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 Joey Canoli
You're ignoring the fact that Jones has admitted that his thermite theory would be useless to help collapse the building. And that he has now advocated cutter charges.
Originally posted by Sean48
I'm not aware of any changes by Jones.
Surely you would have some sort of link for this.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by seattletruth
Relax a bit. It's not even my government you question here but I have no particular affection for politicians anywhere for that matter.
You really think that the silly, weak force we call "gravity" is too much for them to overcome, for just the fraction of a second needed to spray sideways through a steel beam?? Wow, you truly are deluded.
Originally posted by REMISNE
1. We know that building 7 was brought down
Originally posted by dereks
Yes, bought down by fire and damage when the other buildings fell down. No explosives were involved in bringing down any WTC building. That is a fact!
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Those columns had variable cross-sections so you're suggesting the individual 'devices' were all tailor-made and precision fitted to ensure every failure occurred at precisely the right time and in the right sequence and we're talking about 100s of them at least. Does that sound plausible?
Amazing pic. Hard to believe that this was not controlled demolitioned and that it was caused by just fire. Impossible. t
Originally posted by triplescorpio
also there is absolutely no eyewiness testimony to support any explosions .
Originally posted by ventian
Can anyone confirm for me that this is building 7 in the photo? I am just covering the bases. Thx in advance.
Originally posted by bsbray11
what do you know about what would have to take place inside such a building to make it fall that way?
Originally posted by bsbray11
A building sinking straight down into itself at the rate of free-fall is not exactly a normal occurrence, even for buildings that have been burning all day.
Originally posted by sciemus
A serious compromise to the building's structural integrity. Same as thing behind any building collapse.
In this case, it is quite obviously a fire that went unfought all day, spreading from perhaps a few isolated pockets to a fire serious enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.
But it didn't sink straight down. The building clearly has a kink as it partially falls in on itself.
Especially near the end of the fall, it can be seen going towards the south and the west, as backed up by the debris field found after the collapse. In fact, there is a photographically documented time line of the entire collapse, as well as the debris field. But I don't think you'd buy it as it's in FEMA's report.
Further, what makes you think it collapsed at free-fall speeds?
If it was some kind of controlled demolition as you say, then it very well should have fallen at faster-than-free-fall speeds.
One floor impacting another is much more energy than a floor is designed to hold. This is an exponential process. The final speed should only be limited to gravity.