911 Mr Demo says: Will the REAL COLLAPSE please stand up

This is sort of a trick question. Which one are collapses and which are demos and which if any use explosives and which if any do not?

Now aint this gonna be fun.

1)


2)


3)


4)


5)


6)


7)





Oh and if you are really brave explain why or what you looked for in the choices!

enjoy!

 

How else would a building collapse,slick?

 

if that was supposed to mean that regardless of method all buildings collapse yeh sure no problemo, but the point again is:

Which one are collapses and which are demos and which if any use explosives and which if any do not?

I think its pretty clear what I am driving at here. I presume english is everyones first language and I do not need to go into what initiates and what sustains and so forth and so on. Of course you can feel free to do so if you wish.

Now at some point I "MAY" state how you can tell but for now that wouldnt be any fun would it?

Obviously from the above post you are not willing to put your butt on the hot seat LOL

It forces people to conclude you dont have any idea.

 

Doesn't matter ,the end result is the same

and the only person it 'forces' is YOU,into making assumptions,that is

sorry koks,I don't like red herring.

 

I believe that 9-11 was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. Can someone please give me 1,000 reasons why I'm wrong that I'm not going to read?

 

The same al Qaeda the US and UK are aiding in Syria, yeah, they hijacked them some planes all right on 9/11, but their actions didn't bring down the buildings.

 

I want you to waste your time with a monologue, not a simple statement. Where's my 1,000 reasons?

 

Show some evidence that it was something else.

 

I'm not the conspiracy theorist. The minority has the burden of proof that I'm not even going to read if they present it.

 

Apologies, I was addressing Jango.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhq2ihqzn4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs6Wjq4YHPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

 

I hear a total lack of demolition-type explosions. Is this your evidence?

 

How do you explain, like in WTC 1 for example, the top portion of the building just starting to fall? How does that happen? Walk me through that, please. Because I don't see how one or two beams melting or whatever it is that NIST says happened causing what we can clearly see. Same thing with WTC 2.

WTC 7, it fell, straight across, all the way to the ground, and was supposedly because one support structure gave way. How does that make sense? Even NIST's animated model does not make sense - because that's not the way the building fell. It fell uniformly.

 

So if say I have no explanation for this, but you don't either that makes you right? I'm just not a demolition expert, but neither are you.

 

How can you argue about what NIST claims when you aren't even aware of what they say?

Go to the source and read the report! Stop getting all your info from 'truther' sites.

 

Really? It is called gravity. Maybe you've heard of it. Even when you have support beams, gravity is pulling down on everything. Weaken the supports enough and gravity wins. This is not hard to comprehend.

If you really want to know, read the NIST report. I've already explaind it to you several times and you were not able to refute it, so lying that it doesn't make sense is a blatant lie. As for the NIST animated model, they didn't have all the factors involved in the collapse, nor could they even know numerous different factors. The computer model isn't designed to prove exactly how WTC 7 collapsed because that isn't important to anyone but a truthtard who is dead set on proving whatever group they hate is responsible. What they wanted to prove is that their theory is indeed possible. It is. Whether or not someone like you understands their work or not doesn't matter even if you want to lie about it in order to foment discontent in people so they overthrow the government. Didn't you swear to defend this country against all threats both foreign and domestic? Wouldn't you call someone lying about a major crime in order to overthrow the legitimate elected government of this nation a threat?

 

The buildings on the right are all different heights than the building on the left. Since it's clear that some of the videos were taken closer to some of the buildings in order to make them all appear the same height, why do they all appear to collapse at the same rate? Shouldn't the shorter buildings appear to collapse faster, since they must fall at the rate of gravity through a shorter distance than the taller buildings?

 

This is not the case.

[video=youtube;OUkvnfV606w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w[/video]

You can clearly see the east HVAC penthouse collapse first. You can even see evidence of it smashing down through the floors as the windows shatter in the region of its descent. Once the inside was destroyed by the HVAC penthouse, there was nothing to hold up the outer shell and it buckled.

 

Do you clearly see the inward buckling of the outer columns? This was not caused by one or two beams melting.

This was caused by deformation of the entire floor system across that level. The heat of the fire caused the floor system to expand, weaken and sag. Gravity pulled the center of the weakened floor system downward. As the floor systems cooled they contracted and pulled the inner and outer columns out of position. This initiated the collapse. The collapse continued as a result of the kinetic energy generated by the upper portion of the building falling through 1 floor worth of space. That energy is an order of magnitude more than the critical buckling strength of the floor below, causing it to buckle. One more floor worth of space adds another order of magnitude of kinetic energy and the collapse progresses to the ground.

 

Yeah,and if you watch close you can see part of the wall bulging outward

 

you mean how it completely lost that huge thick core when there wasnt even enough fire to have a good barbq?

 

All that smoke is just from nervous tourists having a Camel on the observation deck, right?


And if the core was completely lost, why is it still standing here:

 

why would you say something so pointless

 

In consideration of my audience.

 

why dont you tell us! should they? i f so why? or ir not why not?