No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

Sorry, you're incorrect.
They did collapse.

 

and at least in your interpretation,
not needing any help to cause the degree of destruction
that was observed? Mass quantities of pulverized material
etc.....

 

Oh, they were helped.
See, they were hit by passenger jets, which caused structural damage. The fuel from those jets ignited fires across multiple floors which in turn further weakened the load bearing structure.

Also: Gravity.

 

So a result that ordinarily would require weeks of careful planning
and preparation, is achieved by an airliner crash & fire, is that what
you think happened?

 

No such careful planning and preperation was done over weeks.

Such weeks of planning and preperation would be impossible without people noticing.

Nothjing mysterious about a plane crash and resulting fires causing the collapse.

 

May I address this one bit, it has been used many times over
to justify the "no explosives" argument. How many of you
readers of this forum have ever worked in the land of cubicles?
periodically a memo is circulated that states the building
( wiring, plumbing, fire suppression system .... etc .... )
will have to be worked on and trades people will be in to do the work and we have been instructed to give them space and let them work as they need to. in some instances, in places I personally have worked, the trades people had screened off a part of the office space and went to work cutting/grinding welding ( etc .... ) and it made noise & fumes but we office minions were instructed to let them do their work.
The fact is that prior to the disaster of 9/11/2001, there had been an
on-going elevator overhaul job going on and so the trades people would have had access to the elevator shafts & the interior of the central core of the building. prime location(s) for stashing explosives to bring down the building. The detonators could have been radio controlled devices, eliminating the need for stringing miles of cable to set off the explosives.

The concept that the building just happened to be totally destroyed by a airliner crash & fires, makes as much sense as somebody rolling snake-eys 1,000,000 times in a row.

 

Not all of the offices were cubicles there were many different types of offices and rooms and even restaraunts and stores.

Someone is always present at one time or another such as janitors night watch men etc. The types of explosives needed would have required those offices and rooms to be stripped bare and massive explosive devices attached directly to load bearing columns and members. Not just in one elevator shaft but throughout multiple floors.

Radio controlled detonators would never have been used by any professional for the simple reason that it would have been too easy for someone else with a radio to accidentally trigger the explosives prematurely.

Either way it is irrelevant not one shred of evidence for such explosives or preperation exists so everything you believe is fictional speculation.

The buildings were never totally destroyed and the collapse from the crash and fire makes perfectly good sense.

Especially in the absolute and complete absence of any other cause

 

Lets examine that one shall we, produce a picture of ground zero
that has more than 1% of either tower still standing?
can you do it, you are so interested in showing me wrong,
produce the pix..... please.

 

Your standard of one % is subjective twist.

TOTALLY means TOTALLY as in zero % remaining, not .1 % or less remaining. If even . 0000000001 % remains it was not TOTAL

 

Argument from incredulity. And excessive verbosity.

 

The plane was traveling faster than the stress wave that would normally propagate throughout the entire airframe.

 

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

 

I think this incident relates:


Why, in the official story, were the cops so sure that it was a robber's footwear that impacted the man's head? The surveillance video could have been altered with a fake, animated, CGI boot. Or perhaps it was a holographic boot that eyewitnesses saw stomping him, projected from an anti-gravity orb, and the marks on his forehead were made from energy beams from space.
The official story just doesn't add up. I've had my head stomped on by my wife many times and it never left a mark like that.

 

Can you support that with engineering data?

 

Quoted from this paper, and you guys are buying what this paper sez? ...... quite frankly, I am shocked!

 

Physics.

 

You have seen it with your own eyes with the Jet crashing into a cement wall. Why would you doubt your own eyes? Oh wait, you are a truther.

 

Just to add to the discussion here,
the test with the F4 intentionally destroyed
involved the aircraft being rammed into a target
perfectly perpendicular to said target.
in the case of "FLT11" & "FLT175" the airliners
could not possibly have been perfectly perpendicular
to the wall of the WTC, therefore asymmetrical forces
upon the aircraft, and with all that, the aircraft allegedly
kept its shape on the way in.

If as in the article cited the aircraft went from the alleged
590 mph speed to aprox 540 mph by the time the tail is
disappearing into the building. and that is about 12 g
for the force upon the aircraft, and I submit to you that
having a 12 g load on a commercial airliner that has already
been structurally compromised by striking a wall, is sufficient
to cause total catastrophic failure of the fuselage, that is wings
falling off before having a chance to penetrate the wall ( etc.... )

 

Not aware of what a crush zone is?

 

in reference to automobile safety, yes,
however, the commercial airliner in question
did NOT have a specific engineered "crush zone"
in the fuselage to absorb impact force. The fact
is that the fuselage, once compromised by the initial
impact into the tower wall, would be liable to do anything
at all including split open, spilling the contents of the luggage
compartment ( tons of stuff! ) onto the street below.

Given the fact that the jet engines extended forward of
the leading edge of the wing, the engine would be the first
thing to contact the wall before the leading edge of the wing.
Why didn't then, the wing break off because of asymmetrical
forces applied to the wing as the jet engine struck the wall?

 

Thank you for the info, ( new to me at least ... )
I tend to focus on the physical aspects of the crime
because that is ( at least IMHO ) easier to nail down
parts of it with identifiable facts, there are a lot of other
bits that get debated intensely ( that is WHO was involved,
& why ) but that often ends in one side telling the other that
somebody must be terribly Anti-Semitic around here and that
is a very bad thing.... oops!

I can agree that this is a very deep subject and
a simplistic accusation of "anti-semite" doesn't half
cover the ground that needs to be in order to explain
what was going on to create the disaster of 9/11/2001.

 

I stand corrected,
thank U very much.

 

Sure they do, it is called aluminum which is very crush-able.

 

So why didn't we observe the whole aircraft making like an accordion?

 

You didn't see that with the jet into the cement either.