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 GobbledokTChipeater
Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!
Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Originally posted by demonseed
#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!
.....
Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.
Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!
Originally posted by demonseed
1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.
What?? Are you really saying that the bottom floor (or any other floor) only holds enough weight to hold the floor above it? Then WTF holds up the rest of the floors above it?
You say it is easily understandable. I say you are gullible.
The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?
I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether
Or maybe you are pretending to support the OS so you can make it look bad from the inside-out. In which case, thumbs up!edit on 20/11/10 by GobbledokTChipeater because: ?
However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
None of it was just fire alone.
"While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."
The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?
I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether
Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by demonseed
However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.
Hi "demonseed" (Is it just me or do 90% of the people who come on ATS and fiercely challenge the 9/11 "truthers" have a username or avatar with satan, the devil, 666, or something like that?) I'm not American, so my perspective isn't skewed, all I care about is the truth. It's clear to any sane person who has done their homework which "story" holds more weight. I'd give it 100 years max before it becomes accepted scientific fact that 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence is there. In fact I tried to make a similar bet with a good friend yesterday - I said if it becomes accepted scientific fact within the next 50 years he would owe me just $100 AU, but if not, I would owe him $100. He refused to accept the bet on those terms, he wanted an extremely shorter time period, he obviously felt 50 years would be enough time for the truth to come out.
In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant. The NIST report says that office fires alone caused the complete collapse of WTC 7. A first and only time in history.
And while we're at it, by NIST's own calculations, the structural damage to the towers was minimal as well, blaming mostly heat and fires on their complete collapse also.
(Is it just me or do 90% of the people who come on ATS and fiercely challenge the 9/11 "truthers" have a username or avatar with satan, the devil, 666, or something like that?)
Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by demonseed
demonseed,
I would never think of telling you that you are wrong, for that is your opinion. but, I can't imagine what could of caused you to make such a drastic change of opinion??
what i will do though is maybe give you some insight into your facts and logic.
you tried to compare the towers and bldg. 7 collapses to the 1906 san fransisco fire??? you have to be aware that the "fire" burned for 3 days, and ALL of the structures were constructed of WOOD!!
you stated that buildings in "manhattan are designed to collapse inward" NO building has ever been designed TO collapse! when you see any structure collaspe in an inward free fall it is because of a contolled demolition, performed by an expert.
now, if you had done your homework, you would of discovered that when the trade centers were built, the engineers were having trouble with how they would take those towers down when they had reached their life cycle. All the engineers agreed that a controlled demolition would NOT bring those towers down, so they had the basements dug deeper than normal, and, they made plans that a NUCLEAR charge would have to be used to bring then down. this demolition plan is in the original building plans.
you also stated that there was nothing "eerie" about the collapse?? did you not see the molten steel running down the sides of the towers? what about the traces of thermite that have been found in the debris?? or, perhaps the fact that temperatures in the debris pile at ground zero were over 750o ai some spots for over 4 weeks??
and your reasoning for not believing that 9-11 was an inside job....it would have to involve too many people, and someone would of come forward by now. really? Does the kennedy assasination ring any bells?? what about the USS Liberty?? or the tuskagee airmen??
as much as i respect your opinion, i truly have to suspect your motivation for the presentation of this thread, most of your post is assumptions with no basis in fact.
when the trade centers were built, the engineers were having trouble with how they would take those towers down when they had reached their life cycle. All the engineers agreed that a controlled demolition would NOT bring those towers down, so they had the basements dug deeper than normal, and, they made plans that a NUCLEAR charge would have to be used to bring then down. this demolition plan is in the original building plans.
Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
Loosely on topic, hopefully.
I very, very rarely weigh in on the 9-1-1 threads. The reason being is that it seems very obvious in my opinion that the entire 'conspiracy' here would more likely be the aftermath of anti-US sentiment that the event caused.
In other words, making people disbelieve the official story and the actual events is where the diabolical part comes into play. A very sophisticated conspiracy to encourage chaos and confusion amongst the US populace by using disinformation tactics to imply the US government was involved.
Has that view even been discussed in these forums?
The question is sincere, as damaged US credibility has certainly resulted. Which should raise flags when viewed in retrospect-----if one were to consider the US was actually attacked by external enemies.
Anyway, just pondering.
In other words, making people disbelieve the official story and the actual events is where the diabolical part comes into play. A very sophisticated conspiracy to encourage chaos and confusion amongst the US populace by using disinformation tactics to imply the US government was involved.
Originally posted by okbmd
IF , that is what NIST says , which I don't know if it's true as I have not read it but , IF that's what it says then I disagree with it and find it absolutely ABSURD to claim that HUNDREDS of tons of steel slamming into 7 would be "insignificant" .
This is ludicrous to the point that it sounds like something the TM would fabricate .