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 MI5edtoDeath
I thought the Official Story faithfuls are the zealots.
It is a belief system brought onto them from above from the almighty Powers that Be.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:
edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image
That's not smoke!
It's the dust flying because of the earth trembling when the demolition charges were let loose in WTC1 and WTC2.
Reading this thread I think it is about time you had a new amendment to your precious constitution:
It is the right of every man and woman (even gay) to ignore facts and use bogus science and lack of knowledge of physics to explain anything they choose.
Doing this also entitles them to insult people trying to bring to their attention, facts established by real scientists.
Most Truthers are laughed at in the rest of the world. Some of the truthers in this thread (likke funnyhead) is particularly entertaining.
It is my hope that the mods stay off this thread - as they apparently have till now - and allow a few to read this post before I get banned for telling the truth.
If you will note the row of blackened window surrounds, they are four on top of four windows towards the corner. The glazing is blown out and there is no fire.
I pose this explanation; the billowing dust clouds was drawn up WTC 7 because of wind shear and it smothered the localised fires within the building.
If the fires were so great and they caused the trusses to slump because of the fires, why is there no fire licking out of the broken windows?edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Varemia
have you ever compared the speed of the falling debris to the building itself? It's EXACTLY the same.
Free fall speed is called like that for a reason, there was no resistance whatsoever from the floors below. Even the slightest resistance from the lower floors would have a cumulative effect as the collapse progresses, and you should be able to see a clear difference between the falling speed of the debris, and the building itself.
Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:
edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image
That's not smoke!
It's the dust flying because of the earth trembling when the demolition charges were let loose in WTC1 and WTC2.
Reading this thread I think it is about time you had a new amendment to your precious constitution:
It is the right of every man and woman (even gay) to ignore facts and use bogus science and lack of knowledge of physics to explain anything they choose.
Doing this also entitles them to insult people trying to bring to their attention, facts established by real scientists.
Most Truthers are laughed at in the rest of the world. Some of the truthers in this thread (likke funnyhead) is particularly entertaining.
It is my hope that the mods stay off this thread - as they apparently have till now - and allow a few to read this post before I get banned for telling the truth.
If you will note the row of blackened window surrounds, they are four on top of four windows towards the corner. The glazing is blown out and there is no fire.
I pose this explanation; the billowing dust clouds was drawn up WTC 7 because of wind shear and it smothered the localised fires within the building.
If the fires were so great and they caused the trusses to slump because of the fires, why is there no fire licking out of the broken windows?edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)
Could it be that the fires were further in than the windows you see?
Why does the flames absolutely have to lick out of the windows?
And regarding explosions. Have you ever heard the noise a concrete slab makes when it cracks because of heat? Would you at least acknowledge the possibility that the strain the trusses and what-have-you makes a significant noise when they give way?
Have you heard the noise from a flash over? Would you even consider that the explosions that some firemen refer to could be their "technical" term for smoke gasses igniting?
And the most important - for Truthers - have you asked MythBusters their opinion?
Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).
***snip***
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Yes, the flames would be licking out of the window even if the fire was further in and near the core. This is because there would more oxygen by broken windows.
You will also see that the majority of windows are intact and there is little evidence of wide spread fires.
Originally posted by 4hero
***snip***
Also, steel is capable of withstanding the temperatures of jet fuel, even without fire proofing. Come back once you've done some more reading.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Alfie1
But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?
Considering that you broached the subject and I merely raised a point of logic, do you believe there is no evidence that cutting charges were used?
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
This, however, does not negate the possibility of some columns and tying members being dismembered by cutting charges used by the criminals that destroyed the WTC building.
But can you prove even one was cut before the attack?
Just one?
Are you asking him to prove a negative?
that's illogical if you are...
Can you prove otherwise?
Just one?
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
Check this out;
An enormous chunk of WTC 1 landed on Fiterman Hall and it did not collapse as if it was pole axed like WTC 7.edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
Check this out;
An enormous chunk of WTC 1 landed on Fiterman Hall and it did not collapse as if it was pole axed like WTC 7.edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)
No.
That's from the collapse of 7.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?
So what you are saying is that many buildings suffered damage and the only one that collapsed without an airplane striking it was WTC7?