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 Sek82
It's poorly explained perfect collapse was not worth including in the 9/11 report,
I heard that before 9/11, there had never been a highrise building that collapsed from fire
What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..
I also heard that before 9/11 no highrise building had been hit by a loaded jet airliner....
Originally posted by TupacShakur
They're not perfect replicas, since the aircrafts and buildings are different
Originally posted by TupacShakur
My point is simply that planes have hit buildings before, causing fires, without causing even as much as a partial collapse.
These collapses exhibited many signs of controlled demolitions.
Liar. It's fine to disagree with the controlled demolition scenario, but stating things like that as factual when in reality it's a blatant lie only serves to illustrate your ignorance and willingness to discount any evidence that goes against your view.
No, actually they show no signs of controlled demolition
Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:
WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris
Fire doesn't bring skyscrapers down to the ground. It never has before 9/11, and never will, because the towers were demolished. That explains the conditions that matches those of a controlled demolition: fire and gravity doesn't.
Originally posted by ProudBird
El Al crash in Amsterdam
Please, read and learn.......and learn.....
The remains of the plane were transported to Schiphol for analysis. The parts were not used by investigators to reconstruct the aircraft.
The cockpit voice recorder, however, had been destroyed
Source: Great Disasters In History, page 228
Almost six years after the disaster, further details were made public, confirming that the jet's cargo documents had been manipulated and that the "missing" cockpit voice recorder had been covertly shipped to Israel.
Originally posted by spoor
You STILL have not read the purpose of that report, although it has been posted twice in this thread....
The purposes of the Commission are to-- (1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
Good point there. Why then, was The Marriott Hotel mentioned (numerous times in the report) as suffering significant damage (collateral as well, it eventually mostly collapsed) But WTC 7's was not? As Rumsfeld answered when asked, "What building 7?" Don't forget, on BBC it's collapse was announced, what, 5 or 6 minutes before it even occurred? Oops! Also, WTC 6 was in between WTC 7 and WTC 1/2, and even it too did not fully collapse. WTC 7 was intentionally demolished in my opinion, tell me I'm wrong and you'd be wasting your breath.
Originally posted by thedman
WTC 7 was not part of their commision as its collapse was result of "collateral damage" from debris thrown out
by the collapse of WTC towers
........cockpit voice recorders can get destroyed is actually proof that cockpit voice recorders can get intentionally withheld from the public! Talk about a backfire....
Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
Originally posted by pteridine
If this was an "inside job" as you say how do you think it would be done? Have you ever planned a miltary operation? The first principal is to minimize moving parts and keep things simple at each step. Make sure the plan can't be tracked back to you. Involve as few people as possible.
Here's how it would have been planned:
1. Allow the hijackers to think it was their idea.
2. Allow the hijackers to train as pilots.
3. Allow the hijackers to get to the plane.
4. Make sure no air marshalls were on the planes.
5. Allow the planes to hit targets.
6. Stand back and let things happen.
The complicated Rube Goldberg plots are just for entertainment and minor bilkings of a few suckers who really need a conspiracy. No planner would have put explosives in the buildings because explosions are obvious and wiring 100+ stories would have far too many risks of discovery.
Get smart. Think for yourself. Ask questions. Question the truther sites.
You obviously have no idea how intel or even how the goverment plans stuff. It is called compartmentalization.
A good example of this is The Manhattan Project.
Originally posted by ANOK
How did the plane have any effect on the building bellow where they hit? None, so the plane had nothing to do with the complete collapse.
Anyway your arguments are moot mate. You need to start offering some real evidence, and sound physics, before anyone is going to take you even remotely serious. All you seem to be able to do is tell others they are wrong, without offering anything to support your claims other than what we've already heard, and addressed a million time already (yes it is a million times, +1, don't believe me? Start counting mate).