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 Sean48
reply to post by truthquest
I find it funny
That people (OS) say simple fires brought down these buildings .
But when it comes to Demolition , they say you need 100 tonnes to bring them down because the buildings are strong.
Well I guess some of us, including Sean, are not under the incorrect impression that fire is fire regardless of the fuel and oxygen content, time the fire was burning, etc.
The reason OFFICE is often used to precede fire in this context is because that's what they were, not the fuel laden supper hot fires you want to believe.
Calling them office fires does not make them cooler fires, it makes them what they were, carbon fueled fires. And we know from history, and science, what a carbon fueled fire is capable of. We also know very well from history and science how kerosene based fuel reacts when ignited.
You all act like 9-11 was such a unique event that no known physics can be used to study what happened. Instead of constantly picking on our correct used of terms (as apposed to the generic street definitions), do some research on real physics not related to 9-11 'debunkers', or 'truther', sites and learn how to implement it.
Originally posted by foxhoundone
reply to post by Elieser
Just to add to your theory Elieser, It was well known that during the cold war in Germany many if not all the major bridges/river crossings were designed with prefabricated locations for placing demolition charges. In case the the russian red army decided to invade the west..