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 intrptr
No, gravity is the strongest argument.We've covered this ground before. The OP says there was "no fire" and "like a demolition". Did we digress
Originally posted by intrptr
I am refuting the "conspiracy theory" of controlled demolition, with "real world" controlled demolition. If one is real and the other theory they cannot be "mutually exclusive"
Originally posted by intrptr
The video shows how a collapse initiated on one floor brings down the house, no matter what the building is made of.
Originally posted by intrptr
Look at the beginning of this video. Collapse initiated at damaged floors. The weight of floors above have only to crush one-floor-at-a-time, not "all 85" at once?
Originally posted by intrptr
I thought the "isolated ejections" were explained as compressed air blowing out ahead of the collapse wave on the floors where elevator doors were?
Originally posted by intrptr
to crush the next and the next all the way to the ground. 50 / 50 doesn't matter.
Originally posted by intrptr
Yes we do. WTC 7. Beginning at :39 in here. The red marked windows are the stairwell windows which all blow out ahead of the collapse.
Originally posted by intrptr
Some people heard booms. Mostly frightened, confused witnesses.
Originally posted by intrptr
And they always proceed the actual collapse. Always. They have to...
Originally posted by intrptr
These "cracks" are readily evident for miles when those kinds of demolitions occur.
Originally posted by intrptr
Show me one photo of spent "shock tube" left over in the rubble.
Originally posted by hellobruce
Conspiracy theory lie, there is no evidence of that at all
Originally posted by hellobruce
Another conspiracy theory lie, how do you explain the death of Sirius
Originally posted by hellobruce
Yet another conspiracy theory lie, it was NOT run by a Bush.
Originally posted by hellobruce
Anyone care to explain why we keep getting this much debunked nonsense posted here?
Anyone care to explain why we keep getting this much debunked nonsense posted here?
Originally posted by intrptr
Got to be some kind of clue, huh? I would star that 5 times but I only have one account.
Just a reminder to keep to the topic -- " WTC7 falls at free fall speed?
Why does the official story defy know laws of physics?".
Eye on the ball, please.
Originally posted by intrptr
Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet bombing the whole page...
Originally posted by Alfie1
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.
If that is so why was UA 93 in fact heading for Washington when it came down and why did those in control of the aircraft dial up the VOR frequency for Reagan National Airport to help them get there ?
Originally posted by Soapusmaximus
Subject matter expert my butt,