I found the missing Jolt.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yet we still wonder at the relative silence of these explosives. How many per each of those 8 floors. All within "milliseconds" right?

You really think back pedaling away from exterior columns will make hush-a-booms a reality?

ETA: then there is the feature of the multi second visible effect on the rooftop structures. First the EPH, then western structures begin falling in, in sequence from east to the west.

Then the supposed explosives get used AFTER the building has been dropping for 1.75 seconds already.

It wasn't dropping for 1.75 seconds before it went into free fall. It was about 0.5 seconds.

The EPH collapse had to be at the top of the building only as the shock wave goes top to bottom, only 15 stories of windows break from the roof down, no dust is seen emanating from the east side until the exterior comes down, and daylight is only visible in the top story windows. I think the core was fully intact on the east side until the entire core was removed. What you see without the EPH is the center first and outward core removal. The core is being removed on the east side too, but you can't tell because nothing was above the roofline there. The fact that all four corners of the building come down at the same time is not explained by an east to west interior progressive collapse.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Tony...you need evidence and you have got nothing.

 

[beachnut]

You need to start giving the names of these so-called rational engineers you claim support the NIST fire effects caused the collapses theory and a discussion by them explaining why they do so that does more than say they are just going along to get along.

You should know that Zdenek Bazant's papers have been discredited as he wildly embellished kinetic energy and underestimated column resistance for the North Tower.

Got some math for your CD fantasy? Your CD is based on an opinion, no evidence. Talk about discredited - your CD fantasy... what does Bazant's paper have to do with your failure to present evidence for CD? Every-time you are asked for evidence of CD you cry about Bazant as if you are having differential equation envy. Keep up the failed fantasy, it is all you have.

Too bad you did not start AE911T, Gage rakes in 800k/yr selling lies based on your failed fantasy of CD. 14 years of failure, crying about Bazant, NIST and reality... UBL must of been laughing at your missing jolt...

It wasn't dropping for 1.75 seconds before it went into free fall. It was about 0.5 seconds. ...

Why is 9/11 truth CD fantasy pushers of woo always... Wrong again. The penthouse went into 7 WTC and fell where... 7 WTC began collapsing many seconds before the roof-line with interior support falling, began to fall, thus your .5 seconds is a lie, 7 WTC was collapsing for 10 or 12 seconds or more before the free-fall. How is the CD fantasy going? Gage took in 800k/year, what do you take in spreading lies about CD and an inside job you can't explain?

 

[MicahJava]

No. Got evidence for explosives? No.

I am not an explosive expert, but my eyeballs do work. Surely you've seen the photographic evidence for explosive devices severing the corner-perimeter spandrel plates on the Twin Towers?

Here's an example from the North Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

Now, the first expulsion of material pointed out by Chandler could conceivably be just smoke pushing through a small gap. However, the second explosion (or about 3 of them) seen on the corner of the North Tower during collapse is more difficult to explain. Not only is it obviously coming from the corner where there were no windows, but it correlates to the exact moment that the tall piece of steel sticking in the air above it starts to fall down (as if the corner explosion removed it's platform).


Here's another example from the South Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

We see an incredibly bright flash of light originating off-center of the corner of the building (filmed by several cameras, miles away), followed by an expulsion of material (smoke or dust). You can see the hole where the explosion originated. In this footage, you can see a second smaller, shorter point of light originating from the same damaged area.

You can see the perimeter folding up at the area of the damage (physical deformation).

Flashes of light, puffs of debris, physical dismemberment. Are these not the characteristics of damage by explosives?

 

[beachnut]

14 years of nonsense, and it gets dumber - better tell the FBI your evidence of CD

I am not an explosive expert, but my eyeballs do work. Surely you've seen the photographic evidence for explosive devices severing the corner-perimeter spandrel plates on the Twin Towers?

There is no explosives, your eyeballs have never seen explosives working, and the stuff you looked at had no supersonic blast effects, it was due to gravity. You got this one wrong, but then the CD and explosives are a fantasy based on some paranoid conspiracy theory you can't define. 14 years of zero physics, no explosives, and really silly claims, like your eyeballs know.

Here's an example from the North Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

Gravity, no explosives. Darn, your fantasy is based on failure to understand physics, fire and reality. Not evidence, better luck with Bigfoot, this will not work for OKC and JFK, or RFK BS CTs.

