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 brickof22cal
I'm far more willing to believe that the Sept 11 attacks were known about and allowed to happen, rather than a carefully engineered "false flag" op.
A biplane and a 747 are both planes. One has a bigger boom. Please don't be ignorant.
They clearly did not. Most of the tower fell towards one side, other parts fell the opposing way. Straight down? That's what you get from pancaking, which comes directly from Mies Van Der Rohe designs.
I really don't care about people's claims unless I can see it. I saw a video of firemen int he lobby, without anything wrong. How does the fire reach ground level? When big thing go boom, elevators fall.
From the video alone it clearly was not only on 6 floors, and it clearly did not all fall at the same time. You can make out the core of the building staying up while the floors fall. You can also make out the different structural elements. Basically, the floors fell, and without floors to hold them in place, the mains supports came down after them. You can get the same effect with a shish kabob.
You're adding straws. An elevator shaft going to the main heart of the fire would, indeed, have molten metal in it. That doesn't mean anything was happening at ground level. Things fall. If anything, that proves that the structural supports were differentiating and separating before the collapse, making panicking more likely. And like I said, simple thermal laws do not allow anything but a volcano to remain molten days after an event occurs. Not even termite, not anything. The energy required to fuel such heat comes only from geological sources.
Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by iamaperson
Wow you notice nothing significant about the report? You mustn't of read it.
Motlen Steel, impossible with just fire. Yet it was there, many witnesses saw it.
Pilot flew into the Pentagon doing a maneuver that is almost impossible, hits the pentagon without touching the lawn...odd to say the least.
FBI cleaning up evidence.
Fires that raged in other buildings couldn't take the buildings down, yet the same type of fire rages in WTC7 and it goes down like a controlled demolition and creates smoke that only controlled demolitions and volcanoes can create.
The lack of funding for the investigation and how tight-lipped it was and censored.
I mean thats just a handful, it goes on and on. Are you blind to the facts, or just being ignorant of them?
Originally posted by misfitofscience
I will say one thing abou 9/11....This so called Building 7 B.S, has just gone insane, WHO CARES, if building 7 collapsed or if they took it down, when you have all 6 other building falling, it just makes common construction sense to pull the remaining building. There was debris everywhere, fires within the building, so pull it who cares, its the choice of the owner of the building or property to make that call which he did. STOP this nonsense about building 7.
The engineers and architects should be standing up for what happened in the field and at the pentagon. Enough of this building 7 B.S It is no smoking gun, it does not prove anything,
The focus should be concentrated on the Field and the pentagon. Because that is where they mystery will reveal itself.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Unproven claims? I don't think you watched the Youtube video that you're so quick to denounce, because those claims are definitely proven. It's not just wild speculation, there are countless interview with credible people who know what they are talking about.
Instead of simply saying that the claims are unproven, how about you show us? instead of just popping in and flexing your ego by remarking about how idiotic we are for believing the evidence presented with a YouTube video is the truth, how about you go through bullet by bullet, tell us how the expert testimonies and cold hard facts are unproven. Tell us exactly what is wrong about every assertion presented within the film or the summary, don't just say its wrong and leave.
First of all a Boeing 707 which the towers were built to withstand an impact from is not a biplane. Second of all a Boeing 767 struck the towers, not a 747
Go to YouTube, watch a few controlled demolitions video, and compare them to the twin towers and WTC7 falling. Pancaking would result in a slower collapse than free-fall speed also.
Yeah and you called me ignorant. . So now consensus doesn't guarantee correctness? You're all over the place man.
A shish kabob? Try a controlled demolition, WTC7 is not a shish kabob.
You are not an engineer so your opinion on how a building collapses is meaningless to me. And you fail to address the fact that WTC7 as well as both twin towers fell at free-fall speed, which is impossible if they pancaked as you believe they did. How is that possible according to your perspective?
From the video, it clearly was 6 floors, and I have those six floors as well as which direction of the building they were on covered in my OP, so since you either didn't read that or mentally blocked it out I will paste it here:
Jet fuel burns in open air at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Unless the tower was made of Bismuth, Potassium, and Sodium, the original story is a lie.
And like I proved with evidence from a thermal image and several witness testimonies, molten metal indeed was there and remained there for days.