Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[twinstead]

I can see the thing being blown up in a dozen videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
I was down there and saw what remained with my own eyes. I ran from the wtc7 dust cloud. You're never going to convince me they werent blown up/

You think the 12 story upper block of the north tower http://smu.gs/jvzZxu can account for what happened to it. How can I argue with that?
Its like if you said. The sky is orange and that is all there is to it and all the experts agree.'
ok dude.

You dismiss the Harrit study.. etc//
so being reasonable is not something your engaging in.
That's fine.

peace.

You dismiss the NIST report, so being reasonable is not something you're engaging in. That's fine.

 

[Animal]

You think the 12 story upper block of the north tower http://smu.gs/jvzZxu can account for what happened to it. How can I argue with that?
.

With a simple knowledge of building structures, it is quite simple to see how it happened and why it happened. Only those that remain willfully ignorant or are terminally stupid believe in some sort of inside jobby jobby,

 

[Edx]

I can see the thing being blown up in a dozen videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

And yet, you cant hear any explosions in this video. You know why?

Because they turned the sound off so you couldnt be distracted by the fact that they are claiming all this absurdly powerfull explosives are going off but they don't make sound consistent with any explosives known to man and isnt consistent with what we know about sound, even in theory.

I was down there and saw what remained with my own eyes. I ran from the wtc7 dust cloud.

So were dozens and dozens and dozens of firefighters, all there waiting around for WTC7 to collapse so they could go in and continue the rescue and evacuation efforts. How many of them believe it was even strange that WTC7 collapsed? How many of them disagree with any aspect of the "official" story about WTC7? How many mention small fires? Lack of major damage? That they didnt believe that it would collapse? There's certainly no shortage of quotes from them talking about it.

You're never going to convince me they werent blown up/

Of course not, you're delusional. You think impossible explosives blew up the buildings.

You dismiss the Harrit study.. etc//.

Why do you only care about what scientists think if they are saying what you want them to say? There are historians that believe that the holocaust never happened, biologists that say evolution doesnt happen, geologists that say the earth is only 6,000 years old, medical doctors that believe homeopathy works. You are trusting the small irrelevant fringe minority and subjects you don't understand. AE911 are even more irrelevant than Creationists since scientists are actually concerned that they are trying to teach their crazyness in schools, whereas truthers are literally irrelevant. This forum gives you lot too much credit.

 

[WildCat]

And if it seems like Im in the minority it is probably because of where and with whom you've spent your time. Where I come from, everyone knows this.

Oh, so you live in one of those places surrounded by signs warning motorists not to pick up hitchikers?

 

[WildCat]

Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off.

No, that's not what hundreds or thousands of explosives going off would sound like.

Your opinion is still uninformed, and there are still many things you have no clue about. See my sig...

 

[triforcharity]

Such a response to a scene described is an international standard actually.

Really? Name the standard. I'll wait.

NIST was tasked with finding out why they blew up and fell down.
They should have tested for explosives. WHY WOULDNT THEY?

It's wouldn't have been NIST's job. That would have been the ATF, FBI, NYPD, etc. to identify any kind of bomb fragments. None were found.

No evidence of an explosive was found.

You have (I'm pretty sure) been explained this before. NONE of those organizations follow the NFPA as a standard. NFPA makes no laws, and is not an organization that makes any kind of standard.

It even says so VERY CLEARLY in the beginning of every NFPA edition they publish. Have you seen it?

 

[triforcharity]

why does everyone here immediately resort to personal attacks? You argue like u'r in high sshool!

My NWO Irony Meter just exploded.
PS. There was no personal attack in that post. But, you're of course, free to report me. Nothing will come of it.

Im just stating points in fact.

Good thing you didn't call them facts. Not only would you be a truther, you'd be a liar to boot.

You dont need to agree or even respond.

You're right, I do not. However, this here website is called a forum. Do you know what that means?

It means that many people will discuss a given topic. Other people can even chime in, and either agree with you, or disagree with you.

If YOU don't want ME to post here, come do something about it.

It seems that u'r saying that WT7 went down too quickly yo be an implosion !

