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.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi whats SyHoIuLLr name
Who are you talking about specifically?
Osers have emotionless thinking not logic.
Are you talking about folks that have sons
and daughters caught up in the WARS??
Shouldn't they come here with a scrap of emotion???edit on 22-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: so jerks won't know I can't spell
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
I will tell you what son, once you tell us the meaning of RIGOR we can address your hypostasis. Untill then who the heck would even know what the heck you are bableing on about.
Originally posted by Varemia
In my opinion, it would be indicative of controlled demolition if:
1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by Varemia
In my opinion, it would be indicative of controlled demolition if:
1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
There were. By the way, the working theory (unless there's a better one) is that nanothermite was used to WEAKEN the steel structure (of WTC 1 and 2) before hand, then strategically placed charges were used to get the inertia moving. Once the building was in motion, the weakened structure gave way floor after floor. WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane and had little structural damage, and the fires were small and scattered.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
Um... they DID fall all at once. Also see explanation above.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.
They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
Look on the bright side - you're batting 1000.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Have you ever been inside a school of reason or deduction or truth for that matter?
You must have seen or read about the bomb blast accounts in all three buildings that day??????
They explain the debris.
The Towers at the WTC fell into thier foundations including bld number 7
At and to show how ignorant you are about the physical world, they
fell AT FREE FALL SPEED. How??? you may ask The ONLY way DEMOLITION
Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
you are jokin right? She doesnt come out and say.. "hey, pull it is industry terms means bring a building down.." no.. Instead she uses "pull it.." to describe how they would bring a building down to minimize damage to surrounding buildings. Case closed. "pull it" is used in the cd industry. Daves theory here is bunk. Its ok.. Doesnt matter what crazy old larry meant.. The question was.. "who the heck ever said "pull it" is industry term for controlled demolition?". I answered that. So anything else is pointless in this thread. Accept that.
Originally posted by Juanxlink
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by EddieCusak
But if it's the idea that the US government would be so psychopathic as to kill its own citizens in a false flag attack, to further a sociopolitical agenda, that you are struggling with, then I would familiarise yourself with Operation Northwoods.
en.wikipedia.org...
I don't doubt that the American government is absolutely packed full of the most dreadful sort of people. But operation Northwoods didn't envisage the killing of US citizens. And it never happened.
So it's not really the best example to illustrate your claim.
Ignorant comment of the month...
So northwoods did not intended on killing or faking the kills of US citizens? why is this retarded ignorant allowed to post here?
Originally posted by EddieCusak
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
It envisaged a plan to bring down US airlines. Who was going to be on those planes? Chimpanzees? And it never happened because Kennedy vetoed it, but if it reached his desk, we can only assume that the CIA sat a drafted this plan with every intention of doing it. Times change.. as do presidents.
edit on 22-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction
Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by GoodOlDave
That's a bad analogy because for it to be true that would mean 3 like-sized titanics would have had to sunk that day. There are plenty of examples of "firsts" that happened that day just like there are plenty of coincidences which people seem to overlook.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
There were. By the way, the working theory (unless there's a better one) is that nanothermite was used to WEAKEN the steel structure (of WTC 1 and 2) before hand,
then strategically placed charges were used to get the inertia moving.
WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane and had little structural damage, and the fires were small and scattered.
Um... they DID fall all at once. Also see explanation above.
Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?
They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.
They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
Explosie
Ooggetuigen melden dat rond 13.30 uur aan de linkerkant van het gebouw een explosie plaatsvond waar diverse ramen sneuvelden. Bij het gedeelte dat tot op dat moment nog redelijk intact was, trok de brandweer zich snel terug.
Explosion
Eyewitnesses reported that around 13.30 an explosion on the left side of the building occurred that took out several windows. The fire men quickly decided to pull it from an area that appeared to be reasonable intact.