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.
What i am saying is there are characteristics of a "controlled demolition", such as squibs, numerous explosions being heard before and after the plane crash. There is also proof of Thermate being used from scientific analysis of steel spheres that were examined and showed Thermate signature.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What i am saying is there are characteristics of a "controlled demolition", such as squibs, numerous explosions being heard before and after the plane crash. There is also proof of Thermate being used from scientific analysis of steel spheres that were examined and showed Thermate signature.
Umm no there isnt any evidence of squibs. IF the building was intentionally demolished, the charges would have been bored into the central core supports, not on the exterior frame. Sorry, but I wont watch anything with Stevie on it....hes a moron.
Sorry, but I wont watch anything with Stevie on it....hes a moron.
Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Here is where you are wrong and I know you didnt even LOOK at the paper.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
IF the building was intentionally demolished, the charges would have been bored into the central core supports, not on the exterior frame.
Originally posted by ANOK
No, thermate could have been used on the central supports and conventional explosives on the outer steel mesh. Explain why there would be no explosives needed on the outer mesh pls.
Originally posted by bsbray11
The part I bolded is extremely unlikely because you would be hearing those charges for blocks if they were on the outer columns.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by bsbray11
The part I bolded is extremely unlikely because you would be hearing those charges for blocks if they were on the outer columns.
Thanx bray. Yes that does make sense, but my point really was that explosives just on the central core, as Swampfox claims, wouldn't cause the collapse we see. Something had to have helped break up and throw the pieces of the outer mesh structure laterally.
What created the energy to do that I have no idea, as you know we can only guess what that was. But I am convinced for absolute certainty it wasn't fire, and it wasn't gravity. I haven't even ruled out a nuke of some kind yet, as we know the military was developing nukes to take down structures back in the 60's, but it's not at the top of my list...
Edit: To shorten quote.
[edit on 2/7/2007 by ANOK]
Originally posted by BeZerk
If there was an evacuation at 9:44am, then that highly contradicts the "pull it" statement that Silverstein refers to.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
So "PULL IT" does not refer to pulling the firefighters out of the building. Since when is "IT" referred to firefighters.