Yeh I am sure it must be pretty painful watching all your arguments being shredded by truthers. Especially with the whitewash shortage. sucks to be a trougher now days
Stop the gish gallop. Explosive squibs accelerate outward almost instantaneously, and ususally form spikes. The dust from the WTC and the Balzac videos billows out in nice compact puiffs without spikes. Nothing in the collapse of the towers was directed upward but dust. Any moron should be able to see that. And stop with the crap about there not being serious fires. You have no proof of that and there are stills and videos of flame pouring out of several spots above the impact zones before the collapse.
yeh stop with the crap, it depends on placement and strength, and when triggered. Fire dept reported only 2 small fires, go ahead, make my day, prove them wrong. yes molten thermate pouring out too. Oopsie! Oopsie! Oopsie virtually no fire all the way around. ~Simpleton
See, the problem with your little "mini nuke" or "explosives" theory is that none of the seismic monitoring stations that were littered around NYC, (and there many, several not government owned, and also no way the government would know where they were since they don't keep tabs on them) picked up any form of shock wave. Also, there were no blast injuries to any of the survivors, which is a dead give away that no explosive could have been used. Combine that with no explosive residue in the dust, and you've just debunked the theory of explosives. There were people that survived in the stairwell of the North Tower. There is no way they would have been able too if there were explosives used. After the South Tower fell they also found people hiding in the mall area below the WTC. Once again, they would have been unable to live if there had been explosives all over.
The problem with your post is that its bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on its face. You cant even tell me how large of an explosion it would take to register, nor can you prove small enough explosives were used not to register on their seismographs. It did register on peoples cameras that were on tripods, but then thats not government approved is it. LMAO there were firemen that got blasted in the face and that vid has been posted ad (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nauseum for you. Lots of people survive explosions. Thats crazy talk! Why would anyone here listen to anything you have to say when you make such ridiculous not only unfounded but complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims?
It really would help if you would stop wasting bandwidth with this gish gallop and just post these images individually and tell us what they are supposed to mean. As it is, no rational person with any knowledge of explosives or fire fighting can find any meaning in any of them to support your wild speculation. Regarding that picture of the underground nuclear test, the dumb SOB who put that up there has an apparent IQ of 90 and lies his ass off. This is quite apparent when the moron claims that brown smoke in one of his shots indicated the presence of nuclear weapons. Another case of the retarded leading the delusional, I guess. No rational person thinks that the nuclear blast effect resembles the WTC after it is pointed out that smaller, denser objects are accelerated to higher speeds than is the dust, so that those small objects continue their upward motion long after the dust has started to settle. All objects in the dust plume at the WTC, except for the aluminum cladding, follow the same trajectory to the ground.
Large enough to blow a building is large enough to register on seismographs. Large enough to blow a building is going to be audible inside the building. No explosions were heard in the Kevin Kosgrove recording when the building started collapsing. FAIL. Only people totally ignorant of what had happened just prior to that video being made think that that has anything to do with bombs. They were hit by debris from the collapse of the south tower. Pay attention to your own supposed "witnesses" when they tell you where they were. They were just entering the lobby of the north tower. We know from the Naudet film what that place was like. Not with their hearing undamaged. You need to go listen to some actual HE going off sometime.
Also, not with any form of blast trauma. Koko only exists to me in quoted form now, but there is no what they could survive a building being brought down by explosives without having severe vertigo, hearing damage, visual impairment, ruptured ear drums, etc.
here we go the experts are out to lunch again. telephones wont transmit overpressues. I swear troughers are the best comedy act I have seen in years.
Um Mr expert, floors breaking arent explosions last time I checked. geezus you people are getting hard up! Say any damn pointless off topic (*)(*)(*)(*).
Precisely my point. geezus you people are getting hard up! Say any damn pointless off topic (*)(*)(*)(*).
