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 SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
If I had to guess I would go with the one that burned uncontrolled for many hours, without firefighter attempting to fight the fire. The one that had no working sprinklers. The one that was predicted by the firefighters to collapse because of clear signs of instability.
Or was I supposed to go with the simplistic "don't see big flame on biased picture, therefore big huge conspiracy"?edit on 9-4-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Two tenant's lists make up the official record. They come from the 2005 FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, and the 2008 NIST WTC Investigation Report, and they are much at odds. FEMA, for instance, has the Standard Chartered Bank occupying the entire 26th and 27th floors, while NIST gives those floors over to Soloman. FEMA has the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Securities Valuation Office as sole tenant on the 19th floor, while the more definitive NIST account doesn't even mention NAIC, or the Standard Chartered Bank. These are hardly the sort of "smaller spaces" tenancies that might slip the mind.
Originally posted by samkent
Perhaps if the OS non believers could come up with one single unified theory that covers all the 'unexplained anomolies' they always bring up, then and only then the world may start to consider this as a conspiracy.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
Yes really. You know that "lol" isn't really an argument?
Originally posted by SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)