Any cutter charge powerful enough to sever the supports in the way you claim would have had a distinct audio signature. These were not heard by anyone, nor were any such explosions picked up on any of the audio of the collapsing buildings. This is more evidence of the lack of controlled demolition.
How then do you account for the news reports of explosions heard, and even fire fighters / first responders had reported hearing and seeing and even experiencing first hand explosions going off. There are audio recordings that are the sound track to video shot that day that most certainly includes the sound of explosions going off. There is sufficient evidence from the news reporting to motivate some very serious testing for explosives at the site, and as yet ( and after over a decade to make it public ) no document indicating explosives testing was ever done. "When the USGS collected samples of the World Trade Center dust they found the iron microspheres. In so far the USGS does not have a valid explanation for the presence of these microspheres." Note that the USGS indicates they collected samples and found Iron Microspheres, however there is no record of having looked for explosives or explosive residue.
Of course there are records. You have been shown the documents. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Kindly link one video of any of the WTC buildings collapsing with the sounds of cutter charges accompanying the collapse.
Bottom line here is that you have refused to provide a link to the alleged data that you claim exists but can not produce. also see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg and pick it up at 2:00 notice that the crowd reacts to something happening at exactly the time that the explosion goes off, it is available in the audio recording if you look for it. One of the first responders reported hearing a Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom in a specific cadence that most certainly is indicative of an engineered event. Sounds were heard, recorded, reported, and still the faction holding on to the official story insists that there were no explosions. oh well ......
Kindly link one video of any of the WTC buildings collapsing with the sounds of cutter charges accompanying the collapse.
I did. It did not contain what I'm asking you for. Does any video exist with the sound of cutter strength charges going off, or ...?
Here's a question I'd really like an answer to, from those who believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The visual evidence shows the collapse beginning with the fall of the East Penthouse. From that, it's a reasonable assumption that the columns supporting the East Penthouse were no longer functional. If the columns supporting the East Penthouse were destroyed by demolition charges placed prior to 9/11, how were they concealed, given that the columns were in open work space, not inside the core part of the structure? Anyone?
Was 100% of the structural members of the building visible to the public? Most offices have false ceilings that conceal the air conditioning ducts ( etc.... ) and so it would be simple to place the explosives out of sight. You are arguing against what was observed with a tangent this is really no different from the argument that too many people would have had to be involved for the plan to work & stay secret. however in other instances of organized secrecy, ( Manhattan project and others ) there has been complete secrecy for as long as it took to accomplish the goal.
So people are left second-guessing a demolition when we see the result of the demolition documented in the "newsreel" that was live on 9/11/2001 and the talking heads on TV even said it looked just like the times when an old building is intentionally destroyed.
it appears that you will go to any length to attempt to negate the fact that WTC7 ( and indeed the towers ) were blown up not "collapsed". The fact is that the evidence is clear in the documentary video, that the building descended at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and = damning evidence that the event was an engineered occurrence rather than something that just happened because the building had a few fires. The interpretation of the fires is rather telling, to hear it from some people, the building was a "towering inferno" however the photographs of the building show many more floors that show no evidence at all of being on fire, than the floors that have broken windows and flames visible. This whole thing is an exercise in psychological warfare, people keep insisting that WTC7 "collapsed" because of the fires, + damage from the rubble thrown by WTC1, 2 "collapsing" ( or rather being blown up ) however, it makes no sense at all. I cite as an example the cutting of a tree, if you need to have the tree fall in a specific direction, do you go around the tree and make random cuts, or do you plan for the fall to happen in the direction that you had in mind? The destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 had to have been engineered events.
I really don't have to 'negate' a damn thing,You haveZERO physical evidence that building 7 or even the towers was a controlled demolition....'looks like' won't do it...
There is a LOT more to this than "looks like" the fact is that with the towers descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity and WTC7 spending 2.25 sec in free fall, the case should be totally obvious to anyone, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Because it only fell at 64% means there was resistance. Hey Bob: what is the average % of descent rate for a controlled demolition? What are using as your scientific basis for comparison?
The critical bit of information here is the consistency of the destruction and the fact that the 64% of gravity "fall" clearly makes the statement that the "pile driver" was NOT having to overcome the resistance of the structure of the skyscraper.
Then why didn't it fall at free fall acceleration all the way down? 64% is not a consistency, but an average. That's math, so it might not be pleasing for you to hear it.
Just to hypothetically take this average, then what you describe happening is that as an average, the upper mass was only expressing 36% of its weight against the lower ( and as yet undamaged ) part of the tower. and this is said to have been responsible for pulverization of mass quantities of material + destruction of the tower. (?)
Fact, there is a LOT that can be KNOWN about the events of 9/11/2001 without needing any sort of advanced degree, or anything of the sort. Tyrants seek to dis-empower the individual so as to maximize central control in the form of the state.
If you are discussing the science and engineering facts of the event, then 'gut instinct' isn't enough. You need to show your work.
I can show my work, only you personally don't like it but it factual, that is if the descent of the "pile driver" is shown to be 64% of g, then its only exerting 36% of its weight against what is under it. that is physical reality, and with that said, its obvious that the acceleration of the "pile driver" is a product of an engineered event, not an aircraft crash & fire.
