Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Dabljuh]

if A Cd Was Set Up In Such A Hurry That The Phantom Military Demolitioneers Had To Plant Tons Of Explosives To Make Sure They Had Enough, How Did They Get The Charges In The Exact Places The Planes Would Fly Into?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I do not believe you.

Show us where a military team has demolished anything close to a 110 storey building using thermite and explosives.

The truther mantra is, if it has nor happened previously it cannot happen.

You are trolling

Actually his explination of how CDs work pretty much proves he is lying. I'm sure he has the standard army explosives training, just like most twoofer demolition experts are simply guys who do pyrotechnics for rock concerts.

 

[Dabljuh]

Actually his explination of how CDs work pretty much proves he is lying. I'm sure he has the standard army explosives training, just like most twoofer demolition experts are simply guys who do pyrotechnics for rock concerts.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate content.

To respond on the same level of argumentation,

Edited by LibraryLady: 

for civility

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm wondering, do you really believe in this stuff yourself?

What? Massive dust clouds,

Not a characteristic unique to CD. When things collapse, dust is created.

macroscopic debris scattered all over the place,

Definitely NOT a characteristic of a CD, quite the opposite; one of the things CD engineers go to great length to avoid is scattering bits and pieces over the surroundings.

reported explosions,

Spurious explosions are typical of large fires. There were no reporting of the regular series of explosions characteristic to a CD.

spontaneous vertical implosion

Spontaneous?? You mean following severe damage and extensive fires? Is that your idea of spontaneous? (If yes, your sex life must absolutely suck)

at nearly free fall speed.

Mention something, anything (except parachutes), that fall at anything but near free fall speed.

Right, but the massive dust clouds, macroscopic debris scattered all over the place, reported explosions, the spontaneous vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed speak for it.

No. [TM]

The lack of seismographic evidence may speak against CD, but then again the fact that the windows were blown in in many buildings around the WTC speaks against the absence of CD.

Silent explosives again? ... No. [TM]

Steel does not fragment unless the explosion applies enough force to overcome the steel's tension.

Wrong. (Steel fragments whenever ANY force overcomes its tension strength ..... just like any other substance, from putty to diamonds)

Which is why fragmentation grenades, bombs and shells usually contain a prefragmented casing and often shot too.

Wrong. (They are prefragmented in order to make the fragments scatter uniformly over the action range. Shot? I think they stopped using that sometimes during the 19th century)

Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension.

Wrong. They use shaped charges. I suggest you never, ever, apply for a job as a demolition expert. The idea going in to set up charges after the steel structure had been seriously compromised could seriously ruin your day.

How do I know this? Because I'm a demolitions guy in the army, and I've worked with C1, TNT and blasting cord. I wouldn't call me an expert as the army training is more pragmatic than theoretical in nature, but I'm trained to know how to bring things down - be it buildings, bridges, steel, concrete or wood structures.

Very funny! I know how the army goes about demolishing stuff. Not strange you think that "macroscopic debris scattered all over the place" is a characteristic of a CD. And not strange that nobody calls the army in when they want a building demolished .

It is trivial to start the collapse at the upper section of the tower. The way you bring a tall building down is that you weaken its structure in the entire length.

Those two sentences don't correspond.

If you just blow up the basement alone with sufficient force, the building may topple over, or remain standing after falling a floor or two.

You must be completely ignorant of physics. Wait, I nearly forgot your army experience . I have news for you then: A 110 story building acts a little differently from a tree, or a shed (or a bridge, for that matter).

That's why you need to bring down the entire length of the building's structure. Also, in CD, you do not normally fire all charges at once, nor do you apply the "more is better" philosophy of the army when it comes to the amount of explosives, the simple reason being that you only want to destroy the building, and not everything next to it too. For that reason too, you avoid blowing all explosive charges at once. Professional CD works are timed shortly after each other, avoiding the creation of an explosive shockwave that would damage nearby buildings or scatter debris all over the place.

Well, I may have underestimated you. The above is something like 80% correct. And it shows clearly that the WTC was NOT brought down by demolition charges. Thank you for your cooperation.

*snip*The enormous dust cloud and the large area of scatter however suggests that a rather large amount of explosives was used, which suggests that there was some hurry when they were applied.

Well, since people who know about such things have estimated the necessary charges to demolish the Towers to be tens of tons, and you now say that more may have been used, when exactly did that explosion occur?

If you really have army experience, you should have some idea of how spectacular the detonation of a few dozen tons of explosives is. And since the whole event is very well covered in video, please point to the part where those violent explosions occurred.

Rule of thumb for explosives: If you're in a hurry, you use more explosives to make up for the fact that you don't have the time to properly install the charges. You can get by with very small amounts of explosives if you apply them well, compared to just randomly duct taping (No, I'm not kidding) a large pile of plastic to whatever it is you want to destroy.

Yes, if you have any experience in demolition, it very obviously comes from the army . Please, don't ever go near that trade again.

I disagree. It looks 100% like a regular controlled demolition to me.

You failed to show a good reason for why.


Hans

 

[beachnut]

The towers collapsed as they would after impacts 7 to 11 times greater than the design could handle from jet with fuel loads of 60,000 pounds. The impacts knocked out fire systems and knocked off fire protection used to protect the steel structure so it could last longer in fire. Note for the fire challenged, steel buildings fail in fire. If you want more protection use concrete on your steel to give your building a few extra hours before collapse. But be prepared to junk your building after the fire, the steel can still be weakened by fire, even with concrete. The OP author missed this, but mentioned buildings no longer standing due to fire! Irony!

Let me see! Impact greater than design, 7 to 11 times greater!

Fires raging out of control set by what is close to record amounts of fuel ignited by hot JET ENGINES RUNNING FULL SPEED! Vaporized and spewing all over multiple floors, fires were set in seconds that usually take hours to spread! Wonder if this had an effect on the bare steel!

Yep, the steel failed and the towers fell. The OP author presents a 5 story building as an example of a WTC tower not failing. Good job. He should use E=mgh to help him understand the potential energy available to destroy the towers and how flawed his post was!

Got Physics? Why do people fail to look up the WTC tower, chief structural engineer, and what he says. They could save being wrong about 9/11 if they understood physics and gathered real expert knowledge instead of hearsay and lies.

What did Einstein say? Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. Here it is again!

 

[Dabljuh]

Not a characteristic unique to CD. When things collapse, dust is created. So is when I'm dusting. However, to create enough dust to cover the entirety of manhatten, you need to blow up literally tons of concrete.

Definitely NOT a characteristic of a CD, quite the opposite; one of the things CD engineers go to great length to avoid is scattering bits and pieces over the surroundings.

Sure, because this was a totally regular CD and nothing unusual about it. There was totally no intention to hide the CD by sequencing a top-down CD. Your argument is invalid and your expertise is disproven. You are not competent enough to argue with me on the subject.

Spontaneous?? You mean following severe damage and extensive fires? Is that your idea of spontaneous? (If yes, your sex life must absolutely suck)

When you're not embarassing yourself with really stupid statements, you insult me. For simplicity's sake, if you fail to bring an argument, I will mention your mother.

Mention something, anything (except parachutes), that fall at anything but near free fall speed.

Buildings usually don't fall, they crumble or topple, unless they are demolished. Your argument is invalid.

No. [TM]

Silent explosives again? ... No. [TM]

No arguments.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Wrong. (Steel fragments whenever ANY force overcomes its tension strength ..... just like any other substance, from putty to diamonds)

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Selective dyslexia or do you just pretend to refute my post?

Wrong. (They are prefragmented in order to make the fragments scatter uniformly over the action range. Shot? I think they stopped using that sometimes during the 19th century)

Well, when you're back from the 19th century, you might want to look at the insides of a modern antipersonnel (fragmentation) grenades. You'll find that the inner metal casing essentially comprises of fused shot. Bigger bombs, for example certain russian antipersonnel bombs are essentially shot filled GP bombs.

Wrong. They use shaped charges. I suggest you never, ever, apply for a job as a demolition expert. The idea going in to set up charges after the steel structure had been seriously compromised could seriously ruin your day.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Very funny! I know how the army goes about demolishing stuff. Not strange you think that "macroscopic debris scattered all over the place" is a characteristic of a CD. And not strange that nobody calls the army in when they want a building demolished .

Again, you pretend you refute me with an argument but you just prove yourself either intellectually dishonest or plain dyslexic.

Those two sentences don't correspond.