No, I am saying that since YOU claim that FFA is a sure sign of an explosive demolition, you should be able to show me dozens, if not hundreds of examples of other known CD's that exhibit this same feature.

I'll wait. You'd be a pioneer.

I should find you another example of an imploded building exhibiting freefall.

Yes, what part of that did you not understand?

So according to you, that is very unlikely and yet this wasnt an implosion this was office fires and nature?

No, I am asking you to show me evidence of another known CD that exhibits FFA.

Just dont see it. Nothing personal.

Perhaps it's the written word that you're having a hard time with?

Go find another CD that shows some amount of freefall.

And No, 'neat rubble' is not an oymoron. You see those large sections of perimeter wall laying on the rubble pile? That's what "neat" means in this context.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_349174e63a75540e72.jpg[/qimg]

Ok champ.

and it is a very neat pile (typical of such an implosion) especially when compared to this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg[/qimg]

Well, yes, that would seem to make sense.

Here's a simple experiment even you can do.

Go to your mothers cabinet, and get two glass cups. Any glass cup will do. The Mickey Mouse one's will do fine.

Now, hold one straight out, and drop it. What happens? Count the amount of pieces and how far away from the spot of impact they went.

Now, stand on your roof, and drop the other cup. See the difference?

Do you consider a "neat" pile one that spreads over three different roads, and damages three other buildings?

I certainly don't. Maybe neater, but certainly not neat.

 

[triforcharity]

I can see the thing being blown up in a dozen videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

I seem to have missed the large explosion. Perhaps you can point it out?

I was down there and saw what remained with my own eyes. I ran from the wtc7 dust cloud. You're never going to convince me they werent blown up/

I'm calling BS. What were YOU doing in NYC on 9/11/01?

You think the 12 story upper block of the north tower http://smu.gs/jvzZxu can account for what happened to it. How can I argue with that?

You can't. To argue against it, is pretty stupid.

Its like if you said. The sky is orange and that is all there is to it and all the experts agree.'
ok dude.

The sky at times, can appear orange. Your logic is flawed.

You dismiss the Harrit study.. etc//

Yes, rightfully so.

so being reasonable is not something your engaging in.
That's fine.

peace.

Says the one who has a hard time understanding that steel fails in fire. Often.

 

[Marokkaan]

So the first time I make a typo you finally notice the word. Congratulations.

The first time?? I just notice the word, because you made it bold, to make me something clear.

If I take a screenshot all you'll do is claim its different to a picture of the WTC collapses. Yes, it is different, but not where it matters.

So i have to conclude, you can not even show a picture who looks a little bit close to the chinese building and wtc?

You still have not recognised the differences between your chinese demolition and the WTC collapse. Why not?

There is no difference in the way the ejections goes, they both have a big distance, that requires a big force to get that.

So you are the one who do not understand it

No the rest of the building does not remain. You can see that 3-4 floors easily crush over 12. You can see that happen. Im sorry you are too blind or dishonest to see it.

Lets do a printscreen and some work with paint.

Now get your glasses.

Why is it you can compare the china demolition to the WTC collapse even if it isnt a steel building, yet I cannot compare verinage to the WTC unless its made of steel?

Because its not about the construction, but about the explosive force of the explosives. And the signals of those explosives are the big ejections? Thats the reason why i show you the example.

Why you cant understand that?

Show me an example of thermite being used in a demolition
Show me an example of explosives being used to propel heavy steel around in a demolition
Show me an example of demolition of a steel frame building with the same noise profile of the WTC collapses.
Show me an example molten metal or steel after a demolition
Show me an example of molten metal being around for weeks after a thermite reaction.

etc.

Apparently you have rules for others you dont want to follow yourself

Show me a highrise steelframe building can collapse due fire.

Do you realize you are contradicting yourself?

Now we know, you can not show, an example. so if we use the debunkers logic and the logic of nist. Things did not happen or we would not expect, we have to exclude.

I can show you the best comparative examples of demolitions, who looks almost exactly with the demoltion of the wtc towers.

