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 Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by psyop911
Originally posted by radhaya88
I have seen many of these converted truth er posts. I am sure many of them are not genuine. If you truly feel you are converted at this time, please watch the link below with Dimitri Khalezov. Richard Gage only found the evidence of how they cut the beams for size to be shipped to Japan, not how the buildings truly came down. Dimitri's explanation is the only one that makes sense. I am surprised his interview is still available to watch.
disinfo, conitelpro anyone?
Originally posted by anumohi
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by anumohi
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jamiebenzy
That is so complex it is near ridiculous. I mean, surely someone would realize that he/she was placing stuff all throughout the tower near the time of 9/11.
And to answer some people's wondering about explosives being built into the tower; after 50 years, they would not be reliable. Age does not treat anything very well.
ur funny, i see you know nothing about explosives
But those explosives were implanted within weeks of 911 not years
So what types of explosives were they? You do appear to know. Why weren't traces of the explosives discovered in the debris by any of the thousands of people helping to clear it?
Nano-thermite is not applicable, because it is a hypothetical explosive at best, with no known applications in actual buildings. Plus, how did all of the demolitions connect and detonate properly under a dynamic collapse and fire? It just doesn't make sense to me.
wireless charges of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel would have been perfect because with all that debris who could test it for a fuel that was used in the airliners. you have to remember that no one was looking for explosives , because remember TERRORISTS FLEW PLANES INTO IT
Originally posted by zerimar65
No, you're not going to be attacked personally. I'm not calling you crazy. But I would like to know where you get your information from.
How do you know Building 7 was built over a "Consolidated Edison power plant"? and the supports were not put in the most ideal places? The building would not be built like that. You're making it up as you go along.
This is the first time in ten years I've heard your explanation. How could there be a 20 story hole near the bottom? That doesn't make any sense.
If one of the main supports was damaged and it collapsed, the building wouldn't have come down so symmetrically. But it did. Nice and even. It almost floats down to the groud. For the building to collapse the way it did, ALL of the supports would have had to be taken out at the same time within milliseconds to get that desired effect
I've never heard of a building bulging.
In the history of buildings and skyscrapers, never has there been a collapse by fire. Buildings have burned for 24 hours and they didn't collapse. But let's say if one did, it wouldn't collapse all at once. Are you really going to say that the fire burned so evenly that it weakened the building exactly the same way all the way around? That the debris hit the building in the same places so it weakened it evenly? There's no way.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Gosh, this is such a fallacy it is absurd. Jet A burns at less than 600 degrees F. Structural steel has a melting point of 1000-1200 degrees F. Let's also remember that the steel was covered in fireproofing material. Not to mention that most of the Jet A was consumed in the fireball that EXITED the building, burning up in mere SECONDS. Contrary to popular myth, it didn't continue burning after the initial fireball. So this argument is just hogwash top to bottom.
Originally posted by WeRpeons
Does anyone know if the guys on Myth Busters ever tried to duplicate this pancake theory on a smaller scale? I'm sure there's enough people who have written in to suggest proving it. I would be curious just to see a small scale steel building set on fire and watch how long it takes to collapse, if it would ever collapse.
Small scale testing is done all the time. I can't think of anything else more important than trying to put this building collapse conspiracy to rest. If they haven't talked about it, maybe they've been strong armed to ignore it?
I know they were blocked from revealing the RFID myth. Proving information contained on RFID chips could be read remotely. Here's just a small part of the story that caused them not to push for the episode on RFID's.
Adam continues, “I got chills just as I described it. They were way way out-gunned and they absolutely made it clear to Discovery they were not going to air this episode talking about how hackable this stuff was and Discovery backed way down, being a large corporation who depends upon the revenue of the advertisers. Uh, and now it’s on Discovery’s radar and they won’t let us go near it. So I’m sorry. It’s just one of those things, but man, that was.. Tory still gets a little white when he describes that phone conversation.”
I would imagine the amount of viewers for an episode like that would go through the roof!
Originally posted by NadaCambia
The reason I don't like the truth movement is because people just parrot "facts" they've been told.
I'd say the vast majority of "how do you explain x, y and z" don't need an explanation, because x, y and z usually didn't happen in fact.
I think what stumps me about the the truther movement though is the suggestion that America would need to attack themselves to justify war. All America would have to do is allow a terrorist attack to happen, lord knows you have enough real enemies, however bogus the wars.
It makes no sense for 9/11 being an inside job. It doesn't matter how many parroted "facts" I'm presented with or how many failed structural engineers you put in front of me, you can never explain why they would even need to attack themselves.
It doesn't make a god damn bit of sense.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Aside from all the conspiracy talk..... look at this picture.
Look how close wtc 7 was to its neighbours, now look at how small the rubble pile is and how little damage it caused to its naighbours, I would say nice professional demoltion. Anything else would be bullshat.edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)