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 Dinogur
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by Alfie1
Your guy was vastly unqualified to offer an opinion in comparison with Leslie Robertson and, even then, he only expressed it as his belief.
And it is not a belief that makes any sense. How many multiple plane strikes are the Towers supposed to absorb ? 10, 20, a thousand ?
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management sure knew what he was talking about, but his following statement does not fit the OS you are agressively defending, so you'll never accept his statement.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Multiple would at least mean more than one, which is enough, becuase only one plane hit each tower. So it can be safe to say at the very least 2, the steel frames could support a 2000% load.
The man was a hero, and you are mocking him. How disgusting.
That is the quote i was looking for, by Frank A. DeMartini. This proved to me that the WTC Building 1 & 2 had no reason to fall with the collision of an aircraft
go to around 2.50, so what you are telling me is that this man Barry Jennings is a lier and didnt hear explosions go off in the WTC building 7...
Originally posted by lambros56
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by lambros56
I wish people would stop calling it the " Official story ".
The governments story is a theory so it should be called the " official theory" as they have never given us any proof as to what happened and who did it.
So no proof would include the evidence submitted to the Mossaoui trial ??
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...
No.
That doesn't prove the official theory.
Originally posted by Dinogur
reply to post by thegameisup
Well i know that:
1. Building 7 collapsed without impact of any airplane
2. First Responder - Firefighters heard a set of explosives go off during/right before the towers collapsed
3. There were pools of molten steel on the ground of Ground Zero, in no way could have an airplane impact caused that.
4. Many Engineers and Architects have said that the Towers could have with-stood many airplane collisions due to their steel-concrete reinforced skeleton
thats all i can think off of the top of m head
His location was public, so if the nation is under attack, he's putting his life and the lives of every child, teacher, and reporter in that school at risk. His inaction PROVES one of two possible realities:
Originally posted by KtruthD
Im struggeling to understand how any one could think that there is any conspiracy behind 9/11 nothing i have read or watched indercates that this was an inside job. ITS JUST NOT PLAUSABLE.. and do you really think the American government would kill hundreds of its own citizens. Think what would happen if it got out that they did!! They whould be over thrown ansd the country would decend in to chaos.
Any one who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job is wrong..
and i welcome any HARD evidance that says any differnt
PEACE!!!
Originally posted by maes9
please bring your evidences that some barbaric individuals even without any inside aid attacked the most important locations of USA. in the heart of USA ! so there are two facts: 1-USA is the weakest country in the world ! or 2-there was an inside aid.
who did kill Rachel Aliene Corrie ! who did the USS Liberty incident ! what is the role of AIPAC in USA ? why is USA full of freemasonary symbols ? the existing world order was completely on behalf of USA after the collapse of USSR but on behalf of who is the new world order ?
edit on 23-7-2012 by maes9 because: (no reason given)
Now if you want to talk about an epic failure in the intelligence gathering and reporting leading up to 9/11, I think you've got something there. I suspect quite a bit is being covered up regarding a complete failure of the government to identify and respond to a valid threat.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
Now if you want to talk about an epic failure in the intelligence gathering and reporting leading up to 9/11, I think you've got something there. I suspect quite a bit is being covered up regarding a complete failure of the government to identify and respond to a valid threat.
An epic failure? I admit that the consequences of errors were epic, but that doesn't mean all the errors were "epic". There are pieces of info, when put together after 9/11 look very obvious, but I think a lot more of it is the benefit of hindsight always being perfect.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by crawdad1914
I have to wonder if you're joking, or if you really are this... dense?
Watch NIST's damn simulation again. See where the crumpling took place at the bottom? And I'm not talking about the simulation where they didn't factor in the damage to the building. I'm talking about the other one. See, like scientists, they ran multiple simulations.
Now, take a look at your magical videos. Notice something? No? They don't show the bottom HALF of the building! Guess where the crumpling happened? The bottom half! Good boy!
I've said all I need to say here. It's like talking to 3 year-olds.
Edit: I made a couple assumptions about the videos. After watching one, I see that one of the main mistakes they made is that they don't even know what was modeled in the simulation. They modeled the interior of the building. That means that the granite facade was not present in the simulation. The granite facade prevented the significant deformation in the upper portion of the building, except in the interior. The interior deformed greatly, as can be seen.edit on 23-7-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)
I even heard that a number of the hijackers were on watch lists, because it was considered suspicious to be foreign and be attending multiple flight schools. Intelligence simply didn't follow through on it.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by lambros56
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by lambros56
I wish people would stop calling it the " Official story ".
The governments story is a theory so it should be called the " official theory" as they have never given us any proof as to what happened and who did it.
So no proof would include the evidence submitted to the Mossaoui trial ??
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...
No.
That doesn't prove the official theory.
So people found to have links with Al Qaeda, visits to Afghanistan, under surveilance by German security in Hamburg, just happen to have been involved in flight training in the US and then never seen again after 9/11.
Perhaps they were on holiday ? Get real.
Originally posted by crawdad1914
So the facade itself did not buckle at all in spite of the the interior framework ripping away from the facade itself.
And some say "truthers" will believe anything!
Edit: take a look at the NIST simulations again and notice the buckling taking place on the upper portion of the building. Again, somehow the facade itself amazingly falls without nary a buckling effect whatsoever.edit on 23-7-2012 by crawdad1914 because: clarification of post