Now, the first expulsion of material pointed out by Chandler could conceivably be just smoke pushing through a small gap. However, the second explosion (or about 3 of them) seen on the corner of the North Tower during collapse is more difficult to explain. Not only is it obviously coming from the corner where there were no windows, but it correlates to the exact moment that the tall piece of steel sticking in the air above it starts to fall down (as if the corner explosion was what knocked it off it's platform).

No, again, it is due to the collapse, it is due to gravity, and the release of E=mgh, which you failed to realize adds up to over 100 2,000 pound bombs worth of Kinetic energy during the collapse. 100 2,000 pound bombs, and you can't do physics to save yourself from regurgitating/plagiarizing lies from 9/11 truth, lies of your fantasy silent explosives, no supersonic blast effects. No sounds of explosives. Where do you get your silent explosives with no blast effects. Never been bombed before? I have... you have no practical experience with explosives, or the feeling of the blast, even at a half mile... you failed; CD is a dumbed down lie born in the paranoia of liars who formed a fake movement of lies with a NAZI/1984 like name, 9/11 truth.

Here's another example from the South Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

Another idiot 9/11 truth nut lies about 9/11? Where do you find the idiots who post the videos and claim to see explosives at work, kids who never used explosives in their lives; never in combat, never bombed. What a bunch of pathetic liars posting youtube propaganda, which fools you. The video shows a gravity collapse; once again your inability to solve E=mgh being released, ... you failure to comprehend physics has you fooled by internet nuts who post BS with video of a gravity collapse initiated by fire. Kind of sad to see so much ignorance.

We see an incredibly bright flash of light originating off-center of the corner of the building (filmed by several cameras, miles away), followed by an expulsion of material (smoke or dust). You can see the hole where the explosion originated. In this footage, you can see a second smaller, shorter point of light originating from the same damaged area.

Wow, the fantasy of CD; no sounds of explosives, no blasts from explosives. It is called fire. Good luck with Bigfoot, a much better fantasy which does not mock the murder of thousands with the failed fantasy of CD, where a gravity collapse is called CD due to ignorance of physics, fire, and steel. Wow, you are gullible, and use youtube BS to support the fantasy of CD. Oh look, I have a video of smoke being pushed out of the WTC due to gravity collapse. wowzer

You can see the perimeter folding up at the area of the damage (physical deformation).

You got a suck-a-boom-silent-explosives? lol, you are saying you can see blasts, yet they are subsonic, not fast enough to be explosives... golly gee, you see a gravity collapse and say it is CD; silent explosives? Where do you get them? In a fantasy.

Flashes of light, puffs of debris, physical dismemberment. Are these not the characteristics of damage by explosives?

Wow, sad for 9/11 truth your fantasy is not evidence; and you can't take BS like this to the FBI to expose the fantasy of an inside job which only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists in 9/11 truth.

E=mgh was released as the upper mass destroyed the lower mass and released the PE, and the KE destroyed the WTC. You don't have a practical knowledge of physics, and have no evidence of CD, no evidence of explosives, no evidence for your inside job nonsense.

What did the FBI say about your evidence, your eyeball evidence? lol, your eyeballs see explosives... this is great, run, save us, tell the FBI...

19 terrorists did 9/11; I wonder how UBL found 19 humans as dumb as the 19 who murdered and were solely responsible for the damage on 9/11 - I thought it was hard to find people that gullible and unable to think for themselves... Then 9/11 truth showed up with people more gullible than 19 murderers who did 9/11, 9/11 truth followers who claim the fantasy of CD.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I am not an explosive expert, but my eyeballs do work. Surely you've seen the photographic evidence for explosive devices severing the corner-perimeter spandrel plates on the Twin Towers?

Here's an example from the North Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

Now, the first expulsion of material pointed out by Chandler could conceivably be just smoke pushing through a small gap. However, the second explosion (or about 3 of them) seen on the corner of the North Tower during collapse is more difficult to explain. Not only is it obviously coming from the corner where there were no windows, but it correlates to the exact moment that the tall piece of steel sticking in the air above it starts to fall down (as if the corner explosion removed it's platform).


Here's another example from the South Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

We see an incredibly bright flash of light originating off-center of the corner of the building (filmed by several cameras, miles away), followed by an expulsion of material (smoke or dust). You can see the hole where the explosion originated. In this footage, you can see a second smaller, shorter point of light originating from the same damaged area.

You can see the perimeter folding up at the area of the damage (physical deformation).

Flashes of light, puffs of debris, physical dismemberment. Are these not the characteristics of damage by explosives?

