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 Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.
Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by zerbot565
The ESB is not a valid comparison. Different construction, different aircraft, different speed. Actually, were someone to crash a 767 into the ESB, I wouldnt be surprised for it to remain standing due to its construction.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I don't buy it, i believe the towers fell because the planes crashed into them. what about impact of a large aircraft like that weakening the structure combined with the fuel causing it to collapse? to me that's what it looked like and I just believe like i see it. I'm usually interested in conspiracies like that but, this one not so interested.
You must have missed this video:
I forget, did they highlight this in the Nat Geo documentary?
I bet not.
This one wasn't hit by a plane.