It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by hgfbob
well..isn't that what the "official HYPOTHESIS", is....someone in LOVE !
No, not really. For one thing, we know that planes had hit the towers, we know there were fires burning within them, and we know what properties office fires have. We do NOT know there were controlled demolitions anywhere in the building, we do NOT know there were nukes in the basement, and we do NOT know there are orbiting secret laser weapons. It seems to me we need to take the available facts first, and then see what end conclusion best makes the facts come together. We should NOT come up with a sexy sounding scenario first, and then add or subtract the facts as we see fit to get them to conform to the preexisting scenario.
The "fires brought down the towers" scenario may be controversial, but they're a hell of lot less controversial than armies of secret gov't ninjas romping around skyscrapers planting concealed explosives without anyone noticing anything, or super weapons noone has seen before that violate the laws of physics.
for it surly does NOT have PROOF to back it up.
The ONLY thing keeping the OS afloat, is the LACK of knowledge by the American people....The FACT that there is absolutely NO evidence to support it....just an agenda.
The HYPOTHESIS of WTC7, MUST be based on ONLY...common office hydrocarbons...the SAME fuel ALL office fires feed.
Nope. It's ALSO based upon the fact that falling wreckage from WTC 1 destroyed the power grid and cut off all water to the fire suppression systems in WTC 7, which allowed it to burn out of control to begin with. If you can supply an example of any other office fire that was allowed to burn out of control as in WTC 7, by all means please do so.
you are so pathetically funny
I really don't care if you think I'm pathetically funny, whether I'm stupid, or whether you think I kick pregnant dogs. All I care about is whether you can prove anything I post here is incorrect.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by hgfbob
Saying something over and over does not a fact make. Check out the links in my signature and look at all the evidence.
This is not just hot air. This is various sources of information all saying the same thing. "The towers collapsed without the help of explosives." Like I've said in the past, this doesn't mean I suddenly believe the government is all nice. I know they lie and cheat and kill, but I just can't blame them for the specific part of 9/11 about the towers physically collapsing.
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by hgfbob
I don't understand what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that you think NIST had no evidence to support their belief, and therefore it's controlled demolition by the government.
How would that work? Don't you have to provide at least as much evidence as the NIST report provided? For example, please provide some evidence which is as convincing for the controlled demolition side as this picture is for the 'damage + fire' side: