Proving Spontaneity of Post-Impact WTC Towers Collapse

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the actual collapse mechanism of WTC 2, the inward bowing and buckling is seen in the link

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

Pictures and Time line of WTC 1.

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:499

Here is a paper the dispels the “look like” aspect of CD. And other truth movement myths.
www.implosionworld.com...

The towers showed signs of leaning and would fail minutes before the buckling, can you prove what you are claiming is not otherwise. Or cite a video / picture analysis with reference marks to prove your case?

I find is sad conspiracists want the false narrative the towers brought down by CD so bad, they enable the truth movement to exploit 9/11 for books sales and person fame. Example, Dr Wood and Dustification.

So in the images and video that I posted at the 51min Mark, you see inward bowing?

I find your response evasive at best and down right ignorant at worst.

Where's MrBig? Getting his training wheels put back on?

I asked you to cite a source with a reference grid superimposed to prove what you are stating?

Two, it is known that the towers were leaning and showing signs of failing before collapse.

Three, the actual mechanism that initiated the collapse was the inward bowing and buckling. Is that a false statement?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Four, as stated. The towers were showing signs they would collapse before failure. What are you trying to prove that as the building was under going cooling, thermal stress caused items to fail in the towers structure, and loads were being visibly redistributed.

Five, bulging does not equate a pressure wave that would have be accompanied by an audible and evident shock wave.

Six, what explosives would have caused buckling of the vertical columns that indicate collapse.

I have given a reasonable and credible explanation of the bulging if it is there.

What is your point.

originally posted by: neutronflux

I asked you to cite a source with a reference grid superimposed to prove what you are stating?

I never stated anything until my last post. And I'm the one asking questions here.

Two, it is known that the towers were leaning and showing signs of failing before collapse.

That is misleading statement. The top section above one of the towers was leaning. Not the whole tower. I'm sure that's what you meant though. Furthermore, as I stated when I posted the video, the top section started falling off to the side very soon after the collapse started. If you watch it a few times you can see the top section start to fall at full speed, then it caught up to the collapse of the bottom section and slowed for a split second be before it continued to fall without resistance again.

Three, the actual mechanism that initiated the collapse was the inward bowing and buckling. Is that a false statement?

That's only seen on one side of the Building. What I posted proves that. The inward buckling you saw was a result of the plane punching through the tower and bending the structural members inward. Not hard to imagine.

You mind telling me what cause the OUTWARD force on the other side of the Building?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I suppose if you only focus on one place, you will only see one thing.

Four, as stated. The towers were showing signs they would collapse before failure.

Again, misleading. WTC 2 appeared that the top section was going to fall over because it was leaning so hard to one side. The rest of the tower below the impact showed absolutely no sign of stress or failure.

What are you trying to prove that as the building was under going cooling, thermal stress caused items to fail in the towers structure, and loads were being visibly redistributed.

Say what?

Five, bulging does not equate a pressure wave that would have be accompanied by an audible and evident shock wave.

Maybe. What does it equate to? Because it happened. I brought you images and video. Your just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your silly conspiracy theory?

Six, what explosives would have caused buckling of the vertical columns that indicate collapse.

What explosives, indeed? I never mentioned explosive or gave any reason why what I showed you happened.

I have given a reasonable and credible explanation of the bulging if it is there.

No you didn't.

What is your point.

Until you give a proper explanation for the OUTWARD force that competely destroyed about 15 stories og the other side of the Buildings exterior above the impact , your inward buckling initiation theory is bunk.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I did give a proper response to if there is bulging that you cannot cite a source of occurring.

“Four, as stated. The towers were showing signs they would collapse before failure. What are you trying to prove that as the building was under going cooling, thermal stress caused items to fail in the towers structure, and loads were being visibly redistributed.”


If it’s not explosives? If it’s not from part of the structure failing from thermal stress, failing items, and load redistribution? Then you explain what is going on.



Video is 2D. Is that false? Has no depth. To truly know what the video is showing, then it needs to have a reference grid superimposed to truly show the direction of load redistribution. Is that false.

True or false. The buckling of the vertical columns is what initiated the collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I did give a proper response to if there is bulging that you cannot cite a source of occurring.

“Four, as stated. The towers were showing signs they would collapse before failure. What are you trying to prove that as the building was under going cooling, thermal stress caused items to fail in the towers structure, and loads were being visibly redistributed.”


