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 Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Now, when a number of those points fail and the remaining points cannot structurally hold up all the weight the structure fails resulting in a collapse.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Otherwords, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
"Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire-produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle."
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You need not remove all the supports of a building or do it precisely to cause it to collapse I hate to tell you. Otherwords, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
The only thing you left out is that when a number of those points fail, the building will collapse in the direction of the failure. If the building falls straight down, then all supports were severed at exactly the same time, period.
Further, please show in the photos of WTC7 that I posted above, one or more support columns that were damaged.
Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
LOL
Yeah, ones that are still alive that apparently took over the planes.
Let me ask you this..,
If you saw your picture and name implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and you are obviously not involved, how would you be lead to believe this happened?
You think cave dwellers pulled this off?
I do believe there are radicals, yes, totally.
I do believe there are bad people, yes.
I DO NOT BELIEVE, AND NEVER WILL THAT A FEW DUMBASSES WITH BOXCUTTERS COULD TAKE OVER A PLANE
Lets get real.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Well, firstly, NewScientist does not require a subscription as I browse their website fairly often
This is a preview of the full article. New Scientist Full Access is available free to magazine subscribers. Subscribers login now.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And all you have proven with your pictures is:
1) It was on fire at some point.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And I do apologise for my smarminess
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by _BoneZ_
Ah yes. Accept a "source" that is uncited beyond your assurance that it exists and is from whom you attribute it to. Hardly..... Especially in light of your eagerness to insult those that disagree. There is something about those who don't rely on just facts and instead rely on "just trust me" and insults in an attempt to kow others into agreeing.
I do question any number of things, for example, "Why was the warnings *from within and without* that we were about to be attacked aparently completely ignored?", "Why was the planes allowed to veer drasticly of course without any alarm being raised, in supposedly one of the most watched air corridors in the US?" *training exercise does not cut it*, "Why the smoke screen as to the buildings themselves?", "Why has Osama Bin Laden not been captured by now or at least 'eliminated'?", "Why does the government seem to via some tangent of reverse psychology encourage your movement?", and the list does go on.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I am willing to bet you have me classified as a "sheeple" because I dare to disagree
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I do not agree the collapses were CD or that they were directly involved, and this is not because I simply accept the "official story"
Please check your condescention at the door.
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole word blind" -Gandhi
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I can live with agreeable disagreement without insulting the person with whom I disagree with. I am seeing no such ability from you.