Wow, what you have cited doesn't resemble a CD in any way whatsoever, have you actually studied this stuff at all?????

All three buildings collapsed differently why was that? Please explain in detail and why that happened.

Please post a video that contains the telltale extremely loud bands associated with a CD, you were asked this quite some time ago and ran away from it, let's see if you can get us one this time. Any of the three buildings will do, bonus points for WTC7

 

[MicahJava]

There is no explosives, your eyeballs have never seen explosives working, and the stuff you looked at had no supersonic blast effects, it was due to gravity. You got this one wrong, but then the CD and explosives are a fantasy based on some paranoid conspiracy theory you can't define. 14 years of zero physics, no explosives, and really silly claims, like your eyeballs know.

Gravity, no explosives. Darn, your fantasy is based on failure to understand physics, fire and reality. Not evidence, better luck with Bigfoot, this will not work for OKC and JFK, or RFK BS CTs.
No, again, it is due to the collapse, it is due to gravity, and the release of E=mgh, which you failed to realize adds up to over 100 2,000 pound bombs worth of Kinetic energy during the collapse. 100 2,000 pound bombs, and you can't do physics to save yourself from regurgitating/plagiarizing lies from 9/11 truth, lies of your fantasy silent explosives, no supersonic blast effects. No sounds of explosives. Where do you get your silent explosives with no blast effects. Never been bombed before? I have... you have no practical experience with explosives, or the feeling of the blast, even at a half mile... you failed; CD is a dumbed down lie born in the paranoia of liars who formed a fake movement of lies with a NAZI/1984 like name, 9/11 truth.
Another idiot 9/11 truth nut lies about 9/11? Where do you find the idiots who post the videos and claim to see explosives at work, kids who never used explosives in their lives; never in combat, never bombed. What a bunch of pathetic liars posting youtube propaganda, which fools you. The video shows a gravity collapse; once again your inability to solve E=mgh being released, ... you failure to comprehend physics has you fooled by internet nuts who post BS with video of a gravity collapse initiated by fire. Kind of sad to see so much ignorance.

Wow, the fantasy of CD; no sounds of explosives, no blasts from explosives. It is called fire. Good luck with Bigfoot, a much better fantasy which does not mock the murder of thousands with the failed fantasy of CD, where a gravity collapse is called CD due to ignorance of physics, fire, and steel. Wow, you are gullible, and use youtube BS to support the fantasy of CD. Oh look, I have a video of smoke being pushed out of the WTC due to gravity collapse. wowzer

You got a suck-a-boom-silent-explosives? lol, you are saying you can see blasts, yet they are subsonic, not fast enough to be explosives... golly gee, you see a gravity collapse and say it is CD; silent explosives? Where do you get them? In a fantasy.

Wow, sad for 9/11 truth your fantasy is not evidence; and you can't take BS like this to the FBI to expose the fantasy of an inside job which only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists in 9/11 truth.

E=mgh was released as the upper mass destroyed the lower mass and released the PE, and the KE destroyed the WTC. You don't have a practical knowledge of physics, and have no evidence of CD, no evidence of explosives, no evidence for your inside job nonsense.

From what you describe, your experience with explosives extends to bombs designed to have a wide spread of damage and to kill/injure humans. Not explosive devices made to only damage one part of a steel structure.

What do you suppose caused the phenomenon seen in the videos?

 

[MicahJava]

Wow, what you have cited doesn't resemble a CD in any way whatsoever, have you actually studied this stuff at all?????

All three buildings collapsed differently why was that? Please explain in detail and why that happened.

What are you on about? Explosive CD is removing structural components with explosives. I provided photographic evidence for such devices in the Twin Towers, or at least some device capable of delivering bright flashes of light, explosions and damage. Do you have an intelligent theory for the cause of the phenomenon I pointed out?

Please post a video that contains the telltale extremely loud bands associated with a CD, you were asked this quite some time ago and ran away from it, let's see if you can get us one this time. Any of the three buildings will do, bonus points for WTC7

If you want to respond to my comment, respond to my comment or you are the one running away. The explosions seen in the videos I provided were hundreds of feet high and you don't have any reason to think that a device capable of simply removing the spandrel plates by the welds couldn't just be merged with all of the other noises the Towers made.

