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 teebigins
Buckles may have happened at same time but MIT man even says either accompanied by OR quickly followed by. What do you mean at the same time? The whole building only took seconds to come down. Should it have taken hours to come down? Even controlled demo takes seconds.
Originally posted by Corum
With that it would seem logical that a government capable of orchestrating 911 would have planted W.M.D in Iraq without breaking a sweat, I mean, how easy would it have been? Very easy is the answer. So why didn't they?
Originally posted by Bushwig
Someone in this thread said that the buckling didn't happen, yet it's quite clearly visible. In this youtube video (link posted below) if you look closely you can even see the moment when the perimeter columns snapped before the building comes down. Ignore the arguments about planes severing columns etc, just see the evidence of the building bowing and then snapping.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
inside support damaged and subjected to fire, stresses caused by load shifting......gee, i wonder why those towers fell.............
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
Exactly!
People can waffle on all day about how much the planes damaged the core of the buildings, (BTW the plane that hit WTC 2 didn't hit the central core, so where does that leave your assumption Swamp?) but it really doesn't matter as a gravity fed collapse, caused by prior damage (plane impacts), fire or not, would not cause pieces of the outer structure, weighing in the tons, to be ejected up to 600 ft away.
It would not cause all the buildings interiors to turn to dust. It would not have caused the buildings to overcome friction/resistance to allow a run-away global collapse that ended in seconds. Basically it wouldn't allow physics to turn on it's rear end...No matter how fast you spin it.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Sorry, but its not an assumption, it is a statement of fact based on the witness accounts from the people who managed to find their way down in each tower that day. So, again, you can stick with conjecture on conspiracy sites. Ill stick with the words of the people who lived through hell that day. Both cores were damaged.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Ill stick with the words of the people who lived through hell that day. Both cores were damaged.
Originally posted by Griff
IMO it would shear where the bolts are and not the entire column. I'd like NIST to actually defend their stance on this.
Be even so, again damage to load bearing columns still doesn't explain the points I noted in my last post. The damage you want there to be doesn't fit with the result we all see anyway. You are failing to see this point. You want so desperately for the official story to be correct you completely fail to see that the official claim doesn't fit the result we can all clearly see.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?
No, what I "want" is for people to pull their heads out of their butts and quit believing everything they read on the internet. Everyone talks about how corporations are making a killing on the war....how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, what I "want" is for people to pull their heads out of their butts and quit believing everything they read on the internet. Everyone talks about how corporations are making a killing on the war....how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You say the steel mesh design wasnt compromised? The photos show different. Leslie Robertson says different, he might know, since he helped design it.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And while you are thinking it....dont even begin to bring up "the towers were designed to survive an airliner collision" because that would be showing the same type of human arrogance that kept us from seriously considering and figuring out a way to stop an attack like 9/11.