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 jaman
if this is not the case then why is binladen hidding in a cave hes amillionaire an could afford a dream of attorneys to defend him,but hes just scared? so scared he admits to the deed? cmon kids put the koolaid back in the jug its bad for you.
Originally posted by Brainiac
And tell me why again The United States would stage an Attack on itself?
And why would The United States want to murder tax paying citizens? Shut down commerce and close Wall Street?
Why would the United States attack it's Pentagon? Murdering and Wounding it's LOYAL military followers?
Why would the United States cause it's own Government to run for cover?
Is it just me or does any one else find this Preposterous and Utter Non-sense!?
So let me get this straight, the buildings exhibited all the characteristics of controlled demolition from the way they fell, to the speed that they fell, to the visible squib detonations themselves. And because you are in such a state of denial, you would rather say the buildings collapsed for the first time in history due to fires?
Originally posted by pteridine
How convenient for your argument in not permitting a first of a kind. Until you have hard evidence of demolition, your "theory" has no credibility or basis what-so-ever. Since you claim it you must prove it. In the absence of any other evidence, it must be concluded that the planes and subsequent fires caused the collapses.
posted by esdad71
WHERE is the evidence of explosives?
posted by GoldenFleece
Is this enough?
Originally posted by pteridine
Try to find some evidence that doesn't involve guessing at what happened by amateur video analyses.
Originally posted by ANOK
What points did I make that demo companies disagree with? Please explain, with sources (other than 9/11 sites pls).
Originally posted by ANOK
WTC 7 fell with a precision you just don't get from 'natural' collapses.
Originally posted by ANOK
LOL OK. Listen to you? Listen to what exactly? Your lame attempt to explain the physics you don't understand?
Originally posted by ANOK
OK what sources do you need other than to the physics I posted?
What claims are you talking about? I didn't make any claims, I only stated facts that you have yet to prove wrong.
Originally posted by ANOK
You could completely sever ALL the columns around it's circumference and the top would still NOT fall through the rest of the building.
Originally posted by ANOK
The buildings could have taken twice as long to collapse, it would still be too fast.
Originally posted by ANOK
all four corners fell at the same time, or within seconds of each other. This is only possible when ALL supports fail equally.
Originally posted by ANOK
If only one columns remains standing the building will not collapse symmetrically, demolition 101.
Originally posted by ANOK
You didn't even attempt to discus my points, such as the hammer example.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...
It was originally posted at implosionworld.com but is hosted now by a 9/11 related site.
Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”
That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...
I understand the physics just fine, which is why I recommended that you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor. Specifically, your thoughts on the "path of least resistance".
Source?
Source?
Source?
Source?
What "hammer example?" None of your prior posts in this thread mentioned hammers. If your'e referring to your question about "what would happen if you drop an object onto another object of equal mass" I answered your question already.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
You are confusing threads....