Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You don’t even know the collapse time / sequence do you.

Your arguments full of crap.

Don’t worry. You proven over and over how clueless you are. And your arguments have zero substance and credibility.

If it collapsed in 15 seconds, or 30 seconds, or 45 seconds, with various ideas of a starting point, and a finish point, for the collapse, yet it is YOU, who must be some sort of 'authority' for the timing of a total collapse.

And it is clearly based on all of your past experience, where you found that there are no previous example of it, other than CD's..... which don't count, of course!

a reply to: turbonium1

Man. Your really losing it.

You don’t even know the collapse sequence and time do you.

Your here just to be a “devil’s advocate” even if you have to use truth movement lies, and if you literally have to make up crap.

Hint for the towers. The floor system collapsed slower than free fall. The falling mass did encounter resistance every time it did hit a floor. The core columns tumbled over and collapse slower and in the wake of the floor system failures.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Man. Your really losing it.

You don’t even know the collapse sequence and time do you.

Your here just to be a “devil’s advocate” even if you have to use truth movement lies, and if you literally have to make up crap.

Hint for the towers. The floor system collapsed slower than free fall. The falling mass did encounter resistance every time it did hit a floor. The core columns tumbled over and collapse slower and in the wake of the floor system failures.

What is 'slower' supposed to mean?

You say that you know the collapse time, yet using worthless terms like 'slower', suggest that you don't even have a clue.

When you say it is 'slower than free fall', it's not the least bit relevant to the collapse, because it took seconds to collapse, Whether it was 'slower' than a complete free fall speed, or if some pieces were still upright in the debris, or if a part was slower than the rest of it, or whatever, all of that is crap, not relevant, not the real issue....

The issue is a collapse within seconds, which cannot happen unless the supports are all removed moments beforehand, in a very precise sequence, downward. No other way it can happen within seconds, unless the supports are all removed, in a precise sequence, downward.

Every building that has collapsed within seconds, is a CD. See all the examples of CD's, for proof. See no examples of it without a CD, to confirm it is a fact.

See how nobody can demonstrate the method of collapse, to validate that this absurd claim is even possible.

It cannot be replicated, in any way, which is all nonsense, without support, without real physics. It's pure nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your just making up BS again.

Can you cite the actual collapse times and collapse sequence? Y

It’s said your here to just make up BS to stir the pot.

a reply to: turbonium1

And free fall vs resistance.



See the leading edge of the falling debris to the right and left of the part of the tower still standing. That is in free fall. The collapse front of the mass “falling” through the still intact floors is lagging behind because it is encountering resistance of the intact floors.

The floor system was stripped from the core.



Sections of core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. And only because the core columns toppled from lose of later support which was provided by the floor system.

The core was not cut. The mass falling through the building did encounter resistance. Large portions of the core stood standing in the wake of the floor system collapsed.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

It cannot be replicated, in any way, which is all nonsense, without support, without real physics. It's pure nonsense.

Why would they when there is video evidence?

a reply to: turbonium1

Hint. If you think pyrotechnics were used, this is were you cite evidence from the video, photographic audio, seismic evidence there were columns actively cut. From the event actually being recorded in real time.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And free fall vs resistance.

See the leading edge of the falling debris to the right and left of the part of the tower still standing. That is in free fall. The collapse front of the mass “falling” through the still intact floors is lagging behind because it is encountering resistance of the intact floors.

The floor system was stripped from the core.

Sections of core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. And only because the core columns toppled from lose of later support which was provided by the floor system.

The core was not cut. The mass falling through the building did encounter resistance. Large portions of the core stood standing in the wake of the floor system collapsed.

The CD's I've seen on video did not collapse at free fall speed, yet they were all CD's. They had different collapse speeds, as well, but they were still all CD's. Some CD's left shards or fragments of the building still upright, yet they were all CD's too.

The 9/11 collapses were no different than other CD's, in any way. Some collapse a little faster than others, some are more complete, and clean collapses than others, but they are all CD's.

Compare the 9/11 collapses to any total collapses, prior to 9/11, and we know they were all CD's.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And free fall vs resistance.

See the leading edge of the falling debris to the right and left of the part of the tower still standing. That is in free fall. The collapse front of the mass “falling” through the still intact floors is lagging behind because it is encountering resistance of the intact floors.

The floor system was stripped from the core.

Sections of core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. And only because the core columns toppled from lose of later support which was provided by the floor system.

The core was not cut. The mass falling through the building did encounter resistance. Large portions of the core stood standing in the wake of the floor system collapsed.

The CD's I've seen on video did not collapse at free fall speed, yet they were all CD's. They had different collapse speeds, as well, but they were still all CD's. Some CD's left shards or fragments of the building still upright, yet they were all CD's too.

The 9/11 collapses were no different than other CD's, in any way. Some collapse a little faster than others, some are more complete, and clean collapses than others, but they are all CD's.

Compare the 9/11 collapses to any total collapses, prior to 9/11, and we know they were all CD's.

The whole Truth Movement argument was it had to be CD because the towers fell at free fall speed. And there was zero resistance encountered. And the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.

One. The twin towers did not fall at free fall speed speed.


Two. There was resistance encountered.

WHAT 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.

www.skeptic.com...

The floor connections were ether bent or sheared in one direction, down. Proving the structure provided resistance.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

Three. The towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance. Large lengths of core columns stood standing after the complete failure of the floors systems. And only toppled in the wake of the collapse of the floor system.




The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And free fall vs resistance.

See the leading edge of the falling debris to the right and left of the part of the tower still standing. That is in free fall. The collapse front of the mass “falling” through the still intact floors is lagging behind because it is encountering resistance of the intact floors.

The floor system was stripped from the core.

Sections of core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. And only because the core columns toppