an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

At what rate was it being ejected? Link to a source on this, please, or show your math.

 

Look at the ejection of material from the tower "collapsing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
How much energy does it take to propel a cloud containing
tons of pulverized material river to river in lower Manhattan?
The ONLY way that this "collapse" could have been accomplished as documented on video, is to have had an additional source of energy present.

 

Claiming that STILL isn't offering any proof

 

You are shown evidence and then you allege that its not really evidence.
OK, if you really want that fairy tale
..... Once upon a time there were these 19 angry Arabs
who hated America for their freedom and wanted to make
a statement to the world, so they hijacked airliners and flew
them into buildings. Now sleep well, knowing that your Government
is in control and would never allow anything bad to happen to you.

Good Night .......

 

Where's the science (math, engineering, physics) to back up this incredulity?

 

where is the science ( etc .... ) to back up the claim that the towers simply "collapsed" in response to the alleged airliner crash & fire?
Fact is that it is truly among the least probable out-comes possible that is to have the towers "collapse" right down to ground level, the NIST used the words "Total Collapse" in their report, are they wrong?

Unfortunately the "papers" that have been produced are not only pathetic, but truly a disgrace to the whole academic process. "peer review" has become a farce.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x274140
This link is only one of many that exposes the farce that the "peer reviewed" papers perpetrate in presenting the allegation that the tower(s) could have "collapsed" in the manner observed without help from additional source of energy.

 

You've STILL shown no 'evidence',and your oversimplification of the events of 9/11 insults my intelligence

 

You don't see the obvious here, the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
is proof 'nuff to see the false flag nature of the attack.

 

Sorry - physics and engineering prove collapse. There remains no evidence for CD.

 

The very fact that the opposition to the TRUTH MOVEMENT
states "NO evidence to point to CD at all" as an absolute, speaks volumes!

 

Because it is absolute. Your rants don't change the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence.

Simply put: there is no evidence of controlled demolition. None.

 

Do you recognize that in cases where any issue is under debate,
there will be some evidence that points all sorts of directions, and
it is truly admissible as evidence, but the judgement goes in the
direction of the preponderance of the evidence. in a case of
there being allegedly NO evidence at all that points to 9/11/2001
being a false flag operation, this is asking too much, it is totally
out of line with reality. the fact that the opposition digs in its heels
and insists that there isn't any evidence at all, indeed speaks volumes.

 

NO evidence...NONE.

 

There is no longer any debate: Debate would imply that both parties present evidence. All you have brought is opinion.

 

it is NOT "opinion" that WTC7 spent 2.25 sec in free fall acceleration.
and there are other bits, that only have marginal "plausible deniability"
as to the culpability of our "leaders" in this false flag attack.

The concept that an airliner could be flown at 590 mph near sea level
and actually controlled by a novice pilot, ( ya, right ..... ) and two steel framed skyscrapers experience TOTAL COLLAPSE in response to alleged airliner crashes .... ( sure U betcha! ) The attack on the PENTAGON, and the ONLY pictures that are available are a few frames of some grainy images that have the alleged aircraft obscured by a post for a critical part of its journey toward the PENTAGON. ( U gotta B kidding, right..... )

The whole story is a fairy tale! there were NO airliners hijacked that day!

 

Correct: it's not opinion. It's falsehood.

- - - Updated - - -

The evidence states otherwise.

 

Only your opinion that the 2.25 sec of free fall didn't happen, I saw it, David Chandler saw it and the NIST saw it. what do you want?

 

Just the truth. The truth has been shown to you: the descent was an average. At one point as shown, the corner exceeded FFA. Do you understand the implications there?

 

You obviously do not get how scientific data is collected and interpreted.

 

Oh no? I was shown by professional structural engineers in real life. Should I have relied on YouTube instead?

 

What engineer supports the idea that WTC7 descended at greater than g acceleration?

 

The very graph that Chandler produced.

 

obviously then, you did not pay any attention to what Chandler said about the data and the points on the graph. BTW, unless there is additional energy applied ( explosives...... or? ) nothing falls at greater than g.

 

How would explosives cause a >g fall? Explain your claim, please.

 

It was an AVERAGE. You keep ignoring this fact. Repeating over and over that it was in free fall for 2.25 seconds won't change that fact.