Or maybe not dyslexic but just dumb? Since you have not the first idea about CD, let me elaborate with two simple points:
- You rig the building's core columns in their entire length with explosives
- You can start the sequenced explosion anywhere you want. As long as the entire length is destroyed, it doesn't matter much, the building's gonna be on the ground.

You must be completely ignorant of physics. Wait, I nearly forgot your army experience . I have news for you then: A 110 story building acts a little differently from a tree, or a shed (or a bridge, for that matter).

Oh, really. Now that I was under the false impression that you'd destroy a building exactly the same way you'd clear the way of trees or rocks or take down a bridge. But now you've made me actively aware. Thank you very much, you credit to the species who I hope will procreate and bear many children containing the same super-intelligence genes as you do.

Well, I may have underestimated you. The above is something like 80% correct. And it shows clearly that the WTC was NOT brought down by demolition charges. Thank you for your cooperation.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Well, since people who know about such things have estimated the necessary charges to demolish the Towers to be tens of tons, and you now say that more may have been used, when exactly did that explosion occur?

At the collapse. Tons? No. A couple tons exploding right *next* to the building would have killed it. Attached to the building's central columns, you need way less. And after you're already cutting the girders a few seconds before, you don't need much at all.

If you really have army experience, you should have some idea of how spectacular the detonation of a few dozen tons of explosives is. And since the whole event is very well covered in video, please point to the part where those violent explosions occurred.

That looks like a mighty big Kaboom right there. Of course that mushroom is actually the result of multiple detonations in short sequence.

Yes, if you have any experience in demolition, it very obviously comes from the army . Please, don't ever go near that trade again.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Please try to participate in threads without the continual incivility and general insults. Keep on topic without personalising the thread or attacking other members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

...Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges...

How do I know this? Because I'm a demolitions guy in the army, and I've worked with C1, TNT and blasting cord....

Very wrong. Interesting that everything you list that you have worked with is in fact a high explosive.

According to FM5-250-3 ( EXPLOSIVES AND DEMOLITIONS) my emphasis:

Type. Select steel-cutting charges that operate with a cutting effect. Percussive charges are not very effective for steel cutting. Plastic explosive (C4) and sheet explosive (Ml 18) are best. These explosives have very effective cutting power and are easily cut and shaped to fit tightly into the grooves and angles of the target. These explosives are particularly effective when demolishing structural steel, chains, and steel cables.

I was a combat engineer in the US Army. While I've worked with maybe a dozen different types of high explosives, detonated maybe 100 tons of it, taught others how to use it and ran demolitions ranges; I would not consider myself an expert. The Army's training on explosives is very limited in scope.

BTW: we used a 3/8 ratio for cutting structural steel. That is to destroy a beam 8 cm thick, we used a 3 cm thick cross section of C4. Of course being an engineer meant we always doubled the result of the formula, just in case.

I think it is clear you know little about explosives, even in the limited Army context.
LLH

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not a characteristic unique to CD. When things collapse, dust is created. So is when I'm dusting. However, to create enough dust to cover the entirety of manhatten, you need to blow up literally tons of concrete.

Or crush it. Although, as we know, most of that dust was not from concrete.

Sure, because this was a totally regular CD and nothing unusual about it. There was totally no intention to hide the CD by sequencing a top-down CD. Your argument is invalid and your expertise is disproven. You are not competent enough to argue with me on the subject.

Well have it your own way. YOU claimed it had the typical characteristics of a CD. Now you seem to claim the opposite. Just make up your mind, OK?

Buildings usually don't fall, they crumble or topple, unless they are demolished. Your argument is invalid.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Aw, chucks, I missed the juicy part....

Or maybe not dyslexic but just dumb?

Well, I spell darned well for either, don't you think?

Since you have not the first idea about CD, let me elaborate with two simple points:
- You rig the building's core columns in their entire length with explosives
- You can start the sequenced explosion anywhere you want. As long as the entire length is destroyed, it doesn't matter much, the building's gonna be on the ground.

Mmm, yes. So 110 stories, 48 core columns. That is over 5,000 charges. Several tons of explosives, secretly placed and wired in some of the world's busiest buildings, and detonated without anybody hearing it. Sure thing.

