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 lambros56
Maybe to you, this makes the official theory true.
You`re too naive.
GET REAL !!!!!!
Originally posted by Varemia
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
Count the floors of windows in the video. I dare you.
The buckling happened way lower than the recorded picture shows.edit on 23-7-2012 by Varemia because: clarity
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by crawdad1914
Also, that buckling you are talking about on the upper portion happens on the SOUTH side of the building, which is behind the view of the camera. I have looked at the videos, and you can see that portion of the tower wobbling during the collapse, kind of like in the simulation.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by lambros56
Maybe to you, this makes the official theory true.
You`re too naive.
GET REAL !!!!!!
What excuse do you use to deny the evidence? Go ahead, I'll listen.
Originally posted by lambros56
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by lambros56
Maybe to you, this makes the official theory true.
You`re too naive.
GET REAL !!!!!!
What excuse do you use to deny the evidence? Go ahead, I'll listen.
You believe in the official theory.
Show me the evidence in THAT theory !
Go ahead........i`ll listen.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by crawdad1914
I take it then that you don't understand simulations at all. Ok, cool. Now that we know that, we can move on.
That was a stupid reply. You should feel bad.
Originally posted by yorkshirelad
And off the top of my head.......
1. Fire damage (radiated heat) can weaken structures and then they collapse DUH!
2. And popping concrete structures as each floor collapses do so silently...DUH!
3. It's called heat from the FIRE not the impact .. DUH
4. Actually the towers DID withstand the collision, both of them did. What they didn't withstand was the susbsequent inferno inside the building as all combustable materials burned and weakened the internal structure. Ironically enough the external skeleton held them together as the internals collapsed. But let's not let that wee nugget spoil a good conspiracy shall we. Let's treat the towers as if they were concrete cooling towers that tend to collapse at a slight angle......DUH
The ONLY evidence for an internal conspiracy is interpretation of selected pictures and videos. Some of which could be used to prove ultimate proof of UFO's !! He says sarcastically....
Originally posted by thegameisup
So a fire on 6 floors made the all the floors below, not affected by heat collapse?
The steel beams were designed to take a load of up to 2000%, so how do a small amount of floors annihilate the majority of the building? Especially when no steel framed building had collapsed due to fire before 9/11, even though many high rise buildings had burnt for way longer?
Physics and past recorded fires seem to go out the window on 9/11. Where is the logic in your thinking?
Because NIST tells you that means it must be true yeah?! Pull the other one, NIST have been caught lying on video, how can you trust what they say?
Originally posted by Infi8nity
OMG its still standing
I do not fell like digging it up but on the firemans radio you can hear them say they got most of the fire out. WTC 7 fire was small compared to other steal buildings witch have not fell from larger fires.
Originally posted by thegameisup
So a fire on 6 floors made the all the floors below, not affected by heat collapse?
The steel beams were designed to take a load of up to 2000%, so how do a small amount of floors annihilate the majority of the building? Especially when no steel framed building had collapsed due to fire before 9/11, even though many high rise buildings had burnt for way longer?
Physics and past recorded fires seem to go out the window on 9/11. Where is the logic in your thinking?
Because NIST tells you that means it must be true yeah?! Pull the other one, NIST have been caught lying on video, how can you trust what they say?