No, they did not. The buildings withstood the immediate impacts, but with the heat shielding blasted from the steel supports and the fire suppression system not functioning, the fires were able to burn long enough and hot enough to weaken the steel, and this, combined with the structural damage from the impacts, led to a failure of the structure that permitted the floors above to begin falling (the whole section of building above the point of failure began coming down as a whole), and that force (weight and momentum) then brought the rest of the structures down. You can watch any video of the collapses and see this happening, without any explosions involved. Idiots will claim that dust escaping through windows during the collapses are explosions, but of course they are but the visible manifestations of dust- and smoke-filled air being pushed out by the collapsing floors/ceilings. There are no flashes and no sounds of explosives. No evidence of explosives was found in the wreckage. It's clear how those towers collapsed, and it did not involve any explosives.
Once again not one shred of evidence.proves this claim. On the other hand the evidence proves structural damage and fires did cause the collapse
No explosives were deployed. There a few problems in logic with the explosives story and 9/11 truth adherents fail to address them: a). There was no physical evidence of explosives found: no RF screening; no DET cord; no barotrauma; no Munroe effect. b). The lack of sound: There is no evidence for the 'rolling explosions' one hears in a normal controlled demolition. Verinage is incapable of explaining away this problem. c). The collapses themselves: the collapses initiated at the impact points. d). Thermite is a proven 'hoax'. e). The heat of the fires: how did these explosives survive the fires? In summary, the CD hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny for very long, and owing to a lack of evidence and the illogical nature of the hypothesis, we can discount it merely as a crackpot theory that wasn't very well developed. The CD hypothesis is only supported by those who lack knowledge of the subject.
Have you even read it? Most truthers I encounter clearly haven't read it, and they just regurgitate the above meme without thinking. What do you disagree with in the NIST report? Let's discuss your grievances with it, for I am well versed in the report and I would love to discuss this with a truther who has actually read it. Everyone I discuss it with says they've read it, but after a few posts I can tell they're lying. Are you up to it?
The NIST report is a political document that started with a conclusion, and packed sand into certain places to fabricate some "facts" to support that pre-ordained conclusion. So too the 911 Commission report. I have better things to do than engage with a person who still believes that nonsense 14 years after the fact.
Based on what? I think you've simply read and listened to kook claims without investigating the facts.
you need to look in the mirror when making that statement. you 9/11 apologists only see what you want to see which is WHY you all cowardly run off with your tail between your legs refusing to watch this video since this video has never been debunked that israel was behind 9/11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHTWnzAg75A you amuse me with your warped logic you have that you dont deny that both parties are corrupt,yet even though you always admit they are both corrupt which means we do indeed have a corrupt government,you defend the government to know end. i mean do you all even listen to yourselfs? Obviously not.lol.the government is corrupt you admit.check. yet anytime someone shows facts of government corruption such as 9/11 you refuse to look at the evidence and make bs claims we dont investigate facts when its you 9/11 apologists who dont look at facts as we BOTH know. you guys should start a comedy club. if you all actually listened to what you said,you would see why i dont bother with you 9/11 apologists anymore because of your insane posts that you dont hear yourself saying.
Well, that was an utterly vapid response. I see, so you haven't read either of the documents, and you're unable to air your grievances with the report. Just follow the meme like the rest of the truther herd and forgo thinking for yourself. You don't need to look into things as your confirmation bias is sated. I have better things to do than engage with a person who still believes truther nonsense 14 years after the fact, especially when that individual doesn't even know the subject and refuses to debate it. What do you want here? Just a circle jerk with other truthers patting each other on the back? Or are you here just to make vapid posts?
interesting stuff indeed,as always like clockwork,they of course refused to watch your videos or read your links since it proves them wrong and they can never admit when they have been proven wrong knowing they can hide behind the computer and cant toe to toe in a debate. that one link you posted where you said the truth that the evidence in that link that it was a government operation is so overwhelming there is no denying it is so very true.that link is indeed full of way too much evidence there is no denying it was a government operation which is why they have all cowardly refused to open that link and watch all those videos and read the links that you provided since they know as well as we do,they only see what they WANT to see. great stuff there.you took them to school.too bad they wont read the links or watch those videos so they will understand that you indeed took them to school.