Oh, really. Now that I was under the false impression that you'd destroy a building exactly the same way you'd clear the way of trees or rocks or take down a bridge. But now you've made me actively aware. Thank you very much, you credit to the species who I hope will procreate and bear many children containing the same super-intelligence genes as you do.

Glad to have, at least partially, enlightened you. So, what was your argument again?

At the collapse. Tons? No. A couple tons exploding right *next* to the building would have killed it. Attached to the building's central columns, you need way less. And after you're already cutting the girders a few seconds before, you don't need much at all.

Reality check #1: At an earlier occasion somebody drove a truckfull of explosives into the basement of one of the towers, and detonated it. The structural damage was marginal.

Reality check #2: You said:

Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to)

Now you claim that all you needed was to place the explosives next to the building. Do you know at all what you are talking about?

Reality check #3: You claim less explosives were needed because cutting charges (presumably thermite-style) were used first. So now, you need to explain tons of those instead, PLUS you need to explain how you, in advance, position and wire BOTH a cutting charge AND a HE charge to hit the same spot on a beam. How did they do that in your army, Mr. Expert?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564873318919034.jpg

That looks like a mighty big Kaboom right there. Of course that mushroom is actually the result of multiple detonations in short sequence.

It does, taken as an isolated frame. Unfortunately for your argument, we all saw the entire event in real time, and that cloud did not develope explosively, and nobody heard any Kaboom. But you already knew that. Short of useful evidence, much?

Hans

 

[Dabljuh]

BTW: we used a 3/8 ratio for cutting structural steel. That is to destroy a beam 8 cm thick, we used a 3 cm thick cross section of C4. Of course being an engineer meant we always doubled the result of the formula, just in case.

Your figure is off by an order of magnitude. Get the handbook (Or the folded cheat sheet even) Read the part that describes the ratios for steel I-Beams, and make sure you're not reading the part about plywood again.

Steel is tough, even against explosives directly applied to them. Why do you think no one uses HE shells/bombs against tanks, but kinetic and shaped charges? Because HE shells at the very best piss off the tank's commander.

PLUS you need to explain how you, in advance, position and wire BOTH a cutting charge AND a HE charge to hit the same spot on a beam. How did they do that in your army, Mr. Expert?

I read your post until that part, then it became clear to me that you really don't know the first thing about demolitions, that you've never applied as much as firecrackers to a toy, that you have no clue about the topic whatsoever, and still pretend that your opinion had any weight by the POWER OF THE INTERNETS!

It doesn't.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[beachnut]

It doesn't.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

And this proves CD did it? That was so fact filled, and full of evidence! How can you loose this argument?

When short on knowledge in all major fields needed to understand 9/11, you must resort to bringing out the big ideas and facts! Good job, great post!

Impact, fire and collapse must elude your keen mind bent on making up some fantastic story about 9/11 and how steel can't fail. Are you the one who missed the dust report?

 

[kookbreaker]

It doesn't.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Where's your pyramid all of a sudden?

 

[Minadin]

Your figure is off by an order of magnitude. Get the handbook (Or the folded cheat sheet even) Read the part that describes the ratios for steel I-Beams, and make sure you're not reading the part about plywood again.

Steel is tough, even against explosives directly applied to them. Why do you think no one uses HE shells/bombs against tanks, but kinetic and shaped charges? Because HE shells at the very best piss off the tank's commander.

So . . . your position here is that it would actually take MORE high explosive than what LLH is stating? That's very interesting as it's not typically a route that most conspiracy theorists would take.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

.

Flame bait failed to meet quality standards. Please avoid derailing your own topic.

So is when I'm dusting. However, to create enough dust to cover the entirety of manhatten, you need to blow up literally tons of concrete.

Erm, no. You seem to forget that the towers were two of the tallest structures in the world, and the 'amount of dust' is a result of having two of the tallest structures in the world collapse. Explosives do not pulverize that volume of concrete.

Sure, because this was a totally regular CD and nothing unusual about it. There was totally no intention to hide the CD by sequencing a top-down CD. Your argument is invalid and your expertise is disproven.

No, you just destroyed any credibility you had, if there was any to begin with. You have still proven nothing about this being a CD, yet you continue to assert it.