 

[ProBonoShill]

What are you on about? Explosive CD is removing structural components with explosives. I provided photographic evidence for such devices in the Twin Towers, or at least some device capable of delivering bright flashes of light, explosions and damage. Do you have an intelligent theory for the cause of the phenomenon I pointed out?

Those in no way resemble the characteristics of a controlled demolition, the fact you actually think they do,shows how ignorant you are about the subject.

If you want to respond to my comment, respond to my comment or you are the one running away. The explosions seen in the videos I provided were hundreds of feet high and you don't have any reason to think that a device capable of simply removing the spandrel plates by the welds couldn't just be merged with all of the other noises the Towers made

Who cares, CD doesn't work that way.

How about you tell us how high the decibal levels are of a building CD. Make sure to factor in the size of the building, what material was used for construction and how far away a human being would need to be so a) they wouldn't suffer massive hearing damage and b) would be free from personal injury.

When you're done with that, please calculate the amount of explosives required to bring down WTC1, WTC2, WTC5, WTC 7 and the Fiterman building. Please show your math

Then explain how said materials and people handling those materials weren't noticed, nor was any evidence of this material ever found.

Double popcorn.

 

[MicahJava]

Those in no way resemble the characteristics of a controlled demolition, the fact you actually think they do,shows how ignorant you are about the subject.



Who cares, CD doesn't work that way.

How about you tell us how high the decibal levels are of a building CD. Make sure to factor in the size of the building, what material was used for construction and how far away a human being would need to be so a) they wouldn't suffer massive hearing damage and b) would be free from personal injury.

When you're done with that, please calculate the amount of explosives required to bring down WTC1, WTC2, WTC5, WTC 7 and the Fiterman building. Please show your math

Then explain how said materials and people handling those materials weren't noticed, nor was any evidence of this material ever found.

Double popcorn.

Same old strawman flim-flam BS addressed a million times. I guess you have nothing of value to respond with. I will take it as a silent acknowledgement of the anomalous corner explosions on the Towers.

Why did you say the Fiterman building? It was smashed by a part of the perimeter of WTC 7 peeling outwards during collapse. Same with the Verizon building. The rest of the building was in the cozy "main" pile.

 

[tfk]

If just removing the girders would cause a column to buckle without lateral stability, could only the girders have been brought down to achieve the same effect?

Do you even know the meaning of the word "girder"?

If you did, then you'd know that it is impossible to bring down "only a girder".

 

[jaydeehess]

I explained it to several people.

However, I would imagine many people are still not fully appreciative of the fact that only the core columns over a significant number of stories (like eight) needed to be removed nearly simultaneously to implode the building, that it would cause a free fall with the entire building coming down at the same time, and that this scenario explains the behavior of the exterior seen in the measurement of the descent.

In the light of morning I note you did not address the post of mine which you quoted.
I did not say you didn't talk about this to more than Chandler. Not sure how you got that from my post. I was referring to the article by Chandler
I noted that PfT simply left what they had to know was an erroneous 'paper' up on their site without correction for years.

IF Chandler knows and understands and accepts your premise of only core column removal then why is his article in which he unequivocally states that ALL columns were blown, still up on the AE911T site?
The implication is that he, and AE911T don't fully buy your scenario, or are sloppy in maintaining the site.

 

[jaydeehess]

It wasn't dropping for 1.75 seconds before it went into free fall. It was about 0.5 seconds.

What?
Chandler and NIST both showed a period of less that g of ~1.75 seconds, THEN a period that averages Free fall for ~2.25 seconds. followed by a decreasing acceleration. If not for dust and obscuring buildings one would expect also a period of negative acceleration until velocity reached zero.
Seems to me femr2 came up with the same.

The EPH collapse had to be at the top of the building only as the shock wave goes top to bottom, only 15 stories of windows break from the roof down, no dust is seen emanating from the east side until the exterior comes down, and daylight is only visible in the top story windows. I think the core was fully intact on the east side until the entire core was removed.

In your fevered dreams.
You have absolutely no evidence to back this assumption. Its odd that while you expect windows to break and dust to come out due to the in falling of the EPH to lower floors, you are quite content that eight floors of simultaneously ignited explosives on all core columns won't break windows, send dust out, or even be heard.

What you see without the EPH is the center first and outward core removal.

Yep.

The core is being removed on the east side too, but you can't tell because nothing was above the roofline there

Took a while to understand what that meant, I think. You are saying that nothing is occurring at the rooftop, east of the EPH hole, during this period?

The fact that all four corners of the building come down at the same time is not explained by an east to west interior progressive collapse.

