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.
It couldn't be explosives. I didnt see any flashes of light or large bangs.
Originally posted by Pepperslappy
Stop being Ignorant
Originally posted by elmo_911
1. In the history of building demolition charges are always set at the lowest point of gravity - that is in the bottom portion of the building. There may be some weakening explosives placed higher up, but the majority of the demolishing force is placed at the base of the building.
This WAS NOT the case with the WTC Towers and evidence of that is obvious in every video of the collapse. Watch the collapse of the building - it collapses from the point of impact - the rest of the building is collected by the collapse of the top half.
This also disproves the now infamous white puffs, because, if they were explosives then the motion of collapse should be effected at that point, but there is no visible effect on the structure at that level.
2. Therefore, for your theory to work those explosives on the inner core must have been placed on the same floors as the impact of the planes.
BUT, even if what you say is true, the question that makes me curious is WHY? Why was is so important that those buildings came down that the US Government (or whoever) would risk trying to get massive detonators into both buildings prior to September 11,
setting them up in the exact floors that the planes would crash into and then risking being found out by the hundreds of demolition experts who were involved in the cleanup.
That's something that's too hard for me to believe.
Originally posted by Pepperslappy
That doesnt mean it's impossible to make one look like a natural collapse