If it’s not explosives? If it’s not from part of the structure failing from thermal stress, failing items, and load redistribution? Then you explain what is going on.



Video is 2D. Is that false? Has no depth. To truly know what the video is showing, then it needs to have a reference grid superimposed to truly show the direction of load redistribution. Is that false.

True or false. The buckling of the vertical columns is what initiated the collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

And with that, I'll count my submission as vetted.

You have NOTHING, hence your incoherent rambling and answering questions with questions.

It's 2D?!?!??

Are you worried that what you are seeing might have happened somewhere off in the distance FFS??

Pathetic!

I bet you like superimposed images to prove your silly theory. Be my guest.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I did give a proper response to if there is bulging that you cannot cite a source of occurring.

“Four, as stated. The towers were showing signs they would collapse before failure. What are you trying to prove that as the building was under going cooling, thermal stress caused items to fail in the towers structure, and loads were being visibly redistributed.”


If it’s not explosives? If it’s not from part of the structure failing from thermal stress, failing items, and load redistribution? Then you explain what is going on.



Video is 2D. Is that false? Has no depth. To truly know what the video is showing, then it needs to have a reference grid superimposed to truly show the direction of load redistribution. Is that false.

True or false. The buckling of the vertical columns is what initiated the collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

And with that, I'll count my submission as vetted.

You have NOTHING, hence your incoherent rambling and answering questions with questions.

It's 2D?!?!??

Are you worried that what you are seeing might have happened somewhere off in the distance FFS??

Pathetic!

I bet you like superimposed images to prove your silly theory. Be my guest.

I try to make a honest and open debate. I actually cite sources.

What are you citing to show what is taking place in a two diminutional video is actually Bulging. You know you are over reacting to a logical and perfectly normal question concerning video?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

You asked for a claim and I made one. One side of building is visually pushed OUTWARD. Posted video and images.

If you want to prove me wrong. Put some grid lines on it and show me.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

You asked for a claim and I made one. One side of building is visually pushed OUTWARD. Posted video and images.

If you want to prove me wrong. Put some grid lines on it and show me.

Whatever floats your boat?

I still don’t understand what your point is?

If it was not explosives? If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress failure leading to load redistribution? What is the cause? What are you trying to prove?

If it was a buldging, still backs the towers were failing structurally.

The bulge doesn’t mean the vertical columns failed for that area. And it is proven large lengths of vertical columns remained standing whole seconds after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.


Sorry. The actual numbers, the 28 stories that fell into WTC 2. The 12 stories that fell WTC 1, which initiated the collapse was a result of specific areas of buckling.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

You asked for a claim and I made one. One side of building is visually pushed OUTWARD. Posted video and images.

If you want to prove me wrong. Put some grid lines on it and show me.

Whatever floats your boat?

I still don’t understand what your point is?

If it was not explosives? If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress failure leading to load redistribution? What is the cause? What are you trying to prove?

If it was a buldging, still backs the towers were failing structurally.

The bulge doesn’t mean the vertical columns failed for that area. And it is proven large lengths of vertical columns remained standing whole seconds after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.


Sorry. The actual numbers, the 28 stories that fell into WTC 2. The 12 stories that fell WTC 1, which initiated the collapse was a result of specific areas of buckling.

So your saying that the 28 story collapsing that you claim in your conspiracy theory is the reason for the OUTWARD force that was clearly shown in the images and video I posted?

Do tell.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

You asked for a claim and I made one. One side of building is visually pushed OUTWARD. Posted video and images.

If you want to prove me wrong. Put some grid lines on it and show me.

Whatever floats your boat?

I still don’t understand what your point is?

If it was not explosives? If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress failure leading to load redistribution? What is the cause? What are you trying to prove?

If it was a buldging, still backs the towers were failing structurally.

The bulge doesn’t mean the vertical columns failed for that area. And it is proven large lengths of vertical columns remained standing whole seconds after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.


Sorry. The actual numbers, the 28 stories that fell into WTC 2. The 12 stories that fell WTC 1, which initiated the collapse was a result of specific areas of buckling.

So your saying that the 28 story collapsing that you claim in your conspiracy theory is the reason for the OUTWARD force that was clearly shown in the images and video I posted?

Do tell.

What? Quote where I ever said that? A conspiracists making a false argument? Say it ain’t so?

Again, the towers were showing signs they would fail before collapse.

