So, you believe that the mass from above, could "collapse" down onto the as yet undamaged portion of the skyscraper and not only pulverize tons of material, but also break ( and break COMPLETELY ) the joints holding together each level of the tower(s) and accelerate downward while doing so and this all powered by gravity? amazing, ..... incredible .... pick your word .... whatever ......
So the same end result as is done with many weeks of careful planning an preparation, can be had from chaotic damage caused by an aircraft crash & fire in the skyscraper? and very reliably ..... 2X on the same day.
How can you have math that proves anything if you don't have accurate distribution of mass data to put into any equations? How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Didn't it have to be enough stronger to support the weight of 100 more levels? Is subtraction too difficult for you? psik
Top down "collapse" doesn't count because CONTROLLED DEMOLTION is controlled, no matter what point it is started. there are examples of controlled demolition of skyscrapers that start the demolition in the upper part of the building. also, you cite "major damage" to the surrounding buildings, however, The perpetrators managed a rather good trick in that for the towers, nobody could find anything that should have been inside the towers, that is file cabinets, desks, chairs even door-knobs were conspicuously absent from the wreckage. Destruction of that magnitude and with the destruction largely confined to the towers and not actually destroying buildings outside of the WTC complex is a rather good trick. Other buildings in the WTC complex were damaged, but not destroyed, and the remaining structure of WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6 had to be demolished and then removed, whereas WTC1, 2 & 7 were already demolished and only required removal of the rubble. Whoever planned this, did so rather well. to quote Danny Jowenko, "... a very professional job, these people knew exactly what they were doing."
Cite any examples of explosive controlled demolition that started in the upper part of the building. Support your claim.
The 2009 controlled demolition of a building in the chinese city of Zhongshan. There are various videos to be had on the web, look it up.
[video=youtube_share;YudaPcHmx-o]http://youtu.be/YudaPcHmx-o[/video] You do see that the demolition starts from the bottom and moves upward, don't you? Perhaps that's why you were afraid to post the video yourself? And look at all the solid concrete laying around. You just added more proof for natural collapse instead of CD.
The major feature of a controlled demolition is indeed the demolition of the building, you miss the fact that the buildings WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed, the NIST used the words "TOTAL COLLAPSE" why would they say total, if the term didn't apply? So three buildings just happened to collapse into total destruction on the same day and in response to chaotic forces and you do not see the significance of this?
In the controlled demolition you cited (see video above) there was not complete destruction. One more notch on the side of collapse and against the bogus claim of CD.
What constitutes complete destruction for any given case is a subject for the agreement between the demolition contractor and the customer. The fact is that the buildings WTC1, 2 & 7 were totally destroyed on 9/11/2001, and the fact is that total destruction in the manner & speed of the event, could not possibly be the product of chaotic damage, but rather an engineered event designed to bring down these buildings.
disproves only in your interpretation of said evidence the major feature of the "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 & 7 is the total destruction of the structures. How is this result the product of chaotic damage & fire?
As shown in your video, there are major differences in collapse and CD. You have strengthened the case for collapse.
so the fact of total destruction of WTC 1,2 & 7 strengthens the case for "collapse" & not CD? How do you figure that?
As your video shows: in the controlled demolition you linked to there was not total destruction. Unlike at the WTC.
so are you trying to promote the idea that total destruction of the towers as a factor rules out controlled demolition?
In this particular instance. You were trying to make the case that the CD looked just like the WTC. It clearly does not, hence ... no CD at the WTC, according to your own logic.
The goal of CD is the demolition of the building what the promoters of the "gravity driven collapse" scenario appear to be promoting is the idea that a gravity driven collapse, can produce total destruction of the skyscraper, when in fact, given a controlled demolition job, its challenging enough to get total destruction of the building using explosives and the supporters of the official story claim that a totally unplanned "demolition" turned in perfect results & 2X on 9/11/2001.......
Hardly perfect, the results were very chaotic. Again: your linked video strengthens the case for NO CD at WTC.
maybe to you..... however the very fact of there having been "total collapse" ( to quote NIST ) for two separate skyscrapers, both allegedly hit by aircraft, but one at the 93rd floor and one at the 78th floor so the damage to the buildings was of a different nature from the start, not to mention that the alleged FLT175 was said to have struck at an angle and concentrated its damage on the east side of the tower, and the North tower got a very nearly dead center hit from "FLT11". given the differences in the two hits, the fact that both buildings "collapsed" right down to ground level is significant.