Three corners Tony. One had been missing since about 9:30 AM, for at least the lower 8 floors. Just how stable do you think the portion west of the kink was? Pretty tenuous I would think, as the western core progressively fails from east of TT1 to the west. Only would need a bit of a tug to cause the one remaining corner column to go. The East side portion had the north face already failing, the kink demonstrates that. So East face is tilted, fails, extra pull in of the west portion occurs because of this and the NW corner and Western face fail immediately.(or as the force is transmitted at near the speed of sound through steel)

Its really no big surprise, or oddity. IMHO.

Seems the vast bulk of professional engineers agree on that last point.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you even know the meaning of the word "girder"?

If you did, then you'd know that it is impossible to bring down "only a girder".

He is referring to removal of lateral support to the columns and creating instability in the column that way.

Oddly enough I have heard this put forth before,,, in the NIST report.
Girder 44 fails at its seat on col 79, falls, takes out the next floor down and subsequent vertical progression causes an instability in col 79, and col 79 then buckles.

It reminds me of another parallel that has surfaced. NIST has the core destruction occurring below the 8th floor until the exterior columns can no longer hold and the whole building begins falling.
Now TSz puts forth that the core columns were blown by explosives, and the building began to fall. This is a change from the oft argued AE911T position in the past that every single column, including perimeter columns, had to be blown all at once. Part of their evidence included a quote from Sunder who said that free fall was indicative of a loss of all vertical support.

Stay tuned, pretty soon AE911T will be saying that only very few explosives needed to be in place. One charge at the girder 44 seat connection at the 12th floor, and maybe on the 11th and 10th as well, from there progressive failure would take over.

 

[tfk]

David Chandler now knows and accepts …

Who cares what a clueless, politically motivated idiot, with zero understanding of remedial structural mechanics thinks?
No professional cares.

Why do you care, Tony?

When are you going to bring this to real, independent structural engineers?

Or do you still assert that every structural engineer in the country, who does not belong to your band of 30 or so incompetents, is a coward, intimidated by da gubbamint?

… that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop.

Hmmmm, Tony.

This is an amazing advance for you.
This is exactly what NIST said.

I explained it to him in the last year.

Good job. You’ve put your finger on Chandler’s problem.

He’s getting his explanations from a clueless amateur.!

A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed …

And you’ve described, very well, NIST’s internal, east-to-west collapse of the core, between floors 5 & 13.

Nice job. You’re starting to get the picture.

… and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.

So close, but no cigar.

The unsupported external columns on the north wall buckled outwards.
Eyewitness reports, don’t you know.

The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.

To get a 20 inch drop pulling in 8 stories the pull in would have been about 110 inches or a little over 9 feet.

The roof dropped that distance in a small fraction of a second. Then stopped & hung in place for about 1.5 seconds.

The external columns did NOT jump from “vertical” to “9 feet of deflection” in about 0.2 seconds.
The external columns, once deflected by 9 feet (and screaming outward at some significant velocity, according to your theory), did not suddenly stop their lateral motion & gain some new-found strength to stop the buildings descent for 1.5 seconds.

As usual, you throw out inept speculation that does not hold up to 1 minute’s examination.

The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.

Correct.
Finally.

As soon as the external walls start to buckle, the building’s last supports were in a “regenerative failure” mode.

As soon as the external walls were bent out of straight up-and-down alignment, they got very weak. If their connecting bolts failed, then their resistance went to “near zero”.

A “near zero” resistance produces a “near g” acceleration.

You’re finally catching on.
Only took you 15 years.

 

[tfk]

He is referring to removal of lateral support to the columns and creating instability in the column that way.

Oddly enough I have heard this put forth before,,, in the NIST report.
Girder 44 fails at its seat on col 79, falls, takes out the next floor down and subsequent vertical progression causes an instability in col 79, and col 79 then buckles.

Yeah, I got that, too.
My point was that, as described by NIST, as soon as that girder collapsed, every beam that tied into it collapsed, too.

It was not possible for “just a girder” to collapse in WTC7.

It reminds me of another parallel that has surfaced. NIST has the core destruction occurring below the 8th floor until the exterior columns can no longer hold and the whole building begins falling.
Now TSz puts forth that the core columns were blown by explosives, and the building began to fall. This is a change from the oft argued AE911T position in the past that every single column, including perimeter columns, had to be blown all at once. Part of their evidence included a quote from Sunder who said that free fall was indicative of a loss of all vertical support.