I simply stated the towers buckling of the vertical columns is what caused the 28 stories and 12 stories to fall into the towers. The event that started the actual collapse.

You are not arguing explosives?

You are not arguing the towers were experiencing structural failure induced by impact damage, the weakening of steel by fire ( note steel does not have to melt to be weaken by fire. Around 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses about 60 percent of it ability to resist strain), and thermal stress?

Then you state what is the cause of the bulging you cannot even cite a source to back your claims of what you are seeing.

Conspiracists will not answer questions, state a clear narrative, and will not cite sources. And conspiracists don’t understand why they don’t have credibility. Innuendo and rants are not credible proof.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do understand the collapse of each tower occurred at the buckling. The vertical columns buckeled. That is what caused either the 29 or 11 floors above the buckling to drop into the static portion of the towers below. A good portion of the vertical columns under the points of buckling remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Can you show/cite what you claim to see is actually bulging.

Can you show the bulging actually caused vertical column failure.

If it was not explosives. If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress and load redistribution related? Then you explain the bulging.

You asked for a claim and I made one. One side of building is visually pushed OUTWARD. Posted video and images.

If you want to prove me wrong. Put some grid lines on it and show me.

Whatever floats your boat?

I still don’t understand what your point is?

If it was not explosives? If it was not impact/fire/thermal stress failure leading to load redistribution? What is the cause? What are you trying to prove?

If it was a buldging, still backs the towers were failing structurally.

The bulge doesn’t mean the vertical columns failed for that area. And it is proven large lengths of vertical columns remained standing whole seconds after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.


Sorry. The actual numbers, the 28 stories that fell into WTC 2. The 12 stories that fell WTC 1, which initiated the collapse was a result of specific areas of buckling.

So your saying that the 28 story collapsing that you claim in your conspiracy theory is the reason for the OUTWARD force that was clearly shown in the images and video I posted?

Do tell.

What? Quote where I ever said that? A conspiracists making a false argument? Say it ain’t so?

Again, the towers were showing signs they would fail before collapse.

I simply stated the towers buckling of the vertical columns is what caused the 28 stories and 12 stories to fall into the towers. The event that started the actual collapse.

You are not arguing explosives?

You are not arguing the towers were experiencing structural failure induced by impact damage, the weakening of steel by fire ( note steel does not have to melt to be weaken by fire. Around 1000 degrees Celsius, steel looses about 60 percent of it ability to resist strain), and thermal stress?

Then you state what is the cause of the bulging you cannot even cite a source to back your claims of what you are seeing.

Conspiracists will not answer questions, state a clear narrative, and will not cite sources. And conspiracists don’t understand why they don’t have credibility. Innuendo and rants are not credible proof.

The source is WCBS chopper 4.

And YOUR the conspiracy theorist. Not me.

I showed you some thing that you don't want to see because it doesn't fit into your silly conspiracy.

I asked you to tell me what you saw and all you can do regurgitate what you already believed is true. That is typical for conspiracy theorists because they dont want to see anything that contradicts their beliefs.

And I asked you if what I showed you is a result of what ever theory your peddling, and you can't answer that. Just more incoherent rambling.

Par for the course.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: MrBig2430


Back on topic -

So you have no evidence that disproves the spontaneity of the towers collapse.

Didn’t think so

It appears that an enormous amount of force was pushing OUT of the left side of the Building.

This was explained years ago. Did you miss it?

As the upper part begins to collapse, it tilts to the right slightly. The upper section tries to rotate around its mass center, which is about 12 floors above the plans impact floors.

The reaction force from it trying to rotate as described shears off the columns and the lower edge kicks to the right (oops, to the left )as you’ve stated.

Old news. Surprised that you haven’t run across this rather mundane answer in your 15 years of research.

I also noticed from this angle, seconds after the initiating force in the images I posted, the top section of the Building has moved considerably to the right of the frame. The force of the top section is no longer pushing down on the tower of 60-70 stories left at that point.

What makes you think that?

Just cuz it’s tipping doesn’t mean that it can’t push down.

Where did you get the idea that gravity shuts off on objects that are rotating/tipping.

I think what you see as inward buckling might be true but you only see it on one side of the Building.

Well that’s all we’re claiming so thx for agreeing.

That's not what happened on the opposite side though.

Your video shows the entrance side. I believe the side that was pulled in wasn’t opposite, but on the right side.

a reply to: MrBig2430

MrBig!! Merry Christmas!!

