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.
John Gross denies existance of molten metal
John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is quesitoned about the existance of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis concerning the physical collapse of all three buidlings. John Gross was asked to come speak at the…
The second excerpt records the impressions of an amateur videographer:
45 minutes into the taping that we were doing there was an explosion -- it was way up where the fire was -- and the whole building at that point bellyed out, in flames, and everybody ran.
The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:
I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.
The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:
[color=gold]and all of a sudden it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.
John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:
I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things. If you hear a fart sound would you automatically assume there was a whoppie cushion (secondary device)? No you assume it was a fart lol "the simplest answer is always the best".....4983448 things could have caused explosions that had NOTHING to due with use of explosive devices.edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things. If you hear a fart sound would you automatically assume there was a whoppie cushion (secondary device)? No you assume it was a fart lol "the simplest answer is always the best".....4983448 things could have caused explosions that had NOTHING to due with use of explosive devices.edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
That's rather a silly rebut. Anyway, for someone who didn't want to be "bashed" you are rather snarly of everyone else who might be of a different opinion. In any case your collapse idea is based on the wrong, (outmoded) assumptions to begin with.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
One problem.
They went down, from top to bottom, all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum, to within about 3 seconds of absolute free fall. Thus, it is only within that difference between timed destruction (about 13 seconds) and absolute free fall in air (just over 10 seconds) within which all the "compacting" or "crushing" can have occured.
One two three
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Case closed.
Don't be a fool.
And what happens when we use the explosives hypothesis, and examine everything else at the scene..?
The offical story "collapse" hypothesis doesn't hold any water. To ask us to believe in it, is to ask us to believe in impossible things.
Nice try, sorry, but no cigar.
If only it could be believed, it would make life a little easier, but it cannot. It's not congruent with the physical laws of the universe, the "collapse" story.
Watch the videos, time it.
And while you're at it, take a very very good look at those videos..
edit on 18-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo
If a controlled demolition is so plausible how come NIST rules it out completely?
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
Where have you been, The fact is the NIST Report was proven a fraud a long time ago and no scientists support it either.
[color=gold]The fact is, the reason NIST says no control demolition took place is because they never investigated it.
The fact is If anyone is living in a fantasy land you have demonstrated that yourself.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing
Originally posted by neOrevolutionist
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing
Look who's calling the kettle black.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jimnuggits
It seems to me you have a bevy of 'official' knowledge, friend.
But that's no substitute for good old common sense.
You are asking intelligent people to believe that steel behaved on that day in a manner that it had never behaved before, or has since.
How much Jet fuel would be left after the initial impact that it would flood lower floors, create a fire of more than 1100 degrees and keep it burning long enough to melt through tens of feet of structural steel?
Were they flying to Mars?
Do I have to post this again?
"NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
I've seen the evidence and heard it, it just doesn't hold up because I'm not part of the gullible internet sheep who believe every conspiracy, wake up dude. Read the updated NIST report (which even refutes the governments original pancake theory push) and they said there is no way a controlled demo took the building down. Keep living in fantasy land truther.edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Where have you been, [color=gold]The fact is the NIST Report was proven a fraud a long time ago and no scientists support it either.
The fact is, the reason NIST says no control demolition took place is because they never investigated it.
The fact is If anyone is living in a fantasy land you have demonstrated that yourself.