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 apacheman
The links are to the University of Manchester, in England, so please don't dismiss their data with a "yeah, but...", please: this is a neutral source of high integrity dealing with well-documented test data. If you have a shred of countervailing evidence, then please post it.
Originally posted by tommyb98201
I believe now that the fire weakened the supports and brought the building down. The simplest answer is sometimes the correct one.
Originally posted by thedman
Check out the Interstate 580/80 fire several years ago - gasoline truck
flipped on turn. Resulting fire buckled the steel supports on overpass
and caused it to collapse
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Intothepitwego
Hey thanx for posting those.
I'm tired of arguing this point with him. He keeps asking the same crap I've already covered over and over.
He's either playing games, or just doesn't understand basic physics and how it relates to structures.
WTC 7 fell with a precision you just don't get from 'natural' collapses.
[edit on 1/17/2009 by ANOK]
Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.
Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.
EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.
[edit on 18-1-2009 by adam_zapple]
Originally posted by Gonenuts
reply to post by esdad71
Blab! Blab! Why don’t you show us proof to your statements, and stop the ranting. We would like to see some sources. I am not going to take your word for anything, and no one else is going to as well.
If you want to rant then go to Below Top Secret, they have a RANT page for you.
I thought this was a debating forum, and not a rant room.
Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Originally posted by Luciferdescending
Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.
Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.
EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.
[edit on 18-1-2009 by adam_zapple]
And just where are your sources exactly? We already know that we can produce controlled demo guys that cannot believe that is not what it was. Where are yours that all disagree? You say lots of things but you have done nothing to prove any of them are true.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Since you mentioned it...which "controlled demo guys" believe that was a CD?
Google Brett Blanchard of Controlled Demolition, INC. He wrote a rather lengthly paper on the subject.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.
Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.
EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.
Originally posted by pteridine
It was inside a building, which means it is not "open air" in any case
...so the numbers you discovered in Wiki, even if correct, are not at all applicable.
Remember we are not talking about melting, just expanding, buckling, and shearing joints. The long steel spans in #7 make it more susceptible yet.
1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)
2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.
Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7?
Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed?
This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)
explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have
I mean, if you wanted to create a piece of fiction
but please, convince me without links to garbage propaganda websites. I implore you.
Oh no, no one is going to take my word...boo hoo...you have hurt my feelings so much maybe I will go to BTSNN or maybe into the secret forum where people are cordial and don't buck up behind a keyboard.
Evidences, has been found by scientist,