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 pai mei
reply to post by iammonkey
What kind of a post is this ? I am beginning to suspect something here. Is your post serious ?
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Mikey84
I reckon the families of those who have died would want all this rubbish to stop, ever heard of moving on with your lives? Instead of dwelling on the past?
This is a very well known disinfo tactic (applying guilt and nonsense to make them feel ashamed for asking questions.) Nice work!
Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
FACT: The buildings colllaped pan-cake style because the fires weakened the exposed iron supports.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
FACT: The buildings colllaped pan-cake style because the fires weakened the exposed iron supports.
First, pancake theory is not a "fact," it's a theory. Second, NIST doesn't even support pancake theory anymore, and I can post a link where they explain this on their website. In short, it contradicts their final hypothesis.
The supports were steel, not iron, and it is also NOT a fact that the supports lost strength from heating. That is also NOT what the "official" reports say. They say thermal expansion of the trusses which led to deflections in the perimeter columns.
I appreciate the effort of trying to produce something a third grader would understand, but you don't really have your facts straight. Not that a third grader would know any better.
Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
Yes I know steel is made of iron and carbon, but it is mostly iron.
It is true the trusses failed because of the fire, but my points are still vaild.
So you really believe that ufos with ray guns and the skull and bones killed all those americans. How old are you? You sound like a 12 year old tbh
Originally posted by pai mei
And in fact WTC 7 did come down nicely into it's own footprint.
Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by Mikey84
Yes it did collapse in it's own footprint. And it looked exactly like a controlled demolition.
Picture :
911research.wtc7.net...
Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by pai mei
Don't forget you can see squibs when WTC7 was "pulled" too.
911 = Inside Job WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 = controlled demolition.
wZn
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.
Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."
Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by iammonkey
You ask this :"why didn't the buildings come down nice and into their own footprint like in a controlled demolition".
wrong i did NOT ask that! but feel free to twist things.
To me this is a question from someone who does not think much or you write here just to waste people's time. Maybe you wonder why didn't they evacuate the people like they do in controlled demolitions ?
And to me this is some one who cant read what i post. Do yourself a favour. Go back, re read and get your facts right as to what I said. seems like you only see what you want to. but that no Surprise.
This will be my last post on this thread due to the fact that already two people have twisted things and put words in to people’s mouths. I’ll take the advice I was given years ago which is,
Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]
[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]
[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]
"So why in god’s name would they do a controlled demolition to cause less damage? "
You ask this :"why didn't the buildings come down nice and into their own footprint like in a controlled demolition"
Originally posted by pai mei
Thermite to cut trough the beams does exist. Remember the molten steel pouring trough that corner of the building. It was not aluminum, molten aluminum is white. Also the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel to make it liquid. What was that then ?
Originally posted by pai mei
I have seen many videos and stuff, but this is like the first time I see those very evident squibs.