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: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430
According to what I can see from your profile you've been a member on ATS since late 2015. In all that time you have a total of 208 posts. All but one of those posts seem to be about 911 and are bolstering the official narrative regarding 911. This leads me to believe your agenda is more than fact based. If it is solely fact based then why don't you author your first OP on this site and explain to us why we are all wrong about 911?
originally posted by: CreationBro
a reply to: MrBig2430
So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?
From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.
Wasnt thermitic material found too?
metabunk
Thread: ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-5
www.metabunk.org...
By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...
This is incorrect. As I've already noted in this thread, NIST's WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering, which is the flagship journal of the ASCE and one of the most highly respected and cited engineering journals in the world.
Also, I note that you have yet to respond to my specific criticisms of Hulsey. This forum's focus is on specific claims. Instead of speculating about what Hulsey may or may not be thinking, we can analyze his words and actions to date, which is what I have done. You seem to be avoiding specific analysis. Here again is a link to my analysis in this thread as to why Hulsey's claims to date do not add up. Mick has also noted several times how the original study design explicitly stated its bias.
originally posted by: ParkerCramer
Can you help me out Mr. big ?
What exactly caused the steel beams to fail on THREE buildings in the same day?
originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430
According to what I can see from your profile you've been a member on ATS since late 2015. In all that time you have a total of 208 posts. All but one of those posts seem to be about 911 and are bolstering the official narrative regarding 911. This leads me to believe your agenda is more than fact based. If it is solely fact based then why don't you author your first OP on this site and explain to us why we are all wrong about 911?
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: TobyFlenderson
If it is true that 9/11was allowed or whatever and cover2d up... considering the lengths some would have to go to see this remained covered up the last 16 years... they are just suddenly going to give up and let someone drop a bomb on the whole OS?
That makes no sense.
Nothing is going to come out about 911. The 911 OS is a part of history now. That's it.
So your delusions have led you to believe that myself and others are guv paid shills.
This is a conspiracy site. We're here to talk about conspiracies.
You are pro inside job and are here to discuss how the ebil goobermint is responsible
I am here to point out how delusional you all are.
So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?
From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.
What dropped that building? and so perfectly..just seems like there was no good reason for such a near perfect collapse, or collapse period..perfect or not.
There just seems to be a few people who can't accept the truth.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: CreationBro
So if jet fuel was not the main fire fuel, what was fueling the fires to heat that specific steel to fail the way that it did?
From what I can remember, the steel in those buildings needed to be heated to something like 1800+ degrees to fail. Ill fact check this, but that is very high temp.
It sounds like you are coming up short in the physics area as well as the true facts of 911.
Try this at home:
Use a paper match to heat up a needle or straight pin.
It will glow orange.
You can bend it like nothing like nothing when glowing.
All with burning paper.
Then look at the size of the floor trusses used and how thin the steel in them was.
After that the collapsing towers should not be some big mystery anymore.
originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: MrBig2430
ETA: I've been here a while and used to try and partake in 9/11 threads because I was interested and felt that something was wrong with the OS"?
originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MrBig2430
You are wrong on so many levels.
So your delusions have led you to believe that myself and others are guv paid shills.
Not believing the official narrative does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was an inside job.
Please do that. Please take the time to generate your own thread explaining how we are all so delusional.
The world would be a far better place if we were all as smart and well adjusted as you profess to be.