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 CameronFox
NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.
Originally posted by CameronFox
When new EVIDENCE is provided I would expect there to be changes... There is not any new evidence involved with the conspiracy theories... where is the evidence that CTers have that has allowed them to make their changes?
NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.
Alex Jones seems to think yelling louder during his blow hole conventions makes his theories that much more believeable.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by CameronFox
NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.
And the truth seekers update thier findings as we gather evidence.
Originally posted by CameronFox
My thing on WTC-7. If this WAS a planned demolition...yes they would have had to hope that enough debris would land on this building to cause these fires... also...IF... and this is a BIG if... the water mains were not damaged, and the sprinkler systems were in working condition...That means there would have been an ongoing Firefighting operation that quite possible may have saved the building.
Originally posted by CameronFox
I just think there were way to many tangibles that worked in favor of the people that you feel planned this.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have not found enough evidence to suggest the government did it but i have found enough evidence to suggest the government knows more then what thier are saying and might have known about it.
[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by mossad99
Yes, good point. Exaclty as shown in this video.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But what about the EMT and firemen that have come foreward and stated that they were told to leave the area that the building was being pulled and then heard a countdown over the radio.
Originally posted by purplecoral
i have definitely seen something that shows exposed steel beams at the bottom of the WTC, sliced across diagonally, exactly as experts would use explosives to weaken the bottom of a building for demolition... also, people inside the building reported that there were explosions in the basement before the buildings collapsed, and the glass was blown out of the windows on the ground floor, about the same time as (but not at the same time) that the plane hit (i think it was the north tower),
Originally posted by bsbray11
There were witnesses that reported explosions from WTC7, and at least one news anchor said that you could hear "secondary explosions" coming from the building every 20 minutes or so:
www.studyof911.com...
As far as how the detonator caps and all that survived, what did they have to survive? Do you know how little of WTC7's structure was actually affected by WTC1's collapse? All the charges had to survive, really, was the possibility of fire. And as I said, even C4 can withstand fire. Explosives are not automatically set off simply because they are exposed to a lot of heat; that's more Hollywood than science.
Originally posted by pmexplorer
Here is an example:
Pm. I'm nearly done...I'm doing my duty here ... By the way... you know all those nuts who tell you explosives create very high temperatures and molten iron... they don't. The create high velocity not high temperature... high temperatures are created by incendiaries.....
How do I counter that argument or has the guy gotta point?
Originally posted by Damocles
last question. if operation northwoods was the blueprint or inspiration for 911....what moron allowed it to be declassified?
seriously...?
Originally posted by Damocles
last question. if operation northwoods was the blueprint or inspiration for 911....what moron allowed it to be declassified?
seriously...?
Originally posted by CameronFox
How can "Truthers" continue to say this building had small fires after watching this video?
Originally posted by CameronFox
After Jack's"ground breaking" laughable video... I think CT'ers will re-focus their hopes of a conspiracy on WTC-7.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by CameronFox
After Jack's"ground breaking" laughable video... I think CT'ers will re-focus their hopes of a conspiracy on WTC-7.
What does Jack's video about the pentagon have to do with WTC7? Or do you just like to say CTers and "truthers" and attempt to make them look crazy and cultish?
Originally posted by CameronFox
Griff... with all respect...as evidence is posted... some ct'ers tend to move the goal posts. There were MANY looking forward to this video to add to the "911 Was an Inside Job" agenda. Obviously the video was a joke...and this will cause CT'ers to focus somewhere else. We all know WTC7 is the "holy grail" of Truthers.
Sorry, but there were so many firemen just standing around after the collapse zone to just watch...yes there was smoke...LOTS of it...but i am quite certain there were times where firemen COULD see a 10 story (or so) hole in the building.
Originally posted by Griff:
I know this isn't the "proof" that you official people want, but there is proof in the way those buildings defied the laws of physics and engineering principles.
I have been studying for my professional engineering license and have come across a few things. I will not post my findings just yet because I haven't done the math but will do so in a few months when I have more time.
Just a trailor. It is an engineering principle that an unbraced structure's columns (WTC-7) will all fail in the same direction. By unbraced, I mean free standing columns supporting the structure (floors, walls, etc.) that are not braced to each other by spandrels etc. Especially when there is damage to just one side. They will not fail straight down.
Now, granted this was in the reinforced concrete section of my review book. The steel and masonry sections of my book didn't say anything about this, so I am assuming that the principle works for all three. There is not a timber design section of my review book, but I would assume that timber would behave the same.
Another thing. The NIST report shows only 2 bolts for one of the connections from trusses to columns. It is an engineering principle that the connections of a building are to be stronger than the materials they connect. I'm not so sure that 2 bolts would be stronger than those massive core columns. This priciple is used so we can design structures as a structure and not individual columns, beams etc. I have to do some calculations to make sure that that scenerio could even hold the floors as it was without fire.
To be continued.