Sure as soon as you provide evidence that your thermal expansion pancake collapse disappearing into dust theory has any scientific basis via a valid experiment. How many of those 40+ buildings do you need to be steel framed if they aren't all steel framed to know they don't collapse when they turn into full blown torches? Let's say I exaggerated and only 3/4 or even 1/2 of them are steel framed, does that make a difference?
A few years ago a Brit TV prog analysed the WTC collapse wth assorted expert talking heads and computer simulations etc, and concluded that one of the metal truss frameworks that held up each floor melted with the heat of the burning jet fuel and caused a concertina/domino/knockon effect vertically downwards under gravity that brought down the entire towers. The prog said there's an old saying in the building industry- "Never trust a truss" because if one goes, they all go. (google it)
1. There is no proof or evidence that it's true. 2. The manner in which the towers were destroyed do not match the above theory. The visual observation alone contradicts the theory, never mind the actual physics involved in a "collapse". 3. If it can't be reproduced via a valid experiment, it remains strictly theory. And in this case, it is not a viable one (see #2 above). You cited it, you provide the link. Regardless, NIST was tasked with the investigation into the "collapse" of the towers. NIST refused to release data and computer models they claim they created and by their own admission, failed to investigate the actual "collapse". By its failure to do that, they are withholding evidence that others have no access to and therefore cannot conduct any legitimate investigation. NIST is responsible, no other entity is.
Here's one link about the weakness of truss construction as used in the WTC- http://www.sciforums.com/threads/don’t-trust-the-truss-world-trade-center.96409/ PS- If it wasn't the melted trusses that caused the collapse, what do you think did cause it?
That's not a link to any scientific study, it's a link to a forum. Well for one it didn't collapse in terms of a natural collapse. Meaning that parts of it dropped on other parts and caused those parts to drop on other parts. That's not what is seen on multiple videos. The wave of destruction was an unimpeded downward accelerating type (at approximately 2/3 G). That can't happen in a natural collapse because there would be multiple colliding objects which would cause multiple hesitations, not an acceleration. The evidence also shows massive structural components weighing tons found up to 600 feet distant. Some of these steel structures were embedded into adjacent buildings and some caused damage to WTC7 (about 300 feet distant) up to the 18th floor. Any gravitational (downward) collapse could not cause these massive components to be hurled laterally at such distances and at measured velocities of 50 MPH or more. And if such material was being hurled laterally, what is left to destroy anything below? And that's not to mention that a tremendous amount of concrete was turned into fine dust particles blanketing a good deal of lower Manhattan and into the Hudson River. IMO (and the opinion of many experts) only explosive forces could have caused such destruction
Ah, so are you saying terrorists had earlier planted explosives? It'd certainly have been easy for them to do by posing as businessmen in smart suits and carrying the stuff up bit by bit in suitcases over a period of weeks to build up a stockpile of several tons in some disused office or in the rafters or wherever, then set a time fuse to detonate it on 9/11. But why did they also fly airliners into the buildings if the explosives were enough to do the job?
Please point to where I said that. Why do you need to invent what I said when it's obvious I never said any such thing? What I posted has nothing to do with theory, it's all science and fact based. The 3 towers did not "collapse" as a natural consequence of planes, damage and fire, that is more than obvious. The videos show explosive forces destroying the twin towers top down in an unimpeded accelerating manner, not a "pancaking" floor by floor cascade. The resulting evidence virtually proves it. The NIST investigation clearly should have gone into the science of the actual collapse, not invented theory as to the initiating cause then left the actual collapse as admitted uninvestigated and later as "inevitable". That was not only false but a criminal dereliction of their mandated duty. As to theory, there are many theories out there just because there never was a legitimate official investigation into 9/11. If the science of the "collapses" had been legitimately investigated, then the criminal aspect should have followed accordingly. There is much more detail in the thread below as to what NIST did, didn't do and should have done. It's all science and fact based. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
Sorry mate I must have misunderstood you, so could you please clarify?- Namely, you said explosives caused the collapses, so who exactly are you saying did the explosions?
To be accurate (since you asked for clarification), I said in my opinion (and those of experts) the WTC towers were destroyed by explosive forces and that the visual and physical evidence supports that. I never said anything about who was responsible. It is the responsibility of an official forensic criminal investigation to try to determine who was responsible, not me. That's something that was never done, partly because NIST never conducted any scientific investigation into the "collapses" by their own admission and lied when they concluded the "collapses" were "inevitable" And partly because the Bush administration did not want 9/11 investigated at all and obstructed it every step of the way after they were pressured into having one. This is well detailed in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ If you're looking to me for answers as to specifically who, what, where, how and why about 9/11, I have none for you. I can only post the facts, science, logic and opinions from experts as well as my own relative to these. What you do with that information and how you interpret it is your personal choice. Just please don't inject or imply things I never said, that would be dishonest.
