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 ff2k1984
So my question for all the spooks and 9/11 deniers is how did the BBC and CNN
call the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened???? Just curious......... I got it, it was aliens right??????
Originally posted by golddragnet
Originally posted by hlesterj
I you were going to engineer the collapse of the WTC, why would you risk disclosure of your plot by handing out a script to news people ahead of time? Why not just wait until it collapses and let the reporters report what they just witnessed?[edit on 2-3-2007 by hlesterjerome]
Because they didn't want reporters to report what they just witnessed, they wanted them to sell the lie that the building collapsed because of fire. If they reported the truth they would have said it was an obvious controlled demolition.
Originally posted by ff2k1984
where are you know?????? [edit on 1-3-2007 by ff2k1984]
Originally posted by AHCivilE
Nevermind that I am in structural engineering,
Originally posted by crowpruitt
Spoon 1 made some good points above.Why was this video yanked off google,you tube ,etc. so fast with little or no explanation of why.
Jet fuel burns around 550C. If steel actually gets up to 600C, it will loose half of its strength, which is NOT enough to cause collapse. Where's the evidence showing that any of the steel actually got up to 600C? NIST's own report states "...most steel did not see temperatures of abouve 250C..." They only found three pieces of steel that got over 250C, and they got to around 450-500C, and based upon the temperatures affects on the paint, these temperatures were only maintained for a few minutes at most.
Even if the steel got to 600C for sustained periods of time, loosing half its strength, it still has quite a ways to go. Steel structures such as bridges work with a 10:1 safety ratio. In other words, their working load is less that 1/10th of it maximum load bearing capacity.
Plus, you have NIST's own models that used fires twice as hot for almost twice as long as what could have possibly been seen on 911. Their fires were generated by massive spray burners putting out megawatts of power. Their temperatures generated by controlled burns, as opposed to the uncontrolled burns on 911, were specifically calibrated to be fed with the perfect amount of fresh oxygen. Their temps reached between 900-1200C, way hotter than jet fuel can burn at in uncontrolled, open-air puddles.
And yet, NIST's models DID NOT collapse!!!
How do you explain that? If its soooo reasonable to expect skyscrapers to totally eviscerate themselves for the first time in history based upon fire, why cant anybody reproduce it???
Its not science if you can produce and reproduce it in a lab. In fact, NIST's models disprove their theories. Unequivocally!
Originally posted by esdad71
There is nothing for the administration to gain from this being an inside job. Nothing.