Hows the training wheels? Keep your head up. You'll be a big boy before you know it.

As the upper part begins to collapse, it tilts to the right slightly. The upper section tries to rotate around its mass center, which is about 12 floors above the plans impact floors. 

The reaction force from it trying to rotate as described shears off the columns and the lower edge kicks to the right (oops, to the left )as you’ve stated. 

Old news. Surprised that you haven’t run across this rather mundane answer in your 15 years of research. 

That s your conspiracy theory Is it? The lower edge "kicked" to the left? But 28 floor just fell inward and this "kick" you mention just threw it all back OUTWARD?

What makes you think that? 

Just cuz it’s tipping doesn’t mean that it can’t push down. 

Where did you get the idea that gravity shuts off on objects that are rotating/tipping. 

That s Not what I'm saying. The video I posted only saw the the top section catch up yo the collapse of the bottom section for a split second. Only for a split second after initiation is the top section applying pressure down into the lower section and only on one edge of the Building. The opposite edge kept collapsing in perfect sync with no weight or pressure on it.

Your cults conspiracy theory is stupid.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: MrBig2430



That s your conspiracy theory Is it?

No, that’s the physics explanation for it. I believe that Bazant detailed it in one of his papers. But, go ahead and ignore or discount it as you wish.

The lower edge "kicked" to the left

Yes. I agree with you on that point. Somewhere, there is a closeup video that shows the columns shearing off to the left

Again, I’m surprised that after 15 years you haven’t heard of this nor seen the video that shows the shearing.

But 28 floor just fell inward and this "kick" you mention just threw it all back OUTWARD?

It’s not my claim that all 4 sides pulled inward. Again, only the right side - if I’m correct about the view - in your video pulled in.

So there isn’t anything to throw BACK outward, cuz it never was being pulled inward. Understand the difference? It all depends on what side you’re talking about and viewing

The opposite edge kept collapsing in perfect sync with no weight or pressure on it

It’s always exerting weight upon the lower part, so again, I have no idea why you think it’s not. Gravity can’t be shut off. The laws of physics can’t be suspended.

As for the rest of that last paragraph, I’m not really sure what you’re seeing. It’s a long video. Give me a time point to look at and repeat your questions. Maybe then I’ll understand your objections.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430



The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities: 1) They were joking when making that statement, or 2) they were telling the truth as best they knew it.

What do YOU think it signifies Mr. Big?

3) they were telling the truth as best they knew it. But this was at the beginning of their investigation. At the finish, they state after much stonewalling, they succeeded.

We’ve had this conversation before.....

a reply to: MrBig2430

You mean if MELBOSIA did a little research, the individual could have cited a source on what the individual saw?

I still don’t get what point the individual was trying to prove?

These arguments would have meaning if given context?

The only thing I got from MELBOSIA was how dare a building experiencing structural failure develop a bulge in a wall?

Why would a individual invoke something, then not clearly state what caused that something, and then not piece it into their bigger clearly stated narrative.

All conspiracists seem to do is grasp at straws?

The only thing MELBOSIA seems to do is distract from those trying to provide honest and open answers, while never offering a credible explanation themselves.

MELBOSIA is another person that is a waste of time. Especially when they ignore to cite sources and explanations that you know properly already exist. It’s like they buy into the truth movement “this cannot be explain”, then get angry at a little honest research that shows it can be explained.

And the truth movement wonders why it has no credibility?

a reply to: MrBig2430

Bazant?

Is that the over zealous dip snip that concluded the crush down had to be complete before crush up?

If your willing to dismiss all visual evidence to follow some old geezer with bad eye sight be my guest.

The video I posted and time to start watching is on page 7. Don't be ignorant.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MrBig2430

You mean if MELBOSIA did a little research, the individual could have cited a source on what the individual saw?

I still don’t get what point the individual was trying to prove?

These arguments would have meaning if given context?

The only thing I got from MELBOSIA was how dare a building experiencing structural failure develop a bulge in a wall?

Why would a individual invoke something, then not clearly state what caused that something, and then not piece it into their bigger clearly stated narrative.

All conspiracists seem to do is grasp at straws?

The only thing MELBOSIA seems to do is distract from those trying to provide honest and open answers, while never offering a credible explanation themselves.

