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 tide88
reply to post by thefreepatriot
Yeah, yeah... I keep hearing that. One day, one day.... That is the main theme on this board. Gotta go to work now, nice chatting with you.
Originally posted by tide88
there is no hard proof and until I see that all there is is speculation.
Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by talisman
Wow I would place a bet it didnt have two major high rise structures less than a block from it and sharing the same foundation come crashing down around it. Its unbelievable how stupid you guys can be, what would you say the explosive tnt equivilant would be to having both trade center towers detonate right next to you, hhmmmm of course that plus the fire would have nothing to do with the collaspe. Wait I think this has been reported already to be a factor if someone would even take the time to read independent studies but I doubt the author of this post even has time too, after pouring over endless dribble of consiparcy theories to even look at facts.
Originally posted by Cyprex
Here is a video of the building, the morning after.
And a before the fire piture.
flickr.com...
Originally posted by Zepherian
I've read a few posts about people raving about airplanes, and how this dosen't prove anything, but sorry, it does.
Nowhere in the official reports about 911 does it say the planes made the buildings collapse. They come to a conclusion that what made it collapes was "thermal expansion" of the steel, weakening it. This despite the fact that we see buildings burn all around the world and not fall down. The madrid skyscraper fire a few years ago was very similar to the WTC towers in topology. This current fire in Beijing was similar to WTC 7, and orders of magnitude more severe.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Just look up the manhatten project....
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Zepherian
I've read a few posts about people raving about airplanes, and how this dosen't prove anything, but sorry, it does.
Nowhere in the official reports about 911 does it say the planes made the buildings collapse. They come to a conclusion that what made it collapes was "thermal expansion" of the steel, weakening it. This despite the fact that we see buildings burn all around the world and not fall down. The madrid skyscraper fire a few years ago was very similar to the WTC towers in topology. This current fire in Beijing was similar to WTC 7, and orders of magnitude more severe.
This is what the NIST says caused the buildings to collapse.
Hopefully this helps.
For WTC 1&2
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
Originally posted by tide88
Maybe someday someone with blow the whistle on the conspiracy. Hell there had to be hundreds if not thousands involved in it. You would think that at some point someone will come forward, or at least some real hard substantial evidence will come about.
Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
Absence of 1 photo doesnt prove anything. If that is the case show me show hard evidence that explosive were used to bring down wtc7. There had to be residue from those explosives or even casings. There has to be hard proof that there were explosive used to bring down the building. Or are all those firefighters and clean up crew in on it too. Funny, there were no spike in seismic reading before the collapse either, which would show bombs going off if it was demoed. So you proof is youtube videos and speculation. And the because they have not produced this photo, if it even exists, it proves WTC7 was demoed.