When you're not embarassing yourself with really stupid statements, <snip> For simplicity's sake, if you fail to bring an argument, <snip>
NOTE: quote snipped for brevity and point

Reports of leaning, and visual documentation of the exterior columns showing signs of gradual failure are documented. You've already been debunked. Whether you deny it or not... not my problem... I'll just plaster photos right in front of you.


EDIT: Video not displaying properly
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-vng4QFwQaY

Sudden?

Buildings usually don't fall, they crumble or topple, unless they are demolished. Your argument is invalid.

Because you say so, does not make it true. Your argument is ivalid because it is flat out wrong. A structure will collapse if its load capacity is sufficiently compromised. It does not take a controlled demolition to accomplish this.

Or maybe not dyslexic but just dumb? Since you have not the first idea about CD, let me elaborate with two simple points:
- You rig the building's core columns in their entire length with explosives
- You can start the sequenced explosion anywhere you want. As long as the entire length is destroyed, it doesn't matter much, the building's gonna be on the ground.

Really? They were able to not only get the building to initiate collapse at the impact zones, but also synchronize all the explosions to match the speed of the collapse?

You have assumed that detonators managed to not only survive fires for ober an hour, but also they magically survived the impact of a 200-ton 767 ramming the structure at 400+ mph. Super man might be able to accomplish this, how do you explain it?

At the collapse. Tons? No. A couple tons exploding right *next* to the building would have killed it.

Really? At ground level a truck bomb might destroy a number of perimeter columns but the core was braced at ground level. Like so

A truck bomb was detonated inside of that. Funny it didn't cause catastrophic failure. The planes hit with the force of a couple hundred thousand tons of TNT, far greater than anything a truck bomb could accomplish.

Attached to the building's central columns, you need way less. And after you're already cutting the girders a few seconds before, you don't need much at all.

And have you proven beyond speculation that this could be done? Without a single whistle blower? I've been waiting 7 years for a good explanation that was more than speculation.

That looks like a mighty big Kaboom right there. Of course that mushroom is actually the result of multiple detonations in short sequence.

Explosives in controlled demolitions are capable to hurling 10-ton pieces of debris over 300 ft? Or where the pixie fairies hitching on to these pieces of building carrying them out?

Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
--No audio recordings of explosives
--No eyewitness accounts describing anything more than small, isolated pops
--No seismic recording of explosives despite numerous seismographs in the area which recorded the airplane impacts and the collapses but not explosives
--No evidence of explosives in rubble
--No eyewitnesses to anyone planting explosives in the towers
--Explosives could not have survived the airplane impacts and the fires
--No broken glass being flung all over Manhattan
--No explosive blasts seen on the exterior load-bearing columns
--No video footage of controlled demolition
--Exterior columns are seen bending inward immediately before collapse which could not have been caused by demolition
--No explosive shockwave
--Dust clouds don't appear until AFTER the building starts collapsing
--Not a single person has come forward with any information
--Absolutely zero physical evidence of explosives

What impresses me there is not so much that you get every single item wrong, but the sheer exhaustiveness of your list. Which indicates that you are not uninformed at all, but deliberately spreading misinformation. But that's just my impression.

Still no point by point rebuttal to this list? You're the one who calls this list a representation of 'mis information' Have at it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Still no point by point rebuttal to this list? You're the one who calls this list a representation of 'mis information' Have at it.

I love the term "mis information" (sarcasm). Whenever the woo disagrees with something, they have their battle cry, "misinformation!" and then let loose the dogs of dumb.

I suppose this is a good strategy for them. If they have to actually provide a reasoned analysis or, god forbid, math, they might be disproven!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

countdown to dubljah's banning. . .

10


9


8. . . .

 

[~enigma~]

countdown to dubljah's banning. . .

10


9


8. . . .

7.........6..........5

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Your figure is off by an order of magnitude. Get the handbook (Or the folded cheat sheet even) Read the part that describes the ratios for steel I-Beams, and make sure you're not reading the part about plywood again.

Steel is tough, even against explosives directly applied to them. Why do you think no one uses HE shells/bombs against tanks, but kinetic and shaped charges? Because HE shells at the very best piss off the tank's commander.

So you say I'm off by an order of magnitude? That means instead of a 3cm thick cross section it should either be 0.3cm or 30cm? Hardly.

LLH

 

[applecorped]

4......3.........

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's too much incorrect info to refute here. The responses will have to come in spurts.

Not demonstrated to be the truth... by the collapse, right?

