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.
Why does the official story defy the known laws of physics?
Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Because United 93 was intended to hit WTC 7 and when that plane got taken out of the sky above Pennsylvania prematurely they had to continue there plan and bring WTC 7 down.
You cant have a building loaded with explosives just sitting there when the insurance agency sends their people in to assess the damage. So they had to 'pull' the building.
The official story defies the laws of physics because it's b.s.
Originally posted by stirling
Precisely the question which the ole avatar poses........WTF?
this baby was rigged to blow...the only explanation possible....
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
Why does the official story defy the known laws of physics?
remember the kennedy bullet U-Turn?
It was an iside job, intelligent people have been telling the sheeple this for years.
Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Because United 93 was intended to hit WTC 7 and when that plane got taken out of the sky above Pennsylvania prematurely they had to continue there plan and bring WTC 7 down.
You cant have a building loaded with explosives just sitting there when the insurance agency sends their people in to assess the damage. So they had to 'pull' the building.
The official story defies the laws of physics because it's b.s.
Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by samkent
Just realize that you look incredibly weak, saying there is no proof. Far LESS proof of your story exists, in fact so much less that it almost does not exist.
Originally posted by 11I11
There must be 1000 threads on ATS regarding WTC7, so not sure why we are going over old ground here.
Originally posted by Rob37n
As we all know now buildings collapse neatly into their own footprint in these circumstances.
Originally posted by 11I11
There must be 1000 threads on ATS regarding WTC7, so not sure why we are going over old ground here.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by samkent
Just realize that you look incredibly weak, saying there is no proof. Far LESS proof of your story exists, in fact so much less that it almost does not exist.
That, or something like it, has been said many many times but it is still nonsense.
There is in fact not a single incontravertible fact proving an inside job 9/11 conspiracy.
On the other hand, there are buckets of facts indicating that it wasn't. Just have a peruse of the 1200 items of evidence introduced at the Moussaoui trial for example :-
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...
Originally posted by hellobruce
Except none of the buildings that collapsed at the WTC came down in their own footprint.... just how do you think WTC 7 got damaged!