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.
Originally posted by timeless test
I wasn't particularly making a point either for or against demolition or the official explanation, it was simply that Kleverone's comment which I replied to was was just one of many comments posted on lots of threads which said, essentially, that things dont fall straight down like that. Well yes they do.
Originally posted by Hamking
If you can explain how molten steel slag existed in the rubble weeks after the buildings came down, and also explain how thermate or other explosives could NOT have been used to bring the buildings down I would tip my hat to you.
Originally posted by timeless test
I'm not sure that the musings of Isaac Newton could or should be described as a triviality.
Originally posted by Damocles
at least by now id like to think theres one or two out there that will vouche for my credibility and that i dont let my own opinions cloud the data i present.
Originally posted by Damocles
contrary to waht you see in movies, you cant take out a building with a pound of c4. sorry, you just cant. the ammount of force it takes to cut even a single steel beam is enough that it is unmistakeable what it is,
Originally posted by Griff
Hypothetically, could there be a "muffled explosive"? If so, how could it be done?
Originally posted by Damocles
connected....
explosions do NOT equal high explosives.
I have to completely disagree.
In controlled demolition, they actually cut small sections out of support columns and then place HE on the cut. This is so they can use less explosives.
It is HIGHLY POSSIBLE to destroy a building with a pound of C4, but its all about how you prepare the building.
Not that I'm saying they only used a pound of C4.
Anyway, an explosion is an explosion. Ok? I have no clue why you said "explosions do NOT equal high explosives", because that quote is just outright idiotic.
explosions = anything explosive that has been detonated.
Originally posted by Connected
In controlled demolition, they actually cut small sections out of support columns and then place HE on the cut. This is so they can use less explosives. It is totally possible a single guy could have had access to WTC 7 building for 2 hours every night for a year before 911, with a trusty plasma gun, cutting away at supports and preparing them for a small amount of explosives, getting ready for the big day.... Its a huge building, no one would notice.
Originally posted by talisman
www.youtube.com...
Look at this video. One thing these demolitions do have in common is that rate of speed of collapse, it is apparent and self evident this is what is happening with Bldg-7.
Originally posted by TheBadge
guys i dont it..the whole wtc7 collapse thing.
i mean wouldnt any building collapse if a huge jet crashed into it? wouldnt the gas tanks explode and junk? causing the whole building itself collapse?
i just dontknow what to think though but maybe if someone could explain the issue to me
why is it different?