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 Shroomery
Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
Maybe I have missed it, but does anyone have any reports of other steel frame buildings besides the WTC that collapsed due to fire? Also, does anyone know what happened to the black boxes on the planes?
The 3 WTC towers were the first in history to collapse due to a fire.
7 out of 8 blackboxes were destroyed according to the official story.
[edit on 13-9-2005 by Shroomery]
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as the dust being pushed out the sides as the towers collapse, are there people saying that is not possible? Why not?
The towers were burning, the steel supports getting hotter and hotter, they finally collapse.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually, there is no evidence that the fires got hotter. Rather, there is much evidence that they began dying very rapidly after the jet fuel burned up. The fires were hottest right after the impacts, and then you can watch videos and see the smoke output from the buildings turn dark (indicating poor burn, ie soot in the smoke from not uncombusted hydrocarbons). With hydrocarbon fires, dark smoke does not mean the fires are getting hotter. It means the exact opposite. And similarly, before the collapses, the flames were also disappearing, etc. One of the buildings' smoke began to lighten before its collapes, but that's the only exception to the above. There's really no hard evidence of the fires in either building getting hotter as time went on. They had cooled and began dying out.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
[sarcasm=on] Wow, one hour after the impact, those fires are certainly dying down! [/sarcasm]
Leftbehind wrote:
They spent about ten minutes with the collapse at slow motion, showing "squibs" shooting air out exactly as you describe in the above quotes as impossible.
wecomeinpeace wrote:
...with entire floors blasting out concrete dust and air like a steam pipe riddled with holes.
...with whole floors blowing out further up. We did not.
Why exactly is the pancake theory not viable? Did I miss that one?
Which facts did they get wrong in the NIST report? Did they get any facts wrong in the NIST report? If so, which ones?
ignorant_ape wrote:
the " million dollar challenge " is pathetic grandstanding - an unwinable " challenge " where the fox is in charge of the hen house
so i will ask again - why should we believe that explosives were resonsible , given that mechanical disintigration of the concrete would occur anyway
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Obviously you did, which is why you would then go on to ask this question:
Which facts did they get wrong in the NIST report? Did they get any facts wrong in the NIST report? If so, which ones?
...the answers to which are here. My respect to bsbray11 for having the drive to keep repeating this stuff to every new person that comes along and says, "Show ME proof. I want people to prove it to ME ME ME! I don't want to research myself, I just want you to prove it to ME because my opinion is all that matters in this affair! And anyway, I've already made up my mind and it won't be changed, so "
Originally posted by LeftBehind
There are many explanations for such things, but only one requires thousands of people working together to commit atrocities on their own people. Like the title of the thread, "how convoluted can you get?".
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking
the conspiracists allege that this flash was a missile launch
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit
[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
As an addenda to point `A` - why couldn’t the failure be caused by weakening from crash / fire , see also point ` c` ???????????
irrelevant , look at the floorplan - the main structural members are the central core
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ROFLMAO - you are claiming this explosives theory - burden of proof is on you
Why is it that you guys on the pro-demolition side start insulting people when they bring up valid points?
If anything your sarcasm applies to both sides equally as your side keeps begging for proof that progressive collapse is even possible, regardless of how many times it's been explained.
Look, I just asked for one fact that the NIST report got wrong, If it's so obvious maybe you point out just one small fact. Posting a 50+ page thread as an answer is about the same as answering with insults. It makes you look like you don't have any real answer.
Edit: BTW, just because "someone new comes along" doesn't make their opinoin any less valid. The fact that more people join the debate is all part of "denying ignorance".
wecomeinpeace wrote:
Show us how the concrete could be blasted into "The fact that it happened is proof in itself." OMGWTFBBQLMFAO?!
But hey, you want me to prove that explosives can destroy a building? Sure, here ya go:
Gee, that was tough. Well, I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.
And the burden of proof is further on the supporters of The Lie to prove the ridiculous new Syringe Theory to explain away the squibs - a theory which not even the feds ever supported. The squibs can easily be explained away with localized explosions. But explaining them away with buildings somehow acting like giant syringes when the syringe has no plunger, and pushing millions of cubic feet worth of non-existent concrete aerosol down through thousands of feet worth of HVAC system to somehow only explode out a few windows is preposterous, flat-out defies physics, and is the very definition of CONVOLUTED.
How convoluted can you get....
[edit on 2005-9-16 by wecomeinpeace]
NORAD leading up to and the day of 9/11 was running covert drills
simulating the WTC and pentagon attacks. They had done this many times up to 9/11, and had 5 different drills that day. It confused many air traffic and other NORAD commanders. "Is this a drill?" they all said on those recordings.
en.wikipedia.org...
inn.globalfreepress.com...
www.infowars.com...
by 8bitagent]
Originally posted by bsbray11
Not just dust being pushed out of the buildings, but concrete dust being somehow created and then blown out of the buildings well before the collapses reached those floors.
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.