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 IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In PBS's "Building on Ground Zero" they state that the floors held right up till the collapses started.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Really ?
Or try reading here.
www.911myths.com...
Try here.
www.911myths.com...
Indeed, so why mention molten metal if it not an indicator of explosives. ?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Like what? I am curious as to what you have an issue with.
Maybe you could be specific and we could discuss this issue.
Oh gee, where to start.. I have been researching and posting information for over a year on here and other forums. The biggest thing is thier are no FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on any of the crime scenes on 911.
1. Evidence shows that the planes impacts on the towers did not casue them to collapse.
2. Evidence shows the fires in the towers did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.
3. We have no official report on what caused building 7 to collapse.
4. We have no video, photo or official reports on what hit the Pentagon.
5. Flight data recorder from the Pentagon shows a different path then what the official story tells.
I have a lot more evidence , where would you like to begin the debate.
Originally posted by Masisoar
I'd like the go back and point out my main arguments:
Argument 1 - Showing your statement to be incorrect in that the columns were not severly compromised upon impact from the aircraft.
Argument 2- The fires prior to collapse were in no position to bring the towers to their knees.
We can seriously sit here all day and talk about the molten metal found at the basements of both World Trade Center 1 2 and 7.
Or about pressurized air (refuted on this board by Wecomeinpeace).
Or about devils in the smoke clouds.
Or about holograms.
But those aren't anything I can strengthfully talk about, as opposed to the situation of World Trade Centers 1 and 2 and the moments leading up to their collapses .
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Equally so we could even extend it to how do the explosives that were preplaced survive both of these events?
. C-4 is also well known for its durability, reliability, and safety. It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire.
A major advantage of C-4 is that it can easily be molded into any desired shape. C-4 can be pressed into gaps/voids in buildings, bridges, equipment or machinery.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Yes we can talk no end about the various conspiracies surrounding 911 but to no avail.
So argument 1.
A plane slams into the side of each tower, slicing through the external steel supports and it is your position that they were not compromised?
Argument 2.
The fires were not hot enough to bring the Towers to their knees. So it is your position that the damage from the planes and the fires, these were two events, not one, were not enough to lead to catastrophic structural failure?
Maybe we should just extend this argument to how would anybody know this? How would anybody know that these two events were not going to bring the Towers down? They had to know this for absolute certain or there would have been no point in rigging the Towers in the first place, correct?
Equally so we could even extend it to how do the explosives that were preplaced survive both of these events?
So back to the original argument, do you still maintain the the plane impacting the columns (exterior and interior) caused it to be "Severly compromised"?
Originally posted by Masisoar
Why are you misquoting me again? I said the exterior columns and interior columns were compromised, just not severely, like you state. Also, NO, I don't see them playing an important role in the collapse.
For your second statement. That's to say they intended on bringing down the towers, which is up to speculation. Also I'm not pre-supposing explosives, thermite or any type of incendiary was used because I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support any of that thus far. Just like I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support to official story the way they like to word it.
My position is that the plane impacts did what they did, destroyed some exterior columns and caused damaged to the core. Then you had the fireball, and then you had the jet fuel burn for the brief period it did and then you had fires ensue afterwards which just weren't strong enough to cause a global failure and cause the collapses within the times they did. It's just ridiculous to believe a building can be so easy to compromise. The jet fuel, the impacts played a role but nothing significant structural integrity wise, otherwise the building would of collapsed shortly after impact, but you had the ensueing fires to blame for the real failure, but that's pre-supposing "the fireproofing was knocked off" which I haven't seen evidence of yet and other factors.
But it's just not simply the case. The NIST has stated itself about fire temperatures, and the temperatures the steel reached when being exposed to those fires. (Remember fire temperatures do not equal steel temperatures because of heat absorption.)
I don't think you're bringing this argument anywhere, just being sort of mindless and not knowing exactly what you're attacking. Go read some more k thanks.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I am not misquoting you; I am stating for the record your position, which you have in fact restated.
You have stated, without any form of proof, or calculations that this
did not seriously compromise the structural integrity of the building.
Please, offer up your calculations that support your theory and please offer up how you are qualified to look at this photograph and ascertain the damage.
I have equally stated my position and I equally now restate it. The external supporting columns of each tower were seriously compromised.
The static weight above each area did not go away, it was a constant, and it was bearing down on the severally compromised supporting columns. The fires were serious enough to cause the floor trusses that were attached to the severally damaged load bearing external columns to buckle and bow inwards. This buckling was not uniform, it caused further stress and stain on the remaining supporting structure.
I have and you have video of the external columns bowing INWARDS prior to collapse.
I have photographs of the central cores standing after the towers collapsed.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
You have stated, without any form of proof, or calculations that this
did not seriously compromise the structural integrity of the building.
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Correct the floors held, the collapse was not started by pan caking.
Originally posted by esdad71
ULTIMA, what are your qualifications or psychic ability do you use to cast away all of those people?
Originally posted by esdad71
Trust me, if that occured today with the media and mindset of Liberal America, there would have been a different outcome. There is no way to hide an operation that large, a conspiracy is a few people.
Originally posted by esdad71
How about posting a diatribe about how you support Rosie the Ranter and her babble bro?