Again, because no-one seems to want to address the logic fail of 9/11 truth: No explosives were deployed. There a few problems in logic with the explosives story and 9/11 truth adherents fail to address them: a). There was no physical evidence of explosives found: no RF screening; no DET cord; no barotrauma; no Munroe effect. b). The lack of sound: There is no evidence for the 'rolling explosions' one hears in a normal controlled demolition. Verinage is incapable of explaining away this problem. c). The collapses themselves: the collapses initiated at the impact points. d). Thermite is a proven 'hoax'. e). The heat of the fires: how did these explosives survive the fires? In summary, the CD hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny for very long, and owing to a lack of evidence and the illogical nature of the hypothesis, we can discount it merely as a crackpot theory that wasn't very well developed. The CD hypothesis is only supported by those who lack knowledge of the subject.
I'm not going to sit through 2+ hours of YouTube "proof". Plus, alleged Israeli involvement has zilch to do with the physics of the tower collapses.
Why can't they state their case with confidence? The university of Youtube is an abysmal source and I never open a video posted in place of a comment. If the poster is too lazy to make his or her case without a video, I'm not bothering to sit through a video trying to determine their point. In my experience truther videos aren't worth opening and are usually full of (*)(*)(*)(*) anyway.
Good! Someone who states he understands logic! Perhaps you can clear up the logic problems with the CD story: No explosives were deployed. There a few problems in logic with the explosives story and 9/11 truth adherents fail to address them: a). There was no physical evidence of explosives found: no RF screening; no DET cord; no barotrauma; no Munroe effect. b). The lack of sound: There is no evidence for the 'rolling explosions' one hears in a normal controlled demolition. Verinage is incapable of explaining away this problem. c). The collapses themselves: the collapses initiated at the impact points. d). Thermite is a proven 'hoax'. e). The heat of the fires: how did these explosives survive the fires? In summary, the CD hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny for very long, and owing to a lack of evidence and the illogical nature of the hypothesis, we can discount it merely as a crackpot theory that wasn't very well developed. The CD hypothesis is only supported by those who lack knowledge of the subject. Perhaps you will deal with this instead of 'cowardly running off with your tail between your legs'?
That sums up the ones I've seen, yep. Like creationists, they just make a string of false and unsubstantiated claims that sound good to anyone predisposed to accepting them, but which do not have sufficient factual basis to be taken seriously by a skeptic. There is no comparing the NIST report to a YouTube video.
You can see how the collapse begins. The walls buckle inward after the weakened steel gives way and the weight above begins collapsing what's left of the supporting structure. Other images I've seen show how the section above then tips a bit toward where the walls give way, and then straight down it all goes. You compare this to a controlled demolition, well, there is no comparison. First you hear the unmistakably loud blasting caps going off - many of them in quick succession - and you'll often see the flashes as well, and then if all goes well the building will begin to fall from right around ground level, with the rest ideally collapsing at the ground as it falls and hits. It's never quiet and it never begins high in the structure, and of course that's after a long time preparing and never with fires raging in the building at the time! Given the circumstances and the evidence at hand, explosives are neither apparent nor required.
Exactly! The gif demonstrates that explosives were not employed. The gif shows the inward bowing from the floors sagging as the steel loses its integrity owing to sustained exposure to intense heat. If you squint, you can see the building swell under the collapse point. There is nothing to indicate the use of explosives in this gif.
As usual, conspiracy theories take advantage from the fact that to deny something secret is impossible ... but who sustain these conspiracy theories don't demonstrate how they can know such a secret [!]. So that, we have to face long discussions about details, missing evidences, witnesses ... Think for example to the explosions listened by firefighters. The official report wasn't that clear about. WOW! That's the evidence for a conspiracy! Ehm ... planes contain a lot of AL, fragments of the planes remained in the buildings and the fire made the aluminum become so hot to melt [there is a video showing melted metal falling from a tower]. What a coincidence: when very hot aluminum gets in touch with water [and in a building on fire, sooner or later some water, humidity, water vapor ... comes out] ... it explodes in a violent way. That's chemistry.
And as the big blue crane collapse in Milwaukee showed,collapsing steel can make 'explosion' sounds [video=youtube;Gjib_I_ab84]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjib_I_ab84[/video]
