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.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Originally posted by litterbaux
Pulling means to demolish using explosives
Originally posted by Sek82
Are you saying WTC 1 & 2 was an engineering disaster?
Originally posted by impressme
such as there were no explosion, there were no remote control aircraft, and there was no demolition at the WTC and so on…
Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Ignore all evidence and go for fantasy all you want
And Remember, thinking changes everything!
you "forget" how the real world works,
"Those making silly claims have to back those silly claims up"
Which truthers are unable to do, so all they can do is make sillier and sillier claims about 9/11 not based on any facts at all!
Originally posted by kwakakev
....remember the moment that it finally clicked for you? It took me three days to find reality again as I had to re-evaluate everything .....
NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.
Originally posted by Alfie1
I notice the presenter of the AE9/11T clip is Richard Gage who is a well deserved laughing stock after his ridiculous cardboard box demo supposed to be representative of the Towers.