No, not demonstrated by conspiracy peddlers who make the claim of WTC main tower overengineering. You need to provide the source of the "600%" claim. I don't recall any other discussion saying it was anywhere near that much. For example, the poster here named Myriad, said he's seen estimates from engineers saying "... an undamaged and fully loaded WTC tower could support an additional load about equal to its own weight. (ETA: And that's if the additonal load were distributed among all the floors, not just placed on top.)". I think that other engineering fellows in this forum have also spoken on this factor. Regardless, I've yet to see anyone else claim this 6x factor (although some idiot tried to argue two-thousand percent once). Please source that claim.


And after you do that, you need to demonstrate how:

1. That's supposed to apply when it's a static load calculation, not a figure meant to be used against the dynamic forces of the upper section colliding with the lower section, and
2. How that's supposed to even remotely apply when any figure of the load bearing capacity assumes the entire structure as an intact whole bearing the weight, and the events on 9/11 did not involved an intact structure, but rather an impact and fire damaged one.

The whole core or whole building as a single unit did not suffer the impact of the mass of the segment above the impact zone. Rather, the segments above the impact zone stressed support members in that zone. Some columns were severed by the jet's impact, others were softening due to the fires, and that meant that intact columns in the impact zone bore stresses above their normal capacities, as well as along directions they weren't designed to bear; this is demonstrated by the bowing and tilting of those sections. Recall, NIST says that between the damage from the impact and the effect of the fires, the columns lost around 60 to 70% of their vertical load carrying capacity on the collapse floors. That's very significant. Once those columns failed, the entire upper section as a whole impacted the floor beneath the impact zone. That caused supports in that area to fail. And then, the floor beneath that had to deal with the upper section as a whole plus that first floor immediately beneath the impact zone. That's "progressive collapse". This collapse continued as an accelerating mass - gravity accelerates masses downward - and as an increasing mass - it kept adding floors along the way - until it bottomed out. The resistence of the floors below the falling mass was insufficient to slow the mass down. Whatever resistence they presented was overwhelmed by 1. The acceleration of the falling mass due to gravity,and 2. The continual accretion of mass.
This all has been demonstrated mathematically by Greening and Bazant, by some other engineers here in this forum, and by Gregory Ulrich, who characterizes himself as a member of the truth movement, not a skeptic or someone who's out to defend the NIST model. It has been demonstrated multiple times. Use the search function to find those figures.

At any rate, the mere "many times redundant" claim does not hold water. If it's based on figures assuming an intact tower or static loads, it does not apply to the events on 9/11.


To be continued...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... cont'd:

Right. Next thing you know is you'll have a different witness reporting suspicious activity and explosions here with the same sort of credibility.

First of all, an individual witness's testimony does not stand alone; there were others who've reported that there was no suspicious activity. And the few reports that conspiracy peddlers have tried to circulate - such as Scott Forbes account - have been demonstrated to be far from suspicious, let alone applicable to the installation of explosives.

Second of all, you're just making fun of the witness statement. You're not succeeding in falsifying it. If you want to dispute it, provide an actual argument.

lol wut

"lol wut" is not an argument. Characteristics of explosives demolitions are missing from WTC 7. For example, as noted above, there was no construction noted where explosives could have been installed (and BTW, no one's ever explained how such explosives would have survived the fires). Also, the sounds of demolitions are missing. Furthermore, the progression of collapse was a very big departure; explosives demolitions normally start from the bottom. That is done in order to take advantage of the mass of the building. You saw none of this on 9/11. On top of that, as a military trained demolitions expert, you should also be aware that there was a distinct lack of material such as det cord and other components missing in the debris pile. That right there by itself falsifies the notion that explosives were used.

What? Massive dust clouds, macroscopic debris scattered all over the place, reported explosions, spontaneous vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed.

First, massive dust clouds and "macroscopic" debris are characteristics of a collapse period; those observations are not strictly limited to explosives demolition.

And regarding the "vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed": Wrong. The tower collapses lasted around 16 and 18 seconds for the south tower and around 18 to 20 seconds for the north one. Freefall calculates out to about 9 or 10 seconds respectively. That ends up meaning that the towers fell around 80-100% slower than the freefall rate. That is not "at nearly free fall speed".

... to be continued...