Stay tuned, pretty soon AE911T will be saying that only very few explosives needed to be in place. One charge at the girder 44 seat connection at the 12th floor, and maybe on the 11th and 10th as well, from there progressive failure would take over.

Yup, exactly the same message that I cross-posted to Tony.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, I got that, too.
My point was that, as described by NIST, as soon as that girder collapsed, every beam that tied into it collapsed, too.

It was not possible for “just a girder” to collapse in WTC7.

I see what you were getting at. I have an image of the floor beams hanging in mid air when the girder drops away. (Perhaps until the beams look down and realize the situation, then gravity takes hold)

Yup, exactly the same message that I cross-posted to Tony.

I noticed the cross post.
There have been similar 'adjustments' to truther scenarios for the towers as well.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As soon as the external walls start to buckle, the building’s last supports were in a “regenerative failure” mode.

As soon as the external walls were bent out of straight up-and-down alignment, they got very weak. If their connecting bolts failed, then their resistance went to “near zero”.

A “near zero” resistance produces a “near g” acceleration.

You’re finally catching on.
Only took you 15 years.

Maybe the next thing he'll catch on to is that, since the Twin Towers fell at significantly less than 1G, that implies that their cores hadn't previously collapsed over a significant number of storeys leaving only the perimeter walls to resist collapse, and that therefore it's impossible that a series of charges was destroying the core on a floor-by-floor basis the way he claims. I would estimate he'll figure that one out round about 2031.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Same old strawman flim-flam BS addressed a million times. I guess you have nothing of value to respond with. I will take it as a silent acknowledgement of the anomalous corner explosions on the Towers.

Silent as the explosives used in WTC 7?
TRUTH is that 911truth simply cannot explain away the lack of sounds for what is supposed to be multiple( several dozen) simultaneous explosive charges detonating. So you try to pooh-pooh it.

Why did you say the Fiterman building? It was smashed by a part of the perimeter of WTC 7 peeling outwards during collapse. Same with the Verizon building. The rest of the building was in the cozy "main" pile.

First, no, the Fitterman was smacked when the eastern section of WTC 7 twisted and fell to the NE, while the western section fell to the south towards WTC 5. The eastern part of the upper north face actually drew inwards iirc, which is what allowed the twist to the NE.

Second, you obviously missed the sarcasm in ProBonoShill's post. I just wish he had included St Nicholas Church.

 

[tfk]

I am not an explosive expert, but my eyeballs do work. Surely you've seen the photographic evidence for explosive devices severing the corner-perimeter spandrel plates on the Twin Towers?

Here's an example from the North Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

There is zero evidence here.
There are zero explosions here.

There is only Chandler’s & your wishful thinking & personal delusions.

And, no, to answer a question in another post, there is no way for the sound of an explosion to get lost in the sound of a building collapsing.

The explosions come first.
The building collapse starts immediately after.

When the explosions go off, there is NO sound of the building collapse.

Now, the first expulsion of material pointed out by Chandler could conceivably be just smoke pushing through a small gap. However, the second explosion (or about 3 of them) seen on the corner of the North Tower during collapse is more difficult to explain. Not only is it obviously coming from the corner where there were no windows, but it correlates to the exact moment that the tall piece of steel sticking in the air above it starts to fall down (as if the corner explosion removed it's platform).

So, you think that someone put explosives into the building, and set them off to cause a building to collapse …

… wait for it …

… wait for it …

… wait for it …

… a building, which was already collapsing??!!!

Yeah, you’re right.
You are NOT an explosives expert.

Here's another example from the South Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETntmSrT7g8&feature=youtu.be

We see an incredibly bright flash of light originating off-center of the corner of the building (filmed by several cameras, miles away), followed by an expulsion of material (smoke or dust). You can see the hole where the explosion originated. In this footage, you can see a second smaller, shorter point of light originating from the same damaged area.

You’ll have to point out that “incredibly bright flash of light.

You can see the perimeter folding up at the area of the damage (physical deformation).

Flashes of light, puffs of debris, physical dismemberment. Are these not the characteristics of damage by explosives?

Your forgetting something.

You are “not an explosives expert”.
You are a clueless amateur.
Just like Chandler.

This guy IS an explosives expert.
Brent Blanchard: tinyurl.com/z6zyc

What does he say about it?

What did your moron explosives expert, Danny Jowenko, say about the collapse of the towers & CD?