So its strange and bizarre to exclude controlled demolition.

Come on be honest. Tell me as a debunker, what are the similarities between the collapse of the wtc towers and the collapse of building destroyed by controlled demolition.

 

[triforcharity]

Come on be honest. Tell me as a debunker, what are the similarities between the collapse of the wtc towers and the collapse of building destroyed by controlled demolition.

I dunno, maybe that they both fall down to the ground?

Someone quote me.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I dunno, maybe that they both fall down to the ground?

and Gravity


I'm drawing blanks on the rest

 

[atavisms]

You said the same thing a page ago, yet again you have no idea what real explosives sound like or what energy it would take from a bomb to propel heavy steel hundreds of feet away.

Educate yourself on how explosives work.
http://youtu.be/rdHRX7iIAQs



That is because this wasnt a single "Boooom!" Instead it was approx. 15 seconds of continual explosions in each Tower. This is well and clearly documented in numerous videos and many eyewitness testimonials from
the FDNY "Oral Histories" (NY Times). and people at the site/

Cool video you linked to,, I learned a couple of things.

You dont understand demolitions, you dont understand explosives, you dont understand sound. You dont understand anything about this topic and you're really proud of your ignorance, thats why we have no patience for you.

Speak for yourself. Making excuses for people's immaturity sounds even more pathetic. Just concede the point because we, I think, can all agree that name calling is the domain of people without a good argument or the mental wherewithal to make one and the inability to deal with the frustration that evokes.

Its not unreasonable to expect a proper response addressing and countering the points I raised. You obviously have none or you would have made it simply and clearly,.,instead of focusing on me personally. Im sharing how and why I came to this conclusion. It is all very sincere. If you cannot raise yourself to this level. Then just move on.

Fact is that without explosives no large steel framed building has ever behaved the way wtc 7 did on 9.11. That being so, the burden of proof clearly lies with anyone saying otherwise of wtc7 bc doing so flies in the face 125 years of steel framed hi-rise engineering and construction history and precedence.

WTC 1&2both go without saying how incredibly explosive they were.

Obviously not traditional demolitions, they could nonetheless ONLY have been demolished with explosives because of how incredibly explosive these events were. http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

This clip cuts off too soon but we can clearly hear the loud roar of the continual explosions.
I know numerous people who were there and their testimony onfirms what is clearly in so many video clips. VERY Loud & VERY explosive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU

And her is another revealing clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo

See how fast and symmetrical and explosive laterally?
Clearly, hundreds of powerful lateral explosions going off simultaneously. Just blowing out those massive multi-ton perimeter wall assemblies in every direction all the way down.

on a different note: The Harrit study is definitive proof of explosives..
but you can still dismiss it outright and ignore it. (some people think the world is flat too) You can imagine they're paint chips..But letting personal incredulity get the best of you does not usually get one any closer to the truth.

To the people who say there were desks and chairs burning underground for 99 days. (Like that could be possible even if they were there!) I say, Please look at the fact that the majority of both towers' were blown violently and widely outside their footprints. and literally pulverized!

How explosive were they?
1100 people remain unaccounted for
Those (intact below the impact zones) massive cross-braced substructures that could hold up 5 times the weight of the entire building were blown to many thousands of pieces. That's explosive!

And there is no need to get personal. Address the points raised with ones you think explain these issues logically.. or please dont bother. Ill just ignore it and people will see it for what it is.

Its the facts and the evidence which point so overwhelmingly to explosives. Nothing personal and nothing to do with my knowledge of anything but common sense and the well established facts of the 9/11

 

[Edx]

The first time?? I just notice the word, because you made it bold, to make me something clear.

Everytime I replied to you I used that word and yet you only just noticed it. My point exactly. You claim your first language isnt English yet you seem to understand it well enough to point out typos, something tells me you understand English well enough.

So i have to conclude, you can not even show a picture who looks a little bit close to the chinese building and wtc?

Again, the trajectory is the same. Apparently you dont understand what that means.

Lets do a printscreen and some work with paint.

