Any evidence of pre setup?

originally posted by: Jesushere
NIST admitted in a letter that they could not explain the full collapse of the twin towers. They have a theory of how it started, but why the top of the building exploding in the air they have no explanation for that.

So? Now post video evidence of columns being cut at the towers. Any evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns from the video, audio, seismic evidence. When all the witness accounts and video shows buckling with no evidence of cut columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You have no evidence the plane got anywhere near the steel core in the middle. The plane actually vapourised upon impact it made of Aluminium.

Again

Another shameless blatantly false argument by you.

At least one wheel / landing gear made it to the street, at least one engine, part of a jet fuselage landed on top of a building, and large amounts of wreckage debris littered the streets.

Another blatantly false argument by you that we should ignore.....,,

And ya so what I never denied that what your point. Stuff fell off the plane when it hit the building. So even proves my point one engine did not even make it past the impact point when the plane crashed. You expect Aluminium made it all way into the middle of the steel core and did what exactly?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
NIST admitted in a letter that they could not explain the full collapse of the twin towers. They have a theory of how it started, but why the top of the building exploding in the air they have no explanation for that.

So? Now post video evidence of columns being cut at the towers. Any evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns from the video, audio, seismic evidence. When all the witness accounts and video shows buckling with no evidence of cut columns.

Care to explain why steel core broke apart in mid-air? NIST decided not to explain it maybe you can?

a reply to: Jesushere

Don’t want this blatant falsehood lost.

You have no evidence the plane got anywhere near the steel core in the middle. The plane actually vapourised upon impact it made of Aluminium

Another shameless blatantly false argument by you.

At least one wheel / landing gear made it to the street, at least one engine, part of a jet fuselage landed on top of a building, and large amounts of wreckage debris littered the streets.

With a simulation of the best estimate of damage from one of the towers.

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

With video from WTC 2 in the link below that shows the collapse was not initiated from the very top of the tower.

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

While still waiting on you to post video, audio, seismic evidence of explosions at the towers with enough force to cut steel columns. Much less video or photo evidence of columns being cut when all witness accounts and video point to buckling.

a reply to: Jesushere

Care to explain why steel core broke apart in mid-air? NIST decided not to explain it maybe you can?

Another false argument by you.

You got video of the core breaking apart?

Again,Video of WTC 2 buckling in the link below.

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

After the buckling, the falling upper building fell into the building below.

Breaking floor connections from the vertical columns.

Leaving vertical columns in the wake of the falling mass. The vertical columns fell after the collapse of the floor system.

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.

a reply to: samkent


Being obtuse, or just making observations and asking questions that you would rather not discuss?

I have seen many examples, more than I can remember over 40 years, of aluminum airframes being utterly destroyed and deformed by steel used in building airplane hangars.

Always and every time, the aluminum is deformed, slit, or otherwise ruined while the steel piece shows no damage at all except maybe paint from the stricken piece.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


Being obtuse, or just making observations and asking questions that you would rather not discuss?

I have seen many examples, more than I can remember over 40 years, of aluminum airframes being utterly destroyed and deformed by steel used in building airplane hangars.

Always and every time, the aluminum is deformed, slit, or otherwise ruined while the steel piece shows no damage at all except maybe paint from the stricken piece.

Like this jet “destroyed” in the link below. Yes, this is sarcasm.

You make Debunking easy...

Small passenger jet crashes INTO hangar at California airport just TEN YARDS from workers in the building
www.google.com... le-2341682%2FSmall-passenger-jet-crashes-INTO-hangar-California-airport-just-TEN-YARDS-workers-building.html&psig=AOvVaw0sNIB57XWQYviFLd5KGEdA&ust=154 3350580325707

'I walked out and looked down the hallway and just saw a huge fuselage sticking through the middle of the hallway' one witness said

Hahahahahahahaha

NF

You are such a funny and predictable fellow. Always presenting the tired and run down old story as though it is new.

originally posted by: Salander
NF

You are such a funny and predictable fellow. Always presenting the tired and run down old story as though it is new.

So, you have no evidence the jets did not have the force and energy to break vertical columns as outlined in the linked to simulation below?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
NF

You are such a funny and predictable fellow. Always presenting the tired and run down old story as though it is new.

So, you have no evidence the jets did not have the force and energy to break vertical columns as outlined in the linked to simulation below?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

Yes a Fine animation

Now let us simulate (in your mind) cutting all the core+outern columns in one instance at the point of impact. What happens now Newton?

a reply to: democracydemo

Ok, enlighten us?

Or, the remaining floor trusses lost the ability to resist strain. They sagged while being heat. Upon cooling, they contracted. The contracting floor trusses pulled in on WTC 2’s outer vertical columns, causing bowing, leading to buckling, and initiating collapse. See video in link below.

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

www.metabunk.org...

The falling mass above the buckling fell into the tower below. The falling mass broke floor connections. The vertical columns were left in the wake of the collapse of the floor system and falling mass. The vertical columns fell only after lossing later support of the floor system.

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.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

Nope
No buckling, bowing, contractring

just

CUT then at impact.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Nope
No buckling, bowing, contractring

just

CUT then at impact.

Blantant falsehood by you.

The bowing and buckling is in the video in the link below.

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

www.metabunk.org...

What is it like only having falsehoods, no evidence of CD, and not being able to cite video as evidence of CD? Not being able to cite the audio record for evidence of CD. Not being able to cite the photographic record for evidence of CD. Not being able to cite the seismic record for evidence of CD?

a reply to: democracydemo

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

www.debunking911.com...


Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence that the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building, you have to explain how a bomb pulled the walls inward well before they fell...

Why does believing in CD require believing in absolute falsehoods and ignoring the video, photographic, audio, and seismic evidence? Ignoring the sheared floor connections?

a reply to: neutronflux

Just asking guestions

Sir Newton did it

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Just asking guestions

Sir Newton did it

Then if you have a better explanation that doesn’t rely on blatant falsehoods like

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Nope
No buckling, bowing, contractring

just

CUT then at impact.

While ignoring the towers fell through the weakest points, the floor connections. And did not fall through the greatest path of resistance, the vertical columns.

www.skeptic.com...

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.

Lay it out with cited facts.

a reply to: neutronflux


Just as you have no evidence that they did.

You are flogging a dead horse sir. The official narrative is a hoax.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Just as you have no evidence that they did.

You are flogging a dead horse sir. The official narrative is a hoax.

Now you are on the sickfully denial / blatantly false, the suppression of truth train?

You means besides the recovery of jet engines, documented jet wreckage, recovery of jet wreckage, witness accounts of jet wreckage, directional damage and fire balls at the towers with no other explanation, documented missing family members with records they boarded the jets, jets tracked from the airport to the towers, recovered human remains identified by DNA, human remains recovered by local law enforcement, and the remains attested to by the New York Coroners department, with death certificates issued as humans remains were identified by DNA?

a reply to: Salander

So? why do you suppress the whole truth and rely on pseudoscience?

a reply to: Salander

The sad thing I’m distrustful and paranoid enough that I will not have a smart TV in my house, Have no desire to place an Echo or an Alexa in my home.

And I even know AE, Richard Gage, DR Wood, and the truth movement in general are full of crap. Willing to manipulate the delusional for personal gain.