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.
Um in those quotes I just posted. Refer to the 33 witness testimonies of people who saw molten steel.
Where does it say someone saw a pool of molten steel in a basement?
Just like GoodOlDave, you must have missed this:
Now, six weeks after the attacks there were pieces found that were molten. The fires below the gz site were like huge smelters. All of the materials, chemicals heated material continue to burn for months. This does not mean there was thermite used. If it did, you would have all the proof you need but there is none. Nothing. No physical evidence of a demolition.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Nothing. No physical evidence of a demolition.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah and I've heard from the very structural engineer of the tower that you're describing that it was designed to take such an impact with ease and remained structurally intact.
-- John Skilling, the WTC's head structural engineer, told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building and dumped it's fuel on the inside
These 1400+ engineers and architects agree that the inside story is a load, but I'm sure your anonymous "architect" source knows more about that building than all of them.
There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.
If tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel was dumped into it, what was that explosion then?
And what about WTC7? No airplane hit that building and dumped "thousands of gallons of aviation fuel", that was just your typical office fire that caused it to collapse in on itself.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Wizayne
How about instead you just describe for us exactly how the building, i'm sorry, BuildingS came crashing down. Feel free to show us YOUR diagram indicating exactly what happened on each floor as they collapsed. NIST had years to put together an explanation, and they couldn't. Can you? I would bet not.
You lose your bet. I subscribe to the Perdue University study that shows the damage from the plane impact was much more fatal than what the NIST report takes into account. I say this because the planes crashed their way all the way to the central core and destroyed the stairwells, so there had to have been more extensive damage to the structural integrity of the interior than anyone realizes. Plus, the plane was carrying massive amounts of liquids in the form of fuel, so that would have hit the structure like a sledgehammer. After that, it was only a matter of time for the upper section to fail and collapse onto the lower sections.
Here's an animation Perdue put together. there's no guesswork or anything left to the imagination as to what damage the impact inflicted on the structure:
Perdue University Animation
As long as you conspiracy people continue to pretend that the initial collapse didn't begin at the precise location where the plane struck the building (and therefore one event led to the other in some way your conspiracy stories aren't even going to get out of the gate.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
You must have missed this:
Do you know what can melt steel? Thermite.
Originally posted by Wizayne
Congradulations Perdue on creating a CGI VISUALIZATION. I asked you for a diagram showing HOW the buildings fell all the way down the way they did just by a plane crash and gravity. Your response is proof that a fast flying plane can do damage, so the buildings must have weakened and fell ALL THE WAY DOWN. Makes so much sense to me.
So you agree that no one can simulate even closely how the towers came down? And all the screaming for me to show evidence is in fact a cover up of the fact that you have no evidence at all of how they fell.
So we have both lead architects with conflicting viewpoints. There's only one solution to determine who is correct: A fight to the death.
Before you attempt to quote mine the architects any further, John Skilling was one of two architects who designed the towers. The other is Leslie Robertson, and he is on record as agreeing with the conclusions of the NIST report. In a radio discussion with Steven Jones in 2006, Roberson said-
“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it…"
These explosions- North: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05386f3abb2e.jpg[/atsimg]
You will need to be more precise on where the explosion you're referring to came from. If it's from the south tower, then you need to know the plane hit one floor above a dedicated mechanical floor chock full of electrical transformers, generators, fuel tanks, pressurized pipes, and other things that would go BOOM if they caught on fire. This floor would have been the first floor the tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel would have been dumped into.
If it's from somewhere else, then I couldn't tell you. Whatever it was, the likelihood that it was due to non-conspiracy reasons far outweighs the "secret conspiracy" reasons. If even one explsion we heard was from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, it stands to reason that all the explosions we heard were from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn.
Well, it was an office, and it was on fire, much like what would be seen if another office was on fire.
If you're attempting to claim WTC 7 was a "typical office fire" then you're lying through your teeth. After the collapse of the north tower the water supply for the fire suppression systems from the street were destroyed which allowed the fires to burn out of control. Firefighters reported seeing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, proving that there was massive loss of structure integrity from the fires.
OK the Marriot Hotel in Tampa Bay, Florida, March 4th, 1997, and the International Bank of Commerce in Austin, Texas, August 26th, 1987.
Name another burning building that ever had "three story tall bulging on the side of the structure".
This is high school physics we're talking about. If they can't get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multi-colored computer animated whizz-bang simulations to tell us the exact sequence of girder failures without any physical evidence for any of it?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Don't be childish. The FEMA report specifically said that after the initial loss of structural integrity so many things started happening and so many components were involved that it's impossible to map out what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge during the collapse. If you're of a mind that you have to demand what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge, then this isn't research- it's grasping at straws...
Originally posted by TupacShakur
So we have both lead architects with conflicting viewpoints. There's only one solution to determine who is correct: A fight to the death.
And that's just speculation on my part, but I assume that when the plane hits and explodes, the explosion is caused by the jet fuel igniting.
Well, it was an office, and it was on fire, much like what would be seen if another office was on fire.
Just kidding, I wanted to give you that feeling of humiliation for a few brief seconds
Originally posted by Wizayne
Oh, and by the way, the Perdue video you hold on to so dearly shows at 2:23 that the plane punched through the Building clear through to the other side. In fact, it did not. Period. I'll repeat that, Perdue's video shows the plane clearing completely through and out the other side of the tower when in fact it didnt bust outward through a single beam or bulge one on the opposite side. By your own logic and reasoning, your dear video is invalid.
When did you last check? We need to be sure it's fresh in your mind lol. I don't care if a 767 would have cut through the building completely and kept going on flying through the other side, severing every single support column in that area of the building, because that does not explain how the tower fell with no resistance through the path of greatest resistance!
Why should either of them be incorrect? Skilling was quoting a report that was written back in 1964 that was based largely upon the the bomber that hit the Empire State building (which last I checked was 1/4 the size and weight), while Robertson was referring to the 767 that actually hit the WTC. Skilling's interview was in 1993, and had nothing to do witht the actual events of 2001. For all we know, if a 707 had hit the WTC instead of a 767, it very well may have survived.
Huh? How could WTC7 have WTC7 fall on it? Does not compute, error, error. Are you talking about the twin towers collapsing? Because like I said, WTC7 was the farthest building away from the twin towers in that complex, but it was the only one that collapsed despite the fact that it was 47 stories, and every other building had significantly more damage both from fire and falling debris.
Did it have another office building fall on it, as in WTC 7? According to WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings the front lobby looked as if King Kong came in and destroyed the place.
50,000 tons = 100,000,000lbs. Are you telling me that a Boeing 767 weights ONE HUNDRED MILLION pounds? Even under the most extreme conditions, the heaviest that any model of 767 can possbily be is 225 tons, so you overshot the weight by 49775 tons
First, the 50,000 tons of the weight from the airplane in the middle of the floor caused both towers to collapse, not the steel, steel had nothing to do with the towers falling, so stop being stupid and learn to use the common sense god gave you....damn,there is no god for you.
I guess thats why common sense is an issue for you>any way
You bring great shame to not just every American, but every single human being on this planet with your unbelievable stupidity.
CUZO, Lil homey, cuzzz, BROTHER MAN
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec5e1b5bd2da.jpg[/atsimg]
Even according to the flawed official story, the towers didn't collapse because of the mass of the airplane, so you're backing up a flawed official story with an even more flawed analysis of what caused the towers to collapse.
Last ‘Realist’ standing in the Universe of life itself !