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 pteridine
"Research" in this case consists of cut-and-paste from somegroup-for-911-truth websites.
I have asked before and have never had a reasoned answer to the following:
People have seen many videos of controlled demolition of buildings but have not seen videos of accidental collapse to compare them with. If WTC was brought down with CD, how would accidental collapse, as described by the NIST report, have differed?
Originally posted by MolecularPhD
P.S. I follow no ones opinions or ideas but my own that I can logically ask questions in pursuit of the facts.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It absolutely does not necessarily mean that no floors required explosives besides the impact floors. Most steel-structured building demolitions have explosives from top to bottom. And that doesn't mean on every single floor either. There's a reason why they put explosives from top to bottom in those buildings. Because blowing one floor will not weaken the structure below it and the building would not completely collapse.
That massive steel structures that were the twin towers and WTC 7 would not have fallen from minimal damage, nor from fires either.
Who's concocting things now? By NIST's own numbers the damage was not substantial to either tower from the plane impacts. Remember: 15% damage to the structure in the impact zones leaving 85% of the structure intact. 15% damage is not substantial by any means. Especially the massive structures that were the twin towers.
Originally posted by MolecularPhD
First off; the wreckage has not been shown to belong to flight 77? There has been material found at the site of the crash that are unidentifiable as belonging to a RB-211 Engine (picture evidence provided in prior posts) secondly saying that someone is a conspiracy theorist does not make it so; third no one trying to debunk this information has shown any proof as to the picture evidence provided by the Government to prove the existence of a RB-211;
Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I follow no ones opinions or ideas but my own that I can logically ask questions in pursuit of the facts.
Originally posted by NightGypsy
Jthomas . . . give it up. BoneZ has proven his credibility with posts that have research behind them.
Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by pteridine
As I am a scientist and not a "Conspiracy Theorist" I think you are doing a fine enough job for the both of us; lol as for you hypothesis if in fact as you claim that large amounts of jet fuel was present then it should be easy for the Government to supply soil samples taken at the crime scene? if such samples exist then there should be a report and a named laboratory that performed the testing and their findings; scientists who have put their name and reputation on the line with their data?
Where is a copy of the Metallurgy Report of material samples found at the scene of the crime that would show the exact thermodynamics that were involved? Where is a copy of the chain of evidence collected at the scene? Where is a list of all personnel directly tasked with examining these materials and their data for review?
You know I could keep asking these types of questions for the next hour or so; why you ask? well because they are "SOP"; for one of the greatest crimes committed in this country there sure seems to be a lot of incompetent people working the case.
I just love how you guys keep name calling. lol
Pretty Childish for people who are claiming to have their facts straight.
Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I just love how you guys keep name calling. lol
Pretty Childish for people who are claiming to have their facts straight.