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.
As fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.
The protective concrete cladding on the cores would have been no permanent defence in these extraordinary circumstances - keeping the intense heat at bay for only a limited timespan.
Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire
World Trade Center construction manager
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".
Originally posted by Valhall
Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.
Originally posted by clearmind
9/11 has to be one of the most coincidence filled incidents that i have EVER read about. i guess the question is, when do 'coincidences' become set up occurences??
"You're telling me you're going to fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of Congress?"
"Well, unfortunately, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people, so we're just gonna have to do it for real. We'll blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then, I'll get my funding."
The above quotes taken from the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996.
Originally posted by rwsdakota
Look at the picture in the abovepost .. the building didnt fall straight down. The top fell sideways meaning that the supports on that side of the building gave out first.
Originally posted by Antimyth
Thats right, the gov is admitting a cover-up right there, spinning it to the masses as 'liability concerns'.
In other words-we cant give you the blueprints because we are CONCERNED that you will figure out that we are LIABLE.
SIDENOTE- to the guy telling me to 'post links' because 'that doesnt work here at ATS' I can only say that I'm not here at ATS to jump through hoops for anyone. As i stated on that post it was for believers to investigate and skeptics to chew on.
Didnt your parents teach you to close your mouth when you are chewing?
Originally posted by rwsdakota
Since the facts dont add up, then all we have is speculation.. alot of the 'facts' point to fowl play. But the lack of explosion charges going off (as one would clearly see in demolishing videos).. I'd have to say that there is no fowl play..
Originally posted by pyxsul
If I recall, the building was put down purposly. They knew a little bit after 1 and 2 collapsed that this one was going to, so they evacuated people and demolished it theirself the day of the attacks.