How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

The desired effect was to inflict as much damage and carnage as they could...and they intended them to collapse,just like 1993

 

so then the question remains as to the explanation for this TOTAL COLLAPSE.
because even in the official tax payer funded report it states
" total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation ....... " however there is not a word of explanation as to how this "TOTAL COLLAPSE" really happened.

Fact is, tall buildings are designed to stand, and not fall, so what special magic
was at work that day to cause not only the TOTAL COLLAPSE of the South Tower,
but also the North Tower & 7 ..... and exactly what do we have as an explanation as to WHY?

 

Gravity.

 

He seems unable grasp the facts about Gravity..

 

given the the tip of the South Tower top bit was to be attributed to GRAVITY
the fact is that the structure of the building could tip at any time during the
"Collapse" event and what is to prevent the tipping from going over the edge.
The problem with the Gravity only explanation is that at any time during the
"Collapse" event the upper bit could become imbalanced and therefore lead
to a tipping over scenario, thus stopping the action before "Total Collapse".

Given the asymmetrical damage from the alleged airliner crash, why should the "gravity driven collapse" progress straight down?

 

gravity pulls straight down,that's why

 

So with that said, you indicate that you think its impossible for gravity to have caused the tip that the top bit of the South Tower did before it disappeared in a cloud of dust/smoke ..... what? either a gravity driven collapse can have part of the structure tip because of asymmetrical strength characteristics of the structure & with help from asymmetrical damage from an alleged airliner crash, or?
The debunkers want to have their cake & eat it..... the fact is that the tip of the south tower proves that with or without explosives the tower collapse event had the serious possibility of tipping and falling over rather than straight down.
ONLY by the application of an intelligently designed plan, could the North Tower have "collapsed" in the manner that it did.

 

Crashing planes into the towers took a fair amount of intelligence,wouldn't you agree?

 

Crashing an airliner ( alleged airliner ..... )
into the WTC created chaotic damage and therefore could NOT
be expected to properly motivate a "progressive collapse" that is
leading to "TOTAL COLLAPSE". Why should anybody expect
chaotic damage to then instigate a coherent collapse? and indeed
the coherent component of this is the fact that the "collapse" was TOTAL, and even in the description given by the NIST, the collapse was TOTAL.
the totality of the event is the very telling bit.

 

And yet it STILL wasn't a 'total' event....

 

How "total" is TOTAL?
are there pix of the remnant of the tower?
how much remained after the collapse, and why would the NIST
use the words TOTAL COLLAPSE unless they meant it?

 

Again,I posted a picture of the stairwell the survivors were found in,and also,if you think the NIST was behind it all,you just can't cherrypick the report for things you like..It's not being honest

 

If YOU want to take the NIST word for it, then YOU embrace the
"total collapse was inevitable ....... " statement and that is your problem, personally, I do not accept the "total collapse was inevitable ....... " statement and really, why should anybody accept this sort of crap?

You say that the stairwell was proof that the tower was not totally destroyed, some bit of it was left, but I submit to this forum that the fact of there being less than 1% of the tower left, is very significant.

The fact is, if the towers could be said to be 99% destroyed,
or what, that fact alone is damning evidence that there is something VERY wrong with the official story.

 

So the NIST never said the collapse was 'total',just that it was inevitable,right?

 

What do you think it means when the published statement is:
" Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation .... "

what do you think "TOTAL" means in this context?

 

You're avoiding the question

 

is this the original question? and if so,

what is it about my answer that you don't like?

 

Still ignoring it...And your reply was a question,NOT an answer.

 

The Question was Rhetorical in nature, or did you miss that?

 

Did you miss out on learning that you don't answer a question with a question?

If you don't want to answer,just say so.

 

in other words you do not get the Rhetorical question bit?
your "question" was answered, do you get it when you see it?

anyhow, I believe that what the discussion was about,
was the fact that the NIST issued the statement
"total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation .. "
and you somehow wanted to exclude the "TOTAL COLLAPSE"
part? or did I miss something here?

 

Argument from incredulity.

 

I got the rhetorical bit,what I STILL haven't gotten is an answer

 

Perhaps you are unclear as to exactly what you want,
can you restate the question? What is it that you are
looking for?

 

I thought you said all the explosives went off at the same time? How could this have caused a tip? Explosives going off at the same time at the same level does not equal "asymmetrical damage".