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.
Really? I never heard about that, could you link me to an article or something? I don't think the people resposible will ever be held accountable, because if people are shown all of the evidence and still believe the official story, then there's really no hope for the future of this country. The people behind it will buy their way out, postpone the trial, or do whatever it takes to dodge the consequences.
This topic is finished for a long time ago. The US might even be charged for it in a court of law,and that was in the CNN news in 2007!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah man not everyone, there are still tons of people that buy the official story and fight tooth and nail to defend it.
Everybody knows it was an inside job.
Denial. The inability to accept the fact that our government was behind these attacks in order to justify the invasion of the Middle East and the Patriot Act which widdled away our rights and crapped on the Constitution.
i dont understand how anyone can really argue with that evidence, very thorough and compelling stuff.
I agree, but I think the collapse of WTC7 is the most obvious piece of evidence. It matches up with a controlled demolition because of the free-fall during the collapse, the symmetrical collapse, the kink during the collapse meaning that the core columns failed first in order to have the building fall in on itself which is how implosions are performed, and the explosions heard during the collapse.
the thermite found in the adjacent apartment building is particularly damning.
Denial. The inability to accept the fact that our government was behind these attacks in order to justify the invasion of the Middle East
The only explanation for the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition.
There would still be resistance during the initial impact, which would cause a deceleration.
1: AS the building collapsed it became less able, as a whole to maintain it's rigidity. A large part of the building's structural integrity was based in it's outer skin, as more of the skin was destroyed, the floors became less able to hold up their own weight... this affect obviously "accelerated" as more of the outer skin was destroyed.
This is where the camps split, there are the pancakers and the people who think that wouldn't work.
2. The amount of debris crushing the floors increased as more and more floors collapsed. In other words, the weight of the floors above the stable building grew as the collapsed part grew.
But it accelerated while it initially collided with tons of steel and concrete which would have provided resistance, so yes, there is a "big mystery" there.
The "acceleration" This is not only not weird, it's would be expected. Once the building below was totally unable to sustain the downward momentum and the weight above the debris reached free-fall speed.
So the debris "accelerated" up to free-fall.
.....No.
And debunked.
I don't think you can conclude that, there's not one type of demolition. It could have been set up in a top-down manner.
BTW: In a REAL demo, the ENTIRE building ESSENTIALLY collapses at free-fall. So floor 10 and floor 100 would all start collapsing at the same time. This OBVIOUSLY didn't happen on 9/11 and as such the towers don't even look like and demo on record...
No, why would you assume I think that?
Here is the National Demolition Association.
They have almost 1000 member companies each with dozens of employees. None of them are crying foul over 911. Are you saying they are all on the payroll?
I have said nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting.
All it would take in one fired employee to blow the whistle. Or are you saying each employee is on the payroll as well?
Lots of people don't even know that WTC7 collapsed, but you bring up a good point though. Maybe they don't want to put their reputation/companies reputation on the line and risk being fired or ridiculed, maybe they don't want to be seen as a crazy, unpatriotic conspiracy theorist, I don't know.
I suggest that if any of them felt that any of the WTCs were CD they would have gotten the word out with concrete proof.
Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by hooper
Mocker. I bet you don't like correction do you? I bet too, that you don't consult anyone with wisdom, you know it all all ready.edit on 24-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo
Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.
I guess that means it's you - since you mention both of them!
Oh no - now it's me too - I did it as well! Look what you made me do - yo made me part of bothconspiracies by mentioning them together!!
One final reply.
You said there would be resistance during the initial collapse, and of course their was. The buildings didn't start in free fall. The hit free fall when the amount of resistance the weakened floor below was negligible compared to the weight and momentum of the debris above.
If you drop a brick on an egg, is their resistance? Yep. Does it meaningfully slow down the brick? Go try it and report back.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by TupacShakur
Anyone that can't connect the Anthrax attacks with the 9/11 attacks (especially since the Anthrax letters mentioned the 9/11 attacks) is either an imbecile or a lousy liar.
I guess that means it's you - since you mention both of them!
Oh no - now it's me too - I did it as well! Look what you made me do - yo made me part of bothconspiracies by mentioning them together!!
This is the best you got?
Seriously?
Do you think it worked?
Y'know...they pay more for posts that actually attempt to debunk what a "truther" states as fact.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
If you drop a brick on an egg, is their resistance? Yep. Does it meaningfully slow down the brick? Go try it and report back.