Support for the controlled demolition theory

I thought this video was well done with experts having lifetime experiences in architecture and building engineering:



I think their analysis better represents the video evidence.

I thought Lynn Margulis had an interesting commentary on the evidence found for the explosives used in the demolition:



I thought this article presents a theory that better represents the evidence on 9/11:

www.europhysicsnews.org...

I think the official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST may be a way for the buildings to fall but it does not represent the evidence of what happened. NIST ignored important evidence which is not good science. And NIST even admits their report of the official conspiracy theory was propaganda:



Believing in the NIST official conspiracy theory is like believing the Earth is flat.

On the second video... Lynn Margulis was a biologist and evolutionary theorist. Hardly qualifies her as a forensic demolition expert. She's about as qualified as me. That's the problem with all these videos... Too many pseudo experts and charlatans making videos, some even clever and persuasive.

a reply to: dfnj2015

This is what I find interesting?

AE 9/11 Truth paid Dr. Hulsey $300,000 for a WTC 7 Evaluation that was to show fire collapse was impossible? But when it came time to release the study for public review and comment, it’s release was pushed back another year? With no avenue for further funding. So, the release of the study is indefinite?

But now there is another preachy video with no room for public comment?

How many “professionals” are in AE, but they cannot publish a study for public comment and peer review? But they got YouTube?

Seems like conspiracists like to control the narrative to produce a product for a target audience?

a reply to: paraphi

Here is your problem:

A little thing to think about on CD by explosives. It takes traps to prevent shrapnel from being ejected during a building implosion.

How many cases of people being injured, and items damaged from demolitions shrapnel ejected from WTC 7 for example?

Katie Bender remembered 17 years after Canberra hospital implosion
www.canberratimes.com.au...

The event was intended as a celebration, but it turned to tragedy when schrapnel was propelled more than 400 metres from the site due to ''systemic failures''.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Royal Canberra Hospital implosion was a failed building implosion that killed one person and injured nine others

There is no credible evidence WTC 7 or the Towers were brought down by CD.

a reply to: neutronflux

What you are saying doesn't match what I am reading. The stuff coming out of AE truth seems more representative to what happened on 9/11. I don't believe the official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is accurate. High rises have 15,000 fires per year. Years of experience has told us no building has ever collapsed from fire at near free-fall speed. The only thing way buildings collapse at near free-fall speed is by controlled demolition. Newton's 3rd law must be observed.

I don't agree with your opinions. I think Newton wins out over NIST:

a reply to: neutronflux

You have a severe case of cognitive dissonance. You are ignoring the most likely hypothesis that matches the evidence.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Then why don’t you produce actual physical evidence of CD at the towers instead of pushing truth movement propaganda videos from you tube? How many published AE studies can you cite? Filled with how many professionals?

originally posted by: paraphi
On the second video... Lynn Margulis was a biologist and evolutionary theorist. Hardly qualifies her as a forensic demolition expert. She's about as qualified as me. That's the problem with all these videos... Too many pseudo experts and charlatans making videos, some even clever and persuasive.

It's too bad you did not watch it. She gives a very good discussion on what is "good" science and what is "propaganda".

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

This is what I find interesting?

What I find intersting is people who are supposed to be so clued up create a new thread and then just post videos saying this is interesting

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Then why don’t you produce actual physical evidence of CD at the towers instead of pushing truth movement propaganda videos from you tube? How many published AE studies can you cite? Filled with how many professionals?

The evidence is my eye balls. The buildings fell too fast NOT to be controlled demolition. Newton's 3rd law means the had to be resistance slowing the fall of the buildings. The absence of resistance means one can only have one conclusion.

The NIST report and model only goes up to the point of collapse. They stop there. Because the laws of physics are NOT in their favor.

I believe this statement is more representative of what happened on 9/11:

"Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. The absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force (i.e., explosives) must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it."

a reply to: mrthumpy

I what I find interesting is the level of cognitive dissonance people have by ignoring evidence.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Then instead of making accusations on a persons mental state, cite how the towers and WTC 7 was like a CD with actual evidence.

I can state the towers were brought down by the columns being pulled in by contracting floor trusses that lead to the columns bowing. The bowing lead to buckling causing collapse. All related to deficient fire protection, and related to damage from the impacts, fires, and thermal stress.

Then I can point to actual tower collapse video like the video in the linked to thread below.

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

www.metabunk.org...

I can invoke the actual collapse footage and physical evidence? You are citing videos with false narratives on a persons mental state.
Very telling?

You going to rant and gossip? Or state actual evidence?

The official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is propaganda. NIST is ignoring evidence as stated in this article:

www.europhysicsnews.org...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Fell to fast how?

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions
www.skeptic.com...
3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Then instead of making accusations on a persons mental state, cite how the towers and WTC 7 was like a CD with actual evidence.

I gave you evidence. You choose to ignore it. The building fell at near free-fall speed without resistance. Controlled demolition is the only hypothesis that fits the facts. I saw it fall in the video with my own eye balls. It fell too fast NOT to be controlled demolition.

Now choosing to ignore evidence because you don't like the hypothesis is a psychological problem.

a reply to: dfnj2015

See this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It's too bad you did not watch it. She gives a very good discussion on what is "good" science and what is "propaganda"

Oh, I did watch it. In her introduction she reels out that she's a scientist, thus painting her credibility to comment on the subject matter. What she did not say is that her area of expertise is not the subject she is talking about. In other words she's being somewhat disingenuous. That's typical of the whole 9/11 problem. To many people proclaiming special knowledge and making videos to make the fantasy fit the facts.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is propaganda. NIST is ignoring evidence as stated in this article:

www.europhysicsnews.org...

False argument? Quote who here is arguing to defend NIST? By referencing the actual collapse video?