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 Alfie1
As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.
Originally posted by Cassius666
The floors were designed to hold up everything above them. They should have offered some resistance, yet they did not.edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Alfie1
So, I can't bring up the fact that you agree that NIST can simulate one collapse but can't simulate another, but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread? Gotcha.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Alfie1
I have posed the question whether it is possible for NIST to model collapses for WTC 1 & 2 given that everything was obscured by debris and dust.
I am still interested in a sensible qualified answer, but not from you obviously.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Nutter
but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread?
I have made no reference to a NIST WTC 7 simulation or holograms.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Nutter
but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread?
I have made no reference to a NIST WTC 7 simulation or holograms.
Since when does "you guys" equate to "you"?edit on 20-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)
And my question is whether it is possible for NIST to model collapse for WTC 7 given that everything was obscured.
Originally posted by Cassius666How else do you explain the total annihilation that we whitness