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 ANOK
reply to post by gandhi
But the point is, he said he could do nothing with that beam because it was so big, and the WTC beams were bigger.
So it comes back to how did fire cause those massive steel beams, that a demo expert said would be a problem using explosives, to simply collapse from fire. If fire could do that then why would it be a problem for a demo expert?
And no the plane did not cause the collapse, that was local damage that could not cause the undamaged lower floors to collapse.
Yes this IS a good find.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Great video.
Watching those demolition clips, what is the common JREF line people have taken up against the "squibs"? That they keep streaming out and last too long? Looks just like all the others to me. And the subsequent dust clouds too. And the free-fall/near free-fall collapses of all those buildings, mostly straight down.
Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your post. Agreed. Even if Jet fuel caused them to collapse, only explosives could of turned steel into powder. Not only that, the squibs are clearly visible on the WTC collapse.
Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
I'm unsure what you're suggesting. Initially I thought you were implying that because he said "that's the biggest steal beam I've ever seen other than in the world trade center" that it was proof that they imploded the building. To which I was going to state that it means nothing as he could have seen it during cleanup operations. I then read ANOK's reply and realized I might have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Your reply didn't help me understand the actual point you're trying to prove. I say this as one who doesn't believe the OS and certainly believes it could have been imploded. Just looking for some clarification. It might not hurt to put the full video up also.
Originally posted by ypperst
Good video I think there is no way jet fuel can rip worldtrade center like that way.
But I still dont really get why USA would do that on them self. Was it to get a reason to attack isreal?
Oh, if it is done by USA, how did they force osama bin laden to say in his video, that he did it?
Oh, is that why Laden maybe is still alive?
and is that a helicopter or a UFO in the skies in the start of the first building rip down.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your post. Agreed. Even if Jet fuel caused them to collapse, only explosives could of turned steel into powder. Not only that, the squibs are clearly visible on the WTC collapse.
Now, THIS is why the conspiracy theorists are getting nowhere with their conspiracy stories. It's blatantly obvious they're so in love with these conspiracy stories that they want them to be true, but becuase there isn't even a microbe of tangible evidence of any foul doing they think nothing whatsoever of making stuff up on their own. Case in point-
a) All the reports from FEMA to NIST to MIT all report the steel was warped from irregular heating where it buckled and lost structural integrity. It would be one thing if the conspiracy people read this and disagreed with it, but it's blatantly obvious they didn't read it at all. How can you say somethign is a lie when you don't even know what it is that's supposed to be a lie?
b) There was no "dustification" of steel. That comes 100% from the conspiracy people. There are enough photos of ground zero to prove all the steel lay there in piles.
c) The "squibs" were from air being forced out of the building as it collapsed, like a bellows. When the towers fell the air inside had to go somewhere. If these were genuine explosives there'd be explosive flashes seen as well.
I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad. I'm here to point how how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are filling your head with utter rubbish exactly like this. You yourself are merely the victim in all this becuase I know you didn't come up with this yourself, you read it from somewhere else and you posted it thinking it was correct. Even you have to agree that if someone has to lie to convince someone of something, it necessarily means they know what they're saying is false, doesn't it?