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/33avz2a.png[/qimg]

3-4 floors are still crushing 12 floors. Even if we're only talking about half the building, about 20% easily crushes the 80% of the matter below it. Truthers claim this is impossible.

Because its not about the construction, but about the explosive force of the explosives. And the signals of those explosives are the big ejections? Thats the reason why i show you the example.

And yet you demand that i show you a collapse that is a steel frame construction. Do you know what a hypocrite is?

Show me a highrise steelframe building can collapse due fire.

Why do you stipulate highrise? Why not an ordinary steel frame building? Does making a high rise make it less likely to collapse? Why?

Do you realize you are contradicting yourself?

Explain how? You wont of course, you'll ignore this question and act like you have no idea what contradiction means.

I can show you the best comparative examples of demolitions, who looks almost exactly with the demoltion of the wtc towers.

Except they do not. Why do you not acknowledge the differences between your chinese demolition and the WTC collapses? I will readily acknowledged the differences between verinage and the WTC collapses. They are not the same, they differ in various ways. You however will not even acknowledge there are differences in your comparison. That is why you are dishonest and why the truth movement will never, ever be taken seriously and you'll be relegated to the fringe forever

So its strange and bizarre to exclude controlled demolition.

Im perfectly willing to accept controlled demolition, but when your side has to theorise Star Trek style weapons vaporizing entire 8 floors instantly and quiet explosives, then I know you have absolutely no case. You guys dont even understand the basics of sound or explosives, so how can I take you seriously? You deserve to be mocked.

Come on be honest. Tell me as a debunker, what are the similarities between the collapse of the wtc towers and the collapse of building destroyed by controlled demolition.

Only if you tell me what kind of demolition you are comparing it to.

 

[triforcharity]

Fact is that without explosives no large steel framed building has ever behaved the way wtc 7 did on 9.11. That being so, the burden of proof clearly lies with anyone saying otherwise of wtc7 bc doing so flies in the face 125 years of steel framed hi-rise engineering and construction history and precedence.

This is called "Shifting the burden of proof", and it is a logical fallacy.

YOU make a claim, YOU back it up.

on a different note: The Harrit study is definitive proof of explosives..
but you can still dismiss it outright and ignore it. (some people think the world is flat too) You can imagine they're paint chips..But letting personal incredulity get the best of you does not usually get one any closer to the truth.

Thermite is never an explosive.

To the people who say there were desks and chairs burning underground for 99 days. (Like that could be possible even if they were there!) I say, Please look at the fact that the majority of both towers' were blown violently and widely outside their footprints. and literally pulverized!

Please understand that even those pieces that were broken, are still flameable. The fact that YOU don't understand this, PROVES to me that your knowledge of fire is non-existant.

How explosive were they?
1100 people remain unaccounted for
Those (intact below the impact zones) massive cross-braced substructures that could hold up 5 times the weight of the entire building were blown to many thousands of pieces. That's explosive!

Citation needed.

You find it hard to believe that human beings are fragile, and are not designed to withstand hundreds of tons of debris being dropped on them, then exposed to days and days of a very hot, caustic environment?

Wow. If you can't understand that I could make your entire body dissapear in less than a day in hydrochloric acid, then you're foolish.

And there is no need to get personal. Address the points raised with ones you think explain these issues logically.. or please dont bother. Ill just ignore it and people will see it for what it is.

Kinda like I have, yet you CONTINUE to ignore it?

Imagine that.....

 

[Edx]

That is because this wasnt a single "Boooom!" Instead it was approx. 15 seconds of continual explosions in each Tower.

You poor fool. No, 15 second continuous detonations would not start very gradually and get louder and louder. It would pound peoples ear drums into their skulls. You would be able to see extremely rapid ejections of matter, visible blast waves, air would immediately condense as seen in the video I provided that shows various high powered explosives going off.

We do not expect 110 stories of sky scraper to come down silently, even a steel crane collapsing has been described as like a "bomb" going off. But you claim massive explosives were so powerful they flung heavy steel hundreds of feet away and there was so much of them you cannot distinguish between blasts.

