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 SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
Skeptic...The construction manager of the WTC towers stated the buildings were designed to be able to take multiple plane crashes,
The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING yet something as simple as solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too because it wasn't supposed to happen? Give me a break from that stupid logic lol
And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plane) and the fuel load (which was the main source of damage to the towers) WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN. The towers actually held up much BETTER than expected. Nice try though...edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by jhn7537
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
Skeptic...The construction manager of the WTC towers stated the buildings were designed to be able to take multiple plane crashes,
The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?
And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN. The towers actually held up much BETTER than expected. Nice try though.edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Are you really comparing the design on the Titanic to the WTC towers??? Do you think architects and engineers didnt learn anything about design over the 60-70 years from when the Titanic was constructed?
So your saying that just because we have the ability to make things better than we did before, that means we should expect NOTHING LESS THAN PERFECT from everything!!!? You're a classic nutty truther. Read a book and quit making yourself look stupid. Maybe someday you'll wake up and realize that ONLY WEAK minds believe conspiracy theories, there was actually a scientific study on it. But truthers don't care about logic or science so why even mention it? ahhaha
And like I said the towers were only built to withstand a small 707 WITHOUT fuel considered. And because fuel was the NUMBER ONE SOURCE of damage, it makes the whole "what the building was supposed to take" argument USELESS! Why can everyone else see this but truthers?
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wildernesswino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
The NIST personnel were so disingenuous, that it took forever to get them to finally admit that the building 7 at Collapse Onset, accelerated at "free fall speed";
But they (NIST) did finally admit that that was the reality of the situation.
The term is Freefall Acceleration
The bottom 4-8 floors MUST be removed Completely for this to occur...
and that most certainly DID NOT happen in the NIST model,
but it did happen in REALITY because they used all best tools of the demolition industry (and military) to bring 'er down.
The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?
Was the government in on that too?
And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN.
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The Titanic was built to be not be sunk by ANYTHING,yet something as simple solidified water brought it too it's doom.... Was the government in on that too?
How do you know what brought down the Titanic? Were you on it? Judging by the cobwebs on your brain, I guess you were.
Was the government in on that too?
I honestly don't know, because unlike you, I wasn't around back then.
And the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (much smaller plan) and the fuel load WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THEN.
They didn't consider the fuel load on a Boeing 707 jet airliner? I didn't know a 707 was a glider that did not use any fuel to fly. How about that?
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
Since you have all the answers, then please explain to me why there were pools of molten steel under buildings 1, 2 and 7....
How many times does it need to be said.....ALMOST EVERY QUESTION RAISED BY TRUTHERS CAN BE EXPLAINED EASILY , EVERY ONE! You can raise questions for hours they have ALL been answered but truthers are dumb so they keep digging and digging lol
EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!
Originally posted by jhn7537
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
Since you have all the answers, then please explain to me why there were pools of molten steel under buildings 1, 2 and 7....
How many times does it need to be said.....ALMOST EVERY QUESTION RAISED BY TRUTHERS CAN BE EXPLAINED EASILY , EVERY ONE! You can raise questions for hours they have ALL been answered but truthers are dumb so they keep digging and digging lol
EVERY truther myth has been explained in detail YEARS ago, it's 2011 not 2007 grow up!
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)
So you can't answer it??? You decide to send me to a youtube video to find answers becasue you obviously dont know what you are talking about..... If its on youtube it must be true, THANKS BUDDY.... I dont even care to look at that clip, I asked you a question and you didnt answer...Score ME-1 YOU-0
Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
2007?? I thought you said 2004? Are you looking for a job? With you averaging 1 post every 8.5 minutes, you probably are un-employed. Am I right Skeptic?