MELBOSIA is another person that is a waste of time. Especially when they ignore to cite sources and explanations that you know properly already exist. It’s like they buy into the truth movement “this cannot be explain”, then get angry at a little honest research that shows it can be explained.

And the truth movement wonders why it has no credibility?

Listen here, neufuk.

You have been slipping and slidding all over the bullish!t you been throw with no success.

Honest and open answers?

You haven't provided one that made any sense but what would anyone expect from a cult following conspiracy theorist like You, neufuk.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MrBig2430

You mean if MELBOSIA did a little research, the individual could have cited a source on what the individual saw?

I still don’t get what point the individual was trying to prove?

These arguments would have meaning if given context?

The only thing I got from MELBOSIA was how dare a building experiencing structural failure develop a bulge in a wall?

Why would a individual invoke something, then not clearly state what caused that something, and then not piece it into their bigger clearly stated narrative.

All conspiracists seem to do is grasp at straws?

The only thing MELBOSIA seems to do is distract from those trying to provide honest and open answers, while never offering a credible explanation themselves.

MELBOSIA is another person that is a waste of time. Especially when they ignore to cite sources and explanations that you know properly already exist. It’s like they buy into the truth movement “this cannot be explain”, then get angry at a little honest research that shows it can be explained.

And the truth movement wonders why it has no credibility?

Listen here, neufuk.

You have been slipping and slidding all over the bullish!t you been throw with no success.

Honest and open answers?

You haven't provided one that made any sense but what would anyone expect from a cult following conspiracy theorist like You, neufuk.

Another false argument by you...

Here we go again.

I have always been interested in how and why the terrorists were allowed to enter and stay in the USA.

I have always stated part of the 9/11 covered up is the political favors pulled to get the terrorists into the USA. Probably the real meaning to inside job.

That part of the coverup was the incompetence of the government concerning 9/11.

I have come to believe that part of 9/11 coverup was glossing over the way the WTC was built. The odd angles of floor connections in WTC 7, or the cost of the towers minimize by minimal concrete usage. The lack of traditional concrete cores that have saved other building from a structural collapse.

Back to the old.

I have repeatedly argued....

Before 9/11, the WTC fire insulation was found to be deficient by inspection.

The jet impacts did cut vertical and core columns, causing load redistribution.

The jet impacts knocked of fire insulation.

The jet impacts in addition cutting columns, cut elevator and fire water mains.

The jet fuel caused fires to spread through the towers greater than what the designers calculated.

It is a scientific fact steel loses about sixty percent of its strength around 1000 degrees Celsius.

The floor trusses in the area of the jet impacts tried to expand. The floor trusses still boxed in on each end by sound columns could not expand. The floor trusses droopped down from not being able to expand and becoming increasingly workable as they heated up.

The fires burned out. The floor trusses contracted. They pulled in on their vertical columns. The vertical collums bowed in to the point the load of the upper floors was no longer transferred to the foundation, the load was caught in the geometry of the bowing.

The localized buckling in relation to the damage of the jet impacts caused:

28 floors that were above the buckling of one tower, and 12 floors above the buckling of the other tower to drop into the floor system below.

NIST clearly states one floor of the tower could only handle the dynamic load equivalent to the force of six falling stories. Is that a false calculation?

The falling upper part of each tower grossly over load the dynamic load capacity of the first encounter floor.

The falling mass stripped, sheared, and bent flour connections from the vertical columns. The falling mass also broke through floor tresses.

The falling mass only grew in force.

Only once the floor system completely failed, did the vertical columns loose side to side support.

Only once the floor system of each tower ended up as a pile on the ground, did the long length of remaining vertical columns topple in after standing whole seconds after the collapse of each floor system.

I have cited works the shows the floor system fell at 60 percent the rate of free fall. The vertical columns fell at the rate of 40 percent the rate of free fall.

The truth movement claims the towers fell at the rate of free fall is a lie.

AE / Richard Gauge’s claim the towers had to fall through the path of greatest resistance is a lie.

There is no audible evidence of an explosion that was capable of cutting steel at collapse initiation, or during the collapse.

There is no physical evidence of a shockwave from an explosion capable of cutting steel.

No metallurgical evidence steel was worked on by explosives.

No demolitions shrapnel.

How would a sophisticated top down CD system survive the jet impacts that cut services, and the fires.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Now you explain what brought down the towers?

I have repeatedly listed what I have come to believe was the cause of the towers collapse several times in several threads.