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 bsbray11
Does calling the building "unsafe" predict this?
Until you can find me a quote of someone predicting THAT
Originally posted by bsbray11
all four corners of the building dropped simultaneously.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It had a convenient "kink" in the middle that kept the amount of mass spilling onto adjacent streets to a minimum
Originally posted by bsbray11
There WERE explosions inside of it, including when it started "collapsing," according to witnesses who were there and on the record.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You, a mass of people I frankly have no intellectual respect for out of experience rather than prejudice ... Do you understand that? I am content with that.
Originally posted by SteveR
What you are looking at is the shell of the building falling. The center columns failed first, as shown here:
www.nist.gov...
How kind and thoughtful of the conspirators, perhaps they had a change of heart after the towers fell.
But you are wrong. The kink is way off-center.
www.pastpeak.com...
Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.
The explosions heard by witnesses were few, random, and inconsistent with CD.
Is that all you got?
Has no place on this thread. Take your drama somewhere else please.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That makes absolutely no difference. Do you know how ordered and symmetrical what's happening inside the building has to be, in order to create that much symmetry and order on the outside of the building?
Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.
Yawn. Prove it.
Are you expecting these to be conventional to the point where it becomes immediately obvious to everyone that someone is demolishing a building? Can you explain why you would expect this to be the case?
Originally posted by bsbray11
You said there were no explosions when it began collapsing. You were wrong.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You made it this many years denying there were any explosions, you might as well not stop now.
Originally posted by SteveR
I disagree entirely. You are generalizing based on your own expectations of what would happen. Whatever you "imagine" does not stand up to the physics and computer model as presented in the video I linked.
Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.
Yawn. Prove it.
Uh... you brought them up... you believe the building was demolished... don't ask me to prove your theory for you.
Another nonsensical reply. Show me your magical silent, fireproof explosives...
I already knew of the explosive material being heard
Originally posted by SteveR
You cherry picked a graphic that doesn't even relate to the actual collapse. Why would you do that? I have seen the correct NIST model and it duplicates what we see in the video you posted. It can be accessed from the link I gave earlier. Nice try though.
Originally posted by ampaf707
Here's one thing I always wanted to know: How do people who believe the official story explain the molten steel?
Originally posted by Equinox99
Those attacks were carried out with ease and perfection.
"The simulations DO SHOW the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physiscs in the model."
"There was another observable feature that occurred after the global collapse was underway and, thus, COULD NOT be captured accurately in the simulation. After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9 s, the north face developed a line or "kink" near the end of the core at Column 76."
Originally posted by Equinox99
How do buildings built to withstand airplane impacts perfectly pancake onto itself? If anything, it should have leaned towards one side due to the high impact of an airplane.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If a bomb takes out a segment of the support, and then a subsequent device does the same thing half an hour later, and then a third twenty minutes after that, we would surely see an irregular collapse completely unlike a normal CD.
Originally posted by NIcon
"The simulations DO SHOW the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physiscs in the model."
Are they saying that the severe deformation we see in their diagram is their version of the kink we see in the pics and videos?
"There was another observable feature that occurred after the global collapse was underway and, thus, COULD NOT be captured accurately in the simulation. After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9 s, the north face developed a line or "kink" near the end of the core at Column 76."
Besides the obvious question of how they could accurately describe the approximate 13 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the supposed internal collapse sequence, but they could not accurately portray the approximate 8 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the external collapse.... besides that.... one has to ask oneself, based on the quotes above, do they even know what their model showed? Why these two apparently contradictory vague statements?