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.
a more plausible theory as to how the explosives were planted is the elevator restoration that occurred in the 9 months prior to 9/11.
it's been shown that from the elevators, it's only a small cut of drywall to the support columns. hire a bogus crew to instead plant explosives, tell them any story, then kill them afterwards.
the plane wouldn't be enough to destroy the building.
the collapse we saw was controlled demolition.
i'm sure you've seen how the collapse violates newton's third law.
i don't have all the answers pertaining to how or who, but the controlled demolition aspect is clear.
i think i'm done debating this topic. there is more to gain by getting information out to people than arguing with people who can't accept it.
Buildings are not designed to have planes fly into them.
This has been discussed ad-nausiem. If you still buy this explanation, then there's no point in debating it in depth here. Simply put - if you think the collapse violates Newton's third law, you A) don't understand the law to begin with -and- B) don't understand what happened with the WTC.
The outer mesh support essentially guarantees an in-footprint collapse.
We know there was a large amount of aluminum in the WTC and that the temperatures were hot enough to put that aluminum in a molten state
Why don't you go tell people about the Federal Reserve system or the Federal Housing Act and how it contributed to the housing market burst?
both wtc 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a 707 plane impact, and possibly multiple impacts. the 767 is larger by a 10 foot wingspan, which is negligible. the 707 actually has a higher top speed.
it's very simple. it has been done to death, which makes it sad that you don't understand yet. an equal and opposite reaction is had by the colliding object. you hit something, it resists you with the same force you impart.
ergo, assuming the same resistance, materials, and surface area of impact, the one with more mass will win. that is newton's third law, and how it pertains to the wtc collapse. how could the lower mass upper floors destroy more than their weight without themselves being destroyed? you'd either have to increase their durability beyond what is possible, or remove resistance for the math to work out.
that isn't what we saw, as the outer walls were destroyed too, and therefore offered less resistance than what was needed. can you provide any examples of a collapse that stayed within it's footprint when it wasn't controlled demolition?
actually the temperatures were hot enough to turn metal yellow. a temperature beyond what jet fuel can achieve. metal color=temperature.
i have, but i think the government murdering it's own citizens for the gain of a few elites and the justification for war is a much bigger issue.
Putting "facts" as real facts: hydrocarbon fires can reach 2000º... Yes they can, in a controlled environment, not in the open, on that you even have the guts to call people ignorants.
Your denial of the core structure, another point on the retard-o-meter, lagging the material by a few floors? Guess your ignorance has not allowed you to calculate what a real pancake collapse would have taken huh.
To sum it up, are you a demolitions expert?
As I assume you are not (same as you did), maybe you should keep the hole closed, in this case keep the fingers quiet, and not try to discredit people for the sake of it, had enough of it already.