.


If you dont care so much, then why are you even replying? Seriously. You will never ever see the evidence if you dont care.


Conclusion...

I have come to the conclusion you are close minded. You don't care about the NIST and FEMA lies. You don't care about the laws of physic's and thermodynamics. And you don't care about video evidence, and other hard evidence of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Also, you will never find the truth if your attitude.

-please note- for the 100th time, controlled demolition does not mean "bombs". Its means someone planned, and had controll over the destruction of the buildings.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
You cannot prove a negative.

I don't know why you all continue to say that no steel building ever fell that way. Of course none have, we are talking about a unique event in human history. With no precedence even similar to the WTC, it is ludicrous to assume that it would be 100% impossible for the building to fall from structural damage.

How can you say this definitively without any similar examples or tests?

You can't, and the lack of evidence becomes clearer the more that someone resorts to personal attacks and official story attacks.

You shouldn't need my opinions, nor the official story to prove your theory. If it was sound it would stand on it's own merits.

The video evidence in no way conclusively proves demolition, especially with no clear reports from the charges heard. It is disingenous to compare it to a normal demolition yet ignore the things that don't match up, such as no sounds of demo charges going off before the penthouse fell.

If you have some real positive evidence that can stand on it's own merits, please post it. If not, then at least admit that it's only speculation and not some smoking gun that you'd have to be an idiot to not believe.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Forget what the person above me said about not having enough facts. If speculation is not enough fact, what about real world events that are taking place 6 year's after the fact.

Europe's 2nd largest newspaper's cover is 911 was a inside job
Emergence of many truth movement websites online where government can not censor information or has not yet.
Scholars for truth around the world say that official story was bogus.
People waking up to the truth everyday.
Low approval ratings for Bush.

You can keep telling people that 9/11 wasn't government sponsored because they are only speculating. But you'll change you're tune when it becomes a controversial topic in mainstream news one day.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You cannot prove a negative.


Yup you are going on ignore.. see ya..

You can prove a negative.. go back to school.

One thing I do not care about, is seeing you walk with the rest of the sheep.

Back on topic..

There was clear reports from the charges heard. Many of them. Even over the hundreds of sirens, screams, cars honks, and even after the trauma. Everyone in New York was in adrenaline mode, and they STILL herd explosions. I don't even think LeftBehind has even read any reports, or even watched any videos of the witnesses. Lacking information, he is.

When someone can explain how it is possible for the WTC7 building to fall down symmetrically, when it has only damage to one side (asymmetrically) then maybe your official story can hold water.. wait no.. now then you will have to prove that an office fire can melt steal that has fireproofing on it. lol... good luck.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]


[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1150111
Ok, I don't know how to say this without being rude, but all the evidence one should need to see that it was a controlled demolition is the simple video of WTC7 falling. Common sense alone should have told everyone that. But these days, common sense is just not common. Let me get specific, yet stay in laymen's terms.

The Game Called Jenga.

If you haven't played it, or don't know what Jenga is, then it is probably because you have been living under a rock or somewhere similar.

Look at the picture above. Now, try to imagine that Jenga game on a table that is only about 3 inches bigger than it on all sides. Now imagine pulling 2 pieces from the bottom, and the game falling symmetrically straight down, and no pieces falling off the table.

Oops, wait, if your brain can actually imagine the above, then you have failed my IQ test. The above is not possible, no matter how you stack the pieces. Try it, it will just fall to one side, off the table.

Why does it do this? Because of the Second law of thermodynamics.
en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, it means that, naturally, things like to move where there is less pressure, or less resistance. The air inside of a balloon, always wants to escape because there is less pressure outside of it. Cut a small bit out of the side of a tree, and the tree will want to fall towards that cut, because the side without a cut has more pressure than the side that doesn't. I don't know how else to explain it.

The only other way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, like WTC7, is to damage the side of it, and burn it, like WTC7. LOL j/k. Seriously, the only way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, is to stack it in columns, and take out each level as it is falling, from the bottom, up. There may be other ways, but it includes taking out several floors at the same time, with some type of external force. Or else, the second law of thermodynamics will force the pieces to fall to one side or another. Just like this building did...



...and if you believe in the official story, WTC7 should have fallen like the building above. Remember this is a steal building, held together by welds and rivets. Unless you break each weld and rivet at the same time, one side will have more pressure than the "structurally damaged side", and the "burnt side" of WTC7.

Does that make sense?

To sum it all up, the "fires" would have had to burn every load bearing steal beam at exactly the same temperature, and at exactly the same time. Also, since there was "structural damage" (which really only looks cosmetic from pictures), the fires would have had to burn fast enough as to mimic an instant "cut", in order to reproduce the symmetrical downward collapse.

Just look at this picture...



...no damage to that side, and no visible fires. That means, if you agree to the official story, the building should have fallen away from the camera position, right on top of the still standing (at the time) WTC 6. But it didn't, it fell straight down into its own footprint.

Common sense rules out "structural damage do to fires and debris", and it is absolutely controlled demolition. No doubt.

Cosmetic damage should not be confused with structural damage.

I find it hard to believe Controled Demolishion companys waste so much time and money knocking down a building with syncronized explosives, when they can just damage a few supports, and light it on fire..

[edit on 23-1-2007 by 1150111]
1150111,This is by far the best explanation for the collapse of WTC7 I've heard so far.Good job dude!!!
Anyone who doesn't understand what you explained above doesn't want to understand.Plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It's not really about proving negatives.

It's about seeing the obvious and using your common sense. It seems some ppl want to cling to the official story, for whatever reason, no matter how ludicrous it is and how much evidence refutes it.

How do you explain the South Tower? Can you even attempt to? I have yet to find someone who can. Am I starting to sound like a broken record?
I hope so, maybe what we're saying will start sinking in.

Here is a positive for you to prove...

How did the South Tower ignore basic physics? Because without an energy of some kind what the ST did was impossible unless you ignore simple rules of physics. So what conclusion can we come to? Allah stomped the buildings down with his foot? Pieces of aluminum and rust off the columns all mixed together and planted themselves on all the columns? The steel columns got so scared they just all collapsed from the stress?

It doesn't matter if we can't prove what bought the buildings down, there is enough evidence to prove fires and the impacts didn't. What more do we need to do? What more can we do?

You are just being stubborn and clinging on to a fantasy by asking for proof that can't be supplied. That would require a full investigation, but as we know the evidence to do that is conveniently gone.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I don't care what anyone says. A building that has damage to one side WILL NOT fall symetrically.


Ok, why does that automatically mean that bombs were used? There could be a number of different ways for this to happen. They could have snuck in and weakened the structure during the fire, they could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it. It's no more or less elaborate than the bomb theory.


First of all, the CD theory doesn't automatically mean bombs. What you have described is also a Controlled Demolition. Notice the first letter of those two words. Hmmm...CD meaning controlled demolition....NOT Bomb theory.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How can you say this definitively without any similar examples or tests?



What about the NIST tests on similar floor trusses for 2 hours with higher temps than where in the towers and yet they didn't even sag? Oh, I forgot, you don't care about the NIST report.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Don't forget about the fire in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and casued no damage to steel beams.

Yet we are to believe that isolated fires burning for less then an hour weakened several steel beams.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join