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 ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Assuming what you're saying is true, why not ask them.
Why bring up NIST reports on building 7 when they have not recovered any steel to test?
wtc.nist.gov...
Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.
No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Assuming what you're saying is true, why not ask them.
Why bring up NIST reports on building 7 when they have not recovered any steel to test?
Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, why not bring it up? Just because they didn't recover and test steel, again assuming this isn't taken out of context, does that invalidate an entire investigation or just leave some unanswered questions?
Originally posted by plasmacutter
O guys i meant to say this. Here are some good things to search ,lots of info to run with.(illuminati maxtrix, world matrix, solar maxtrix,) And has anyone heard of the NWO card game that came out in 1996?? it shows what happen 9/11 and a few other things
[edit on 19-3-2008 by plasmacutter]
Originally posted by brygivrob
hey JFJ123
How 'bout posting some evidence that Al Quaida did it? Just saying that the media "said so" won't cut it either.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, why not bring it up? Just because they didn't recover and test steel, again assuming this isn't taken out of context, does that invalidate an entire investigation or just leave some unanswered questions?
Probelm is there are even more conserns with NIST reports. They did not test any of the WTC steel for chemicals or explosives.
So that raises more questions, plus the fact that when the 9/11 commission hired them to do reports the commission did not agree with or release a lot of the NIST findings.
Originally posted by plasmacutter
these are just some
illuminatimatrix.wordpress.com...
www.earthmatrix.com...
www.earthmatrix.com...
www.atl2.netfirms.com...
www.near-death.com...
www.dailymotion.com...
www.threeworldwars.com...
video.google.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.youtube.com...
video.google.com... (this one is good the first 5 min is just a deep deep thought then it gets good but the speach is truely deep and good).
[edit on 19-3-2008 by plasmacutter]
[edit on 19-3-2008 by plasmacutter]
[edit on 19-3-2008 by plasmacutter]
Originally posted by Spaxz
I know the obvious but there is something fishy about 9/11, you can't be in that much denial. If you are i really need to be explained fully about Building 7, and why they destroyed the rubble so quickly and not investigate it?
What i meant is that the questions that needs to be explained to the public and not to be done like were morons. We'll never know unless your apart of it which would make you "there". "They" will never come foward cause who would want to take the fall for that.
Originally posted by GhostR1der
Simple physics: a building can't 'fall' at pretty much free fall (time it yourself) unless the structure underneath the falling mass is not resisting the 'falling mass'. Why would the structure underneath (which needs [insert pankcaking/truss whatever theory] to explain) have no support for the mass above it if it's collapsing.. it will provide resistance and have a much longer fall
I could write an essay but that's the main stuff that sticks out for me.
Not to mention rolls royce saying they cannot identify the engine 'wreckage' at the pentagon as being a engine they made for the plane that supposedly hit.
Originally posted by Whodunnit
Originally posted by GhostR1der
Simple physics: a building can't 'fall' at pretty much free fall (time it yourself) unless the structure underneath the falling mass is not resisting the 'falling mass'. Why would the structure underneath (which needs [insert pankcaking/truss whatever theory] to explain) have no support for the mass above it if it's collapsing.. it will provide resistance and have a much longer fall
I could write an essay but that's the main stuff that sticks out for me.
Not to mention rolls royce saying they cannot identify the engine 'wreckage' at the pentagon as being a engine they made for the plane that supposedly hit.
Check this out...An un common but do-able "top down "demolision and you will see the similarities
www.liveleak.com...
This right. And since free fall is around 9 seconds, and exterior columns can be seen falling faster than the collapse front, then we can safely state that the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed.
I know, I know.... free fall is 9 seconds and they fell in 14-16 seconds.... that's hardly anything at all, inside job, inside job!!!
No, the amount of energy absorbed by the structure to slow the collapse front from 9 seconds to 14-16 seconds is HUUUUGE. It provided A LOT of resistance to the collapse!!!!
The Rolls Royce dude couldn't id the engine parts cuz...... it's an engine that's not made at the plant he works at. It would like asking a guy that works on GM's truck assembly line to id a door panel from the Impala assembly line.
Here's a good rundown on how you can decide if the engine is from the correct plane.
www.aerospaceweb.org...