But you've just said that in your opinion explosives brought the towers down. Therefore you were opening a Pandora's box of possible theories about who exactly did do it, and as this is a discussion forum I'm sure we'd all like to hear your consp-theory.. Personally, like everybody else I saw the airliners on TV flown by muslims into the towers, so it seems pretty obvious that the impacts brought them down, I didn't see no "explosives", or am I missing something?
I just found this youtube explanation of the collapse, it seems the trusses melted and sagged (1), pulling the concrete pillars inwards (2), which then snapped (3) and rebounded outwards (4)-
Are you that dense? I specifically asked you not to inject or imply things I never said so now you're outright lying. Here are the EXACT quotes: and you quoted my response: I never used the word explosives. Whether those explosive forces were caused by explosives or something else is a matter for speculation. I'm not opening anything for anyone. I already told you it's your personal call as to what you want to do with the information given. If you want to play the theory game, that's strictly up to you. Who is "we"? Speak for yourself. The only thing you're going to "hear" from me is what I want to post, period. Yeah, just about everything if you don't do any research and you don't understand basic physics. Go back through this thread beginning at post #180, this has been gone over quite recently. It seems to me your "research" is limited to theories you want to believe not facts.
Sorry mate I don't follow you. You say you never used the word 'explosives', but then you say you think 'explosive forces' destroyed the towers. if you scroll up to my sensational post #237 you'll see pics of the trusses melting and pulling in the concrete pillars, which then snapped and rebounded outwards, so is that the 'explosive force' you're talking about?
Are you trying to be funny? You posted your truss theory, not me. It's quite obvious in the videos that there were explosive forces at work destroying the tower top down in accelerating fashion. That ANYONE can SEE. If you claim you don't see that then either you need glasses or you're lying. I don't follow you either. In this post you claim: Yet in your "sensational" post you claim: Did you see all that? Right, I didn't think so. So in my case I "didn't see no explosives" either but I did see explosive forces in action, quite CLEARLY. So maybe now you understand why I haven't used the word explosives. That explosives were used is THEORY, that trusses melted etc. is THEORY, anyone can cite THEORY. That explosive forces took apart the WTC towers is irrefutable OBSERVABLE FACT supported by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, not THEORY.
Certainly when the concrete pillars gave way it resembled an explosion, but that doesn't mean somebody planted actual explosives up there. Here's the 2-minute vid again that explains it-
And when those 3 buildings were destroyed, they resembled a controlled demolition. There is only one thing that resembles a controlled demolition, it's called a controlled demolition. No planes/fires/damage or any combination in the history of building fires have ever resembled a controlled demolition. So while anyone can say it wasn't a controlled demolition, no one can say planes/damage/fires or fires alone have ever destroyed buildings such that it resembled a controlled demolition. And when the physical evidence supports the fact that there were explosive forces at work, it's no longer that it "resembles" it, it is that explosive forces were at work. It also doesn't mean trusses melted causing the building to be destroyed resembling a controlled demolition. You can post and re-post your THEORY as many times as you like, it doesn't make your theory fact. Here is a scientific explanation of why your theory has no basis in physics and/or logic: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html I know you want to try to avoid anything that doesn't align with your worldview. I already pointed this out to you but you keep ignoring it and come back to your fantasies because it's what you want to believe. There is no fantasy about observable explosive forces and the physical evidence that supports it, that is called reality.
Mate it might help if you stopped beating about the bush and told us straight out what you think happened. Are you saying somebody planted explosives in the towers or what?
Mate, it would help if you had the stones to speak for yourself. Who is "us"? What I think happened is irrelevant so it doesn't "help" anything. What really happened is what's relevant and what really happened is NOT what we were officially told happened, that is fact, not theory. Go back and read what I posted for comprehension, what I posted is what I'm saying. I believe it's pretty clear straightforward English, it's not "beating around the bush". What I posted is fact, not theory. What YOU post is theory and not only repetitive but silly theory, not fact.
Yep these guys find all these 'artistic' propaganda props and because they have no physics or engineering background propose this foolishness as a bonafide argument of what happened. Most of them never heard of FEA modelling and the facts and actual numbers are plugged in science/engineering technology has proven that the sagging truss theory is one big ole lie, hence the reason nist made wacko assumptions and refuse to post the data they used to make those conclusions. Its top down fraud as the fea proves yet the propagandists insist on arguing their artistic advertisement as fact. This shows the actual performance of trusses when heated and the only 'possible' way weakened trusses can pull in the sides.
So they parrot any untenable theory they don't even understand that they believe supports the official lies. But yet they hypocritically ignore the facts and ridicule those who cite verifiable facts supported by physics and physical evidence as "conspiracy theorists" and demand theories as to what happened.
I have mate, you said in post #241- "It's quite obvious in the videos that there were explosive forces at work destroying the tower top down in accelerating fashion" So you now need to go the extra mile and tell us who you think planted the explosives, was it muslims or the US Govt or Klingons, Romulans etc..?..
You said "explosive forces" brought the towers down, yet you seem too chicken (no offence) to discuss your consp-theory and point your finger at who you think might have done it. Anyway it's purely academic because everybody knows Islamic terrorists demolished the towers by flying airliners into them..