It's not complicated. Fire hot. Steel hot. Steel hot, steel weaker. Steel hot, steel longer. From principles of static equilibrium applied to a statically indeterminate problem, ie the differential thermal expansion of a structure, it can be shown that extremely high loads can be induced in a constrained structure with thermal differential. Couple that with the reduction in the tensile and compressive yield and ultimate strength of structural steel in a thermal excursion, and it's clear to any honest person why the steel in the impact and fire affected zones failed catastrophically. The supporting structure beneath was not designed to carry the impact loads of a significant fraction of the building falling through a vertical height of ten feet onto the floor below, and that first supporting floor gave way instantaneously, and each subsequent floor was not significantly stronger than the floor above, and the building collapsed at near the speed of free descent. This was never a puzzle for any trained engineer. The evidence was right in front of you. Airplane crash. Burning fuel. Clearly stripped insulation. Buildings are heavy. Heat weakened structure. Gravity and dynamic impact. Done. It's been a dozen years, why are you people still confused? If you want a religion wouldn't you be happier as a Mormon?
Checkout Inside 9/11, or do any research on Fire Chief Richard Picciotto. You can record Inside 9/11 on Nat Geo. They play it randomly, and there's a couple of different versions of it. The Fire Chief was one of the individuals that survived the collapse of the North Tower. He describes the floors breaking between the two buildings. There is also actual video footage in that documentary that shows the corner of the WTC when the buildings fold and collapse. It's blatant evidence that there were no explosives used to take the towers down, and that there were none even needed. Anyway, I know you'll find some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuse to handwave away an actual eyewitness that was in the building when it collapsed. Bring out the shill dumb (*)(*)(*)(*), or since he's a government employee he's obviously lying (despite his account of the events being confirmed by multiple other people that were there). Why do I even bother posting stuff when I know it will be automatically handwaved away? Oh that's right, cause the handwaving is HILARIOUS.
um sure How hi is extremely hi? How constrained is constrained? How big was that thermal differential again? how much reduction in the tensile and compressive yield? where? no it's NOT clear to any HONEST person why the steel in the impact and fire affected zones failed catastrophically. The supporting structure beneath was not designed to carry the impact loads of a significant fraction of the building falling through a vertical height of ten feet onto the floor below, and that first supporting floor gave way instantaneously, and each subsequent floor was not significantly stronger than the floor above, and the building collapsed at near the speed of free descent. lmao, thanks for pointing out is was demolished! might know lefty loved that!
Oh gimme a break. The nat geo piece is the biggest piece of shill propaganda since the "official" BS story. There hasn't been an honest presentation of the facts on the lamestream media in the same way there was never an open and honest investigation of the whole sham in the first place.
Yet, screed like Loose Change and the like are gobbled up by Truther idiots. Alex Jones' homemade vids? Why yes, they are VERY credible. David Ray Griffin? Oh hell yeah.... Nat Geo, you've not nothing on those bastions of investigative prowess. All hail to the standard bearers of their own wannabe Truth. If truth were spelled moron, that is.
Then why are there not engineering professors going on strike for academic freedom to protest the suppression of science that it would take to keep this covered up?
Handwave documented. Right on par, I am glad that I actually called that ahead of time. You didn't even take the time to do research on the Fire Chief which was a direct reply to the question you had. You're just ludicrous sometimes. It's like you'll do anything in your powers to keep the blinders on. Ignorance is so bliss in your world that you actively refuse to accept anything that directly refutes your position. Doesn't that get sickening sometimes? I also didn't request that you look at the whole (*)(*)(*)(*)ing piece either. I told you to pay attention to the Chief when he describes what he heard when the South Tower fell, in comparison to the North Tower (which he was in). Secondly, I said that there was video that showed the failure take place from the outside of the building. At the time it failed there were no demolition charges going off, no explosives, no windows being randomly blown out, nothing that indicated any HE explosives were used. RT, there was an investigation. You're too stupid to understand it, and you're too ignorant to do your own research. Handwave it away again, it doesn't bother anyone else. You're the one making a fool out of yourself.
