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 Griff
Originally posted by esdad71
The fires on the lower floors came from the initial impacts of the jets. Many people cite only the elevator shafts which few connected from top to bottom due to design. Ventilation shafts were found to also carry the explosive fires and smoke throughout the building after the impact. This was shown the fire in the 70's also which is how it spread.
Many people were killed in the elevators and on specific sky lobby floors.
First of all, I wasn't stating that I didn't believe that these fires could have been caused by the fuel. I was asking if these fire were being fought along with the fires in the upper floors. Please quit putting words in my mouth....thank you.
Originally posted by esdad71
What the hell are you talking about? Putting words in your mouth? Griff, buddy, why the rage?
Originally posted by esdad71
the force of the reaction would be pushed through any opening it can find, such as ventilation/communication shafts, elevators and stairwells.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Wrong. It will flow through the path of least resistance... basically the giant hole in the sides of the towers.
Originally posted by Trauma
So please, where's the proof?
Originally posted by KnowItAll
This is just all worthless banter!!! 9-1-1 conspiracy nuts are'nt going to change their minds regardless of the "ACTUAL" evidence placed before them. Conversely, those of us that indeed KNOW what happened that fateful day will not change our minds regardless of the constant circumstantial evidence, coincidences and inuendos stated on this website. So, that kind of makes all this back and forth stuff sort of mute doesn't it?
Originally posted by Nygdan
IS the original poster, Trauma, planning, at any point, to even bother to explain what he consider's 'solid evidence'? I mean, thats what the contention was over in the first place, and apparently confesions,
Originally posted by Nygdanadmissions,
Originally posted by Nygdantape,
Originally posted by Nygdanphysical documents,
Originally posted by Nygdan and physical remains
Originally posted by Nygdan aren't enough, so what is physical evidence?
Originally posted by billybob
you mean bin laden confessing he didn't do it?
Originally posted by Nygdan
More like KSM et al confessing that they did it. Again, what do you consider to be solid evidence, since we are rejecting all recordings and statements and physical evidence as 'probable propaganda'??
Originally posted by Trauma
One thing that always got me was that if the terrorists were knew so much about us, why would the hijackers upon approaching the pentagon not just simply crash into the front of the pentagon and inflict the most damage, instead of performing an impossible turn and hitting the tough side.
Originally posted by 2PacSade
An even better question would be why did they risk getting shot down during all the extra time it took to complete the maneuver? Did they maybe know they wouldn't?
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Nygdan
More like KSM et al confessing that they did it. Again, what do you consider to be solid evidence, since we are rejecting all recordings and statements and physical evidence as 'probable propaganda'??
You mean after they kidnapped KSM's kids and held them until KSM admitted it?
Is this the "solid" evidence you claim?