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 psikeyhackr
OMG, complaints about LEAVING OUT INFORMATION.
How many HOURS did the Windsor tower burn? How long was it into the burn that the outer steel portions collapsed? But since those steel portions were connected to CONCRETE doesn't that mean they could not conduct heat away to other steel. And since this steel was near the top of the building doesn't that mean it did not have to support much weight and was therefore NOT VERY THICK?
It was steel! It was in a fire! It collapsed!
That explains EVERYTHING!
You just accidentally FORGOT to mention how long the fire was going before that weak steel collapsed.
Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005.
23:00 Fire started at the 21st Floor
00:00 All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
If I ask you to explain how the BBC reporter in a live broadcast stood in front of WTC7 and claimed it wasn't there; you will answer me by saying ...
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by budaruskie
Numerous people , on location , knew the building was unstable and subject to collapse at any time . NUMEROUS people knew this . The police were telling people to get back , because "that building is coming down" .
Are you suggesting those police officers were all in on this silly conspiracy also?
Have you never heard news reports that had to be retracted later , because of false information ? What about the reports of bombs that day in D.C. ? Did D.C. blow up ?
Originally posted by mikelee
The explosions in this video are not the same noise as heard in NYC. The explosions in this video are clearly from demo charges where the sound heard in NYC are of a noticable different frequency. Also notice how many charges had to be set off for the skyscraper to fall, this was not heard in NYC. In addition, observe how many flashes were going off in the main portion of the building as well as in the foundation portion too. Clearly a different animal altogether. Similiar but different.edit on 11/28/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling
that this isn't unique , in that there were also other "live" reports from that day , that also had to be redacted . You act as though journalism and media have never ever reported anything that turned out later to not be true Dewey vs. Truman .
you are doing exactly as I predicted you would do trying to discredit everyone else. Face it buddy, they were told to report the news before it happened, and there is no way that anyone thought that building was going to implode and that is widely known and accepted. The only way it was coming down was in a pre-planned demo, period! Why they decided to do it is what is unknown, but we all know that it happened.
Here are some experts , who found nothing suspicious in the "manner" that WTC7 fell. Do yourself a favor and read this article www.implosionworld.com...
Nor did they find evidence of explosives.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
If you want real expert advice you need to seek it from someone who you perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom that you seek, not from someone who carries a title and a piece of paper that declare he has it.
This type of truther logic simply amazes me . This describes truthers in a nutshell . They "seek it" only from those whom they "perceive to possess the knowledge or wisdom" , and straight-up dismiss those who actually possess that knowledge.
You didn't even read the article , did you? Here I showed you the analysis of experts in the field and you simply dismiss it because it doesn't support your silly conspiracy that the sky is falling.
Pardon me for disturbing you, go back to sleep.
Originally posted by mikelee
This not withstanding, if this amount of demolitions had been set off in the WTC Towers there would have no doubt as to them being imploded on purpose