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 wmd_2008
Building starts to collapse at 1:59 on video at the area of impact !
Originally posted by chapter29
So, let's see - you joined a site that demands you to "deny ignorance"
Source
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
Originally posted by chapter29
If you need me to pick up your laundry or wipe your a$$, let me know...I'm here to serve the mentally challenged...
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Building starts to collapse at 1:59 on video at the area of impact !
If the core structure were compromised on the inside of the building, the exterior columns wouldn't be able to carry all the loads and the impact sites would naturally be the weakest and the first to fail, just like that.
The antenna on WTC1 sank evenly with the four corners of the building and the entire roof, suggesting its core structure (to which the antenna was attached) failed simultaneously with its exterior walls.
Originally posted by svtman
THankyou very much for that buddy
Yea i knew using Usama and Bush was going to result in sometime of inbalance. Altough i see where you mentioned to include the government or Al queda for example. NOw although i also wanted to do this, my prof. told me that i must legitimatley list specific people only, no groups
Originally posted by svtman
So where can i find some good info. to prove my thesis that this was caused in order to go into war, or in a simple sense..for money? Im open to changes, and opinons are welcome.
posted by Anonymous ATS
It's interesting why no one ever thinks that the terrorists possibly planted the bombs in the building...
posted by svtman
So where can i find some good info. to prove my thesis that this was caused in order to go into war, or in a simple sense..for money? Im open to changes, and opinons are welcome.
posted by anonymousATS
There are scores of vids on 9/11. I suggest you watch as many as you can locate thru google. You'll be putting in some serious hours.
My take is that there is a moderate working group involved. Group members are Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, and a small element of CIA. I think they made scores of mistakes because the group was too small for the skillsets needed.
I think Flight 93, was shot by missiles after passengers started to take back the aircraft. I think Flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC7.
Videos show numerous squibs going off in the twin towers and WTC7. A medic on the scene said that explosives were also in WTC6. WTC7 contained the government's prosecution file for several high visibility Wall Street fraud cases.
The explosives were there to guarantee the building came down while providing a horiffic visual. Untold number of workers and first responders report explosions. Audio recordings capture scores of first responders taking about secondary explosions during the event.
The crime scene was immediately sanitized. Dissenters in government positions were fired. I think a *lot* of government employees know the government was behind this attack. The 9/11 commission was a joke -- a rather poor one at that.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by wmd_2008
I have heard all of that countless times and I have still seen enough information to convince me otherwise.
The planes really did not do much damage to the buildings. They severed less than 15% of the exterior columns across the impacted floors (this from the FEMA report), and NIST did modeling where they even changed the impact trajectories to directly hit the core, and they still couldn't get a realistic scenario where more than a few of the 47 core columns were heavily damaged. The engines could have taken out a core column each maybe, sure, but they would've actually had to hit the columns (not necessarily going to happen), and then that's only 2 out of 47 and the rest of the plane isn't going to do much, especially after it's already been shredded by the exterior columns. Skyscrapers are built with too much redundancy to fail from so few columns being damaged.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
First of all HOW do YOU know what damage the planes did lets see your FACTS not internet hearsay!
Look at the LOADS above the impacted area if the structural steel had been weakend enough that a partial failure occured and all of the floors above impact area DROPPED which you CAN see in the video then the load cannot be supported.
Have a look at these videos of building demoltion lets see who can spot
what is common
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by wmd_2008
First of all HOW do YOU know what damage the planes did lets see your FACTS not internet hearsay!
I just told you, FEMA and NIST. Specifically, FEMA chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1 have the information on the numbers of perimeter columns severed. They were simply counted, since you could see them from the outside. And like I mentioned, NIST did computer modeling to determine the damages the cores could have sustained at a maximum, even going so far as changing the impact location of Flight 175. I don't know page numbers or anything like that but if you do a Google search I'm sure you would save us both some time.
Look at the LOADS above the impacted area if the structural steel had been weakend enough that a partial failure occured and all of the floors above impact area DROPPED which you CAN see in the video then the load cannot be supported.
Something definitely caused the columns to fail, you're right. Your implication that overloading caused the building to start dropping vertically is unsupported.
Have a look at these videos of building demoltion lets see who can spot
what is common
What is "common" does not necessarily have anything to do with what happened to the WTC towers, unless you have some information I have not seen that requires the towers to have been conventional demolitions.
Realize that "controlled demolition" is simply two words to me. There are an infinite number of ways to bring any building down. Every job is different, and in reality few skyscrapers have ever been demolished explosively anyway. There is no standard that every "controlled demolition" must follow. The biggest commonality between the ones you linked to: they were all done legally and by commercial entities.