You're contradicing yourself here. Explosives = no resistance = freefall. You have iterated many times that the towers collapsed at 64% of g, which is NOT freefall. So you have some explaining to do. If it was explosives, what caused the resistance to make the towers fall at LESS than freefall? You have continually balked at this question as have other truthers who support your claims.
Then you need to explain this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA How did the upper, SMALLER section descend upon and destroy the lower, larger section? According to you, this is IMPOSSIBLE.
its very simple, the video shows an actual controlled demolition with no other information like how much prep-work had been done to the building, like pre-weakening any of the lower structure. the video is an incomplete statement about what happened, not only that, but the fact that the upper part was being pulled by cables shows that somebody engineered this demolition and had it planned as to exactly what forces would be required to do the job. In the case of the WTC towers, the collapse initiation was allegedly by non-uniform forces that were definitely not planned/engineered to do the job.
You mean like impact damage followed by fires? Explain how the SMALLER upper section completely destroyed the LARGER lower section with gravity alone. The lower section was holding up the upper section just fine, even in it's "weakened" condition. According to you truthers, the FOS (Factor of Safety) of a building has to be reduced to less than 1 to 1 in order to cause a collapse. Obviously that wasn't the case in the video above. I You are making no sense. If there were "uniform forces" in play, the top sections would have fallen straight down. What caused the tilt in the upper section? Uniform explosives?
You say "according to you truthers" however when have I ever made any sort of assertion such as what you allege in your post? also, do you have any idea of the state of the structure of either tower below the alleged crash site? "educated guess"? The only tower to experience a tilt, was the south tower and that was ( only my speculation here ) probably due to an accident that was corrected by blowing up the upper section of the tower before it could fall down to street level and cause a lot more damage that the real perpetrators wanted to deal with. Comparing the WTC "collapse" events with actual controlled demolitions doesn't do anything for your case, what you really need to do, is find examples of buildings that were on fire and did what the WTC buildings did. ( are there any? )
Tell you what. Find me buildings that were of the same structural design as the towers and we'll narrow it down from there. We'll use what you find to see which had been impacted by a plane and then caught fire and remained standing.
Non sequitur really. Two of the three buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane (actually multiple planes), and the third total collapse of the day (building 7), wasn't even hit by a plane. It's interesting too that building seven (the one that wasn't impacted by a plane) was supposed to be the command and control center during a crisis, was abandoned completely, and then fell some seven or eight hours later. I've heard different and opposing statements regarding building seven as to whether they 'knew it was going to fall' (apparently all along), as well as the complete opposite. Seems to me, that if everybody 'knew it was going to collapse', then that fact would have been the subject of somebody's broadcast, somewhere along the line. (and BEFORE it happened instead of after). The lone except being the BBC who 'reported' the building haven fallen already (before it fell). Strange.
And so it was. Here's one example I found with just 30 seconds of searching Google. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQSkDyVkkbA Too hard for you to locate, 'truth seeker'?
The building's designer. It's rather well known and I'm sure it wouldn't be very difficult for you to find and pull up. - - - Updated - - - So, your video shows a time stamp of about 4:10. Is it your contention that it wasn't until 4:10 that 'everybody knew' it was going to collapse?
No, that is not my contention. (Are those goalposts heavy? You keep moving them.) You made the following statement: I pulled up a broadcast that I found after an extremely brief search that shows that it was being reported at least an hour beforehand. The BBC therefore not being the "lone except". In typical 'truther' fashion you try to change the meaning of what you, yourself posted.
Really now, the #1 smoking gun is the fact that WTC7 fell down as it did, a perfect example of a controlled demolition and it is alleged that this action was a product of chaotic fires & damage from rubble, thrown by the "collapsing" towers. That bit alone should be rather shocking, but people do not seen to be taking notice I wonder why?
Great. Glad that that's not your contention. That's a point of reference, at least. One more question while we're on this particular topic, if you will. How did the BBC broadcast something live that claimed the building had fallen while it stood clearly over the reporter's left shoulder?
So you think that: 1. A bulge witnessed in the side of WTC7 2. Structural creaking throughout the event 3. A transit placed on WTC7 showing leaning 4. The east penthouse collapsing into the inside of the building first 5. A kink formed in the roof 6. The building twisted 7. Six seconds after the east penthouse collapsed, the rest of the penthouse started to descend 8. Immediately followed by the facade That sounds like a demolition to you? I'd like you to show examples of demolitions containing all those characteristics.
I did.......It was designed to withstand a strike from a 707 jet,NOT multiple jets as you claim,But really,there was no way to tell without crashing a jet into the towers - - - Updated - - - 'Dewey defeats Truman'
The pre-demolition phase had a lot of window dressing added for theatrical effect, however the basic demolition that was done is exactly the same as a standard controlled demolition. The building is seen descending at free fall or near free fall for a few seconds and then once it has attained sufficient velocity, it is allowed to contact the lower bit of structure thus crushing it and causing the complete destruction of the building. in fact, the bit that is the complete destruction of the building, is a factor in calling it a controlled demolition. How could anyone expect the very same result that is the result of weeks of careful study of the structure + precision placement of explosives, to be the very same as the result of chaotic fires.
Why did NBC report that a truck bomb had exploded on the Manhatten bridge? Things get misreported. The point is you were wrong in your post and now you're trying to misdirect away from that fact without admitting to it. Why the cowardly dancing, Boss?
