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 r2d246
The buildings dustified, then the wind blew away all that dust. So no explosions. That's BS. explosions would break it down into huge boulder and rock sized parts. Not dust. There are no boulders though. But there is tons of dust. TONS. All there is is dust. Again the buildings got dustified. It's an energy weapon of some kind. Youtube: Judy wood. Look at this photo below.
Originally posted by easybreezy
it answers all of the subjects by the "official reports"
Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by kwakakev
You are correct. I only post on two internet forums these days, and then only during times when I'm taking a break from other pursuits, or when I have new information I want feedback on. Why only 9/11 forums (ATS and JREF)? Because that is the subject of my research. I research for primary historical documentation, not people's spin on media accounts or secondary sources.
I've had my fill of thermite, directed energy weapons, holograms and other fantasies. I don't care to discuss them or watch YouTube videos advocating them. If someone ever presents evidence (not YouTube videos) to support an alternative, then I might reconsider my position on the structural collapse hypothesis. But, I am a layperson, not a structural engineer, and I state many times in many places that my opinion and 25 cents won't even get you a cup of coffee.
However, I do agree that the WTC7 collapse seems particularly odd. I would not agree that demolition is the ONLY viable explanation for the collapse, but it certainly seems to have about as much merit as the NIST explanation does (to me anyways). But, without direct evidence to support either, I reckon it is just a matter of which makes more sense to a particular individual.
Originally posted by bumpufirst
its yellow and quacks like a duck.
Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by 911files
Because structures casually explode and collapse at free fall speed, right?
The way the towers collapsed suggests it was a controlled demolition, not the result of structural failure. Had it been structural failure, the collapse would have happened much differently and the towers would not have simply disintegrated one after the other. Two planes hitting two different areas should not produce identical collapse.
No building rated for an airplane attack has EVER collapsed before!
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by onecraftydude
No building rated for an airplane attack has EVER collapsed before!
Build rated for airplane attack....?
So who issues the rating ? Underwriter Laboratory?
We have tested this building and rate it for airplane attack
Say a sliding scale..... Rated for Cessna ... 737..... 767 .... 747 ,, Airbus 380
I'd say are little confused
What the designers of WTC did was calculate the force that am aircraft impact, in this case a Boeing 707,
would create Determined lateral forces that such a impact would create was 13 million ft lbs
The side of the WTC could resist 17 million ft lbs - so designers said would not topple over if hit
Failed to consider whole range of other effects - fires created by fuel load, fireproofing would be dislodged by
impact, elevators being disabled so Firefighter could not reach the upper floors, etc.