This means it would have to be way more powerful than the most powerful demolition you can find, and yet even the weakest demolitions are easily picked up on video and are louder than the WTC collapses. Of course we saw no evidence of such massively intense explosives caught on any microphones, no one suffered any blast injuries and no seismic activity was found that was consistent with such absurdly powerful explosives going off. With WTC7, someone else recently insisted what sounds like a gust of wind on a single video was the explosion from the bomb that he claimed entirely vaporised 10 stories instantly becuase he was so hard pressed to find any explosions when it collapsed.

As I said, you dont understand explosives or sound and you're damn proud of it, happy to wallow in an embarrassing sea of ignorance where quiet explosives exist and Star Trek stype weapons can vaporise 8-10 stories instantly. Im not willing to join you in fantasy land. Even if it was an inside job, you'd still be utterly wrong in every way possible.

This is well and clearly documented in numerous videos and many eyewitness testimonials from
the FDNY "Oral Histories" (NY Times). and people at the site/

And yet you ignore everything they say about WTC7. How many of them say a single thing that contradicts the "official story"? How many of them agree with a single thing truthers say about WTC7? Have a guess. But you really dont care about what the firefighters think, do you? All you care about is if they said explosion at any time, who cares about the context or what they really think.

Also, we know witness' report explosions in building fires. Its common for people to talk about explosions, blasts and even that it "sounded like bombs" even when they already know they arent talking about bombs or explosives before they said it. The fact is when we look at the video of the collapses it does not show any sound of explosive detonations, so clearly the witness' are not reporting actual explosives going off. Unless you claim all videos are fakes.... which wouldnt surprise me.





Its just like molten steel and molten metal reports, entirely expected in fires. But the truth movement act like its a strange thing for people to report. So molten metal and molten steel reports are entirely consistent with a normal fire, yet thermites reaction doesnt last for weeks and molten metal has never - ever been present at at a demolition because thermite has never been used in a modern demolition truthers always claim the WTC collapses looks like. Its almost like the truthers are joking, but no, they're serious.

Cool video you linked to,, I learned a couple of things.

Doesnt seem like it.

Its not unreasonable to expect a proper response addressing and countering the points I raised.

Just because someone says you're an idiot doesnt mean you didnt get a proper response as well .

You obviously have none or you would have made it simply and clearly,.,instead of focusing on me personally. Im sharing how and why I came to this conclusion. It is all very sincere. If you cannot raise yourself to this level. Then just move on.

Excuse me, but you, personally, do show you have no idea how explosives or sound work so I am quite justified in pointing that out.

WTC 1&2both go without saying how incredibly explosive they were.

Explosive, yet without any sound or any blast waves or other effects of a high explosive. Right. You do not understand explosives.

Obviously not traditional demolitions,

Sorry, you can't get out of it that way. Your claims dont even work in theory. Everything we know about explosives, everything we know about sound says that your claims are utterly impossible. We dont even have to talk about the logistics of actually installing any of it with no one noticing, the kind of explosives you claim were used simply - cannot - exist. They are science fiction Star Trek weapons.

But it gets even more retarded. Instead of realising explosives couldnt have been used the way you claim, you end up theorising that even more massively powerful explosives were used to coverup the individual detonations of the massively powerful explosives! This is why no one outside your pathetically fringe cult of a group takes you seriously in any professional context whatsoever. This forum responding to your claims gives you too much credit.

on a different note: The Harrit study is definitive proof of explosives..but you can still dismiss it outright and ignore it.

As I said last time...

Why do you only care about what scientists think if they are saying what
you want them to say? There are historians that believe that the
holocaust never happened, biologists that say evolution doesnt happen,
geologists that say the earth is only 6,000 years old, medical doctors
that believe homeopathy works. You are trusting the small irrelevant
fringe minority about subjects you don't understand. AE911 are even more
irrelevant than Creationists since scientists are actually concerned
that they are trying to teach their craziness in schools, whereas
truthers are literally irrelevant. This forum gives you lot too much
credit.

(some people think the world is flat too)

The vast majority do not, you do the equivalent of believing the world is flat and you're proud of ignoring all the other experts.

To the people who say there were desks and chairs burning underground for 99 days. (Like that could be possible even if they were there!)

Apparently you also dont know anything about landfill fires. They can last for weeks and months and in one case in the UK of a tire fire it has lasted over a decade. You can also see the exact same trouble as seen on 911 trying to extinguish the fires.

Its the facts and the evidence which point so overwhelmingly to explosives. Nothing personal and nothing to do with my knowledge of anything but common sense and the well established facts of the 9/11

So why are you still a pathetically small fringe irrelevant group of nobodies thats getting less and less support as years go on? Why are you utterly inconsequential in the world of engineering, or professionally in any relevant field? What do you plan to do with this knowledge, rage about it on internet forums forever? At least the Creationists are trying to get their nonsence taught in schools, what are you doing?

 

[Marokkaan]

Everytime I replied to you I used that word and yet you only just noticed it. My point exactly. You claim your first language isnt English yet you seem to understand it well enough to point out typos, something tells me you understand English well enough.

Debunkers are funny, when you say something about a fault. They cannot accept it and they are irritated about it.

Again, the trajectory is the same. Apparently you dont understand what that means.

the trajectory is the same.

3-4 floors are still crushing 12 floors. Even if we're only talkling about half the building, about 20% easily crushes the 80% of the matter below it. Do you know what the word disingenuous means?

Just tell to me is it a total collapse or not???

and second, is it a steelframe building yes or no?

Your example is the worst example to show.

And yet you demand that i show you a collapse that is a steel frame construction. Do you know what a hypocrite is?

Yes, you are. Im not talking about the construction, the example i demand from you, its only about the construction.

Explosives have nothing to do with the construction of a building if you want to notice the ejections, it can happen to concrete buildings or steel frame buildings, high or low, the same force is not dependent of the construction of a building,

a collapse has everything to do with the construction of a building.

Unbelievable i have to explain this to you.

Why do you stipulate highrise? Why not an ordinary steel frame building? Does making a high rise make it less likely to collapse? Why?

Highrise buildings are different, you can not compare a 110 stories building with a 4 storie building.

For further questions why, i refer you to the architects and engineers.

Except they do not. Why do you not acknowledge the differences between your chinese demolition and the WTC collapses? I will readily acknowledged the differences between verinage and the WTC collapses. They are not the same, they differ in various ways. You however will not even acknowledge there are differences in your comparison. That is why you are a dishonest lier and why the truth movement will never, ever be taken seriously and you'll be relegated to the fringe forever

Tell me the similarities between the best verinage example and the collapse of the wtc

I will tell you the similarities between a controlled demolition and the collapse of the wtc.

The ejections,

the same fall speed

Explosions.

Nearly in its own footprint.

A moment of freefall.

the kink in the rooftop at wtc 7

etc etc..

Just watching a controlled demolition and compare it with the wtc towers, with your own eyes, shows a lot of similarities.

Im perfectly willing to accept controlled demolition, but when your side has to theorise Star Trek style weapons vaporizing entire 8 floors instantly and quiet explosives, then I know you have absolutely no case. You guys dont even understand the basics of sound or explosives, so how can I take you seriously? You deserve to be mocked.

You dont have the knowledge about cd, you do know nothing about cd, nothing about the explosives, nothing about every detailf of a cd.

Why you really think you can exclude cd with your lack of knowledge?????

There is one simple fact, cd has the most similarities with the collapse of the wtc towers.

Only if you tell me what kind of demolition you are comparing it to

What kind???

Cd of a highrise building. You can choose which highrise building.

 

[WildCat]

That is because this wasnt a single "Boooom!" Instead it was approx. 15 seconds of continual explosions in each Tower. This is well and clearly documented in numerous videos and many eyewitness testimonials from
the FDNY "Oral Histories" (NY Times). and people at the site

So with your explosives the "booms" get quieter if you set off lots of them?

 

[Edx]

Debunkers are funny, when you say something about a fault. They cannot accept it and they are irritated about it.

I admit - it - was - a - typo... and? My point is you claim you only just noticed a word I have used in every single post to you in this argument.

Again, the trajectory is the same. Apparently you dont understand what that means.

the trajectory is the same.

UUUhhhh, okay... glad you admit that....

Just tell to me is it a total collapse or not???

20% of the building easily crushes the 80% of the building below it straight down, pancake style, rapidly.

That is what truthers claim cannot happen. Deal with it.

and second, is it a steelframe building yes or no?

No, and neither is your chinese demolition. It also starts to collapse as soon as the explosives start, not before, and it causes rapid propulsion of debris. You guys claim explosives so powerful went off that hurled heavy steel around hundreds of feet but didnt cause any effects associated with high explosives. To cover up the sound Ive just been told they used even more explosives so that you wouldnt be able to hear individual blasts. Sorry, but explosives and sound do not work this way.

Yes, you are. Im not talking about the construction, the example i demand from you, its only about the construction.

But you dont tell me why its relevant to say it has to be steel. As if steel is somehow indestructible.

Highrise buildings are different, you can not compare a 110 stories building with a 4 storie building.

Why are highrise buildings different? You claim i have to show you an example of a steel frame HIGHRISE collapsing from fire? Why do I have to show you a highrise? Why do you seem to think a highrise makes it stronger?

For further questions why, i refer you to the architects and engineers.

Thats like saying I will refer you to Creationist biologists to explain why evolution is wrong. Sorry, but your pathetically fringe bunch of nobodies irrelevant in every professional area you can think of does not impress me.

I will tell you the similarities between a controlled demolition and the collapse of the wtc.

The ejections,

the same fall speed

Explosions.

Nearly in its own footprint.

A moment of freefall.

the kink in the rooftop at wtc 7

etc etc..

Just watching a controlled demolition and compare it with the wtc towers, with your own eyes, shows a lot of similarities.

So...

1. Explosions - that make no explosive sound, dont cause a shock wave, dont cause air to visibly condence

2. Free fall - that doesnt occur in demolitions anyway


Well... thats it.

Verinage has ...

Ejections of debris, large dust cloud, rapid onset, rapid collapse, and shows that a smaller part of a building can easily crush the larger part below it. No explosives required.

Saying explosives werent used would still make your claims crazy, but at least you'd be less crazy.

You dont have the knowledge about cd, you do know nothing about cd, nothing about the explosives, nothing about every detailf of a cd.

Why you really think you can exclude cd with your lack of knowledge?????

There is one simple fact, cd has the most similarities with the collapse of the wtc towers.

You love telling people what they dont know, and yet you dont know anything. You talk about explosives that can literally only exist in StarTrek and in fiction. Quiet explosives cannot exist, vaporizing entire floors in one go cannot exist. You are a fool that doesnt know anything about anything and thinks the only way you can argue is by just projecting your own inadequacies onto everyone else. You have no evidence, even a theory, for how these explosives could exist yet you demand I acknowledge their existence. Sorry buddy, I am not going to jump into crazy town with the rest of the lunatic brigade just because it makes life a bit more interesting. You tell people they are not experts in explosives in the hope that they are not so you can discount everything they are saying, yet even when they are experts and prove it you move the goal posts anyway in the case of Sam.I.Am which had more experience in his left finger than you'll ever have.

What kind???

Well we have classic explosive demolition seen on most videos you can find on Youtube, we have the chinese demolition you posted, we have the other chinese demolition where the buildings just fall over like a tree being toppled and we have verinage. They all have different effects. Comparing the WTC collapses to a "CD" is very vague. What kind of CD?

 

[Clayton Moore]

There is a montage of verinage demolitions you must have see which show what Im talking about. The debris "ejected" with verinage all have the same trajectory as the WTC collapses has. Just imagine verinage 110 stories high, a lot more dry wall for dust and with steel perimeter columns. There is otherwise essentially no difference,.

You do realize verinage requires a great deal of precise preparation?

 

[Clayton Moore]

So with your explosives the "booms" get quieter if you set off lots of them?

There have been many booms on 9/11 videos posted on this site. In those videos TV news commentators mentioned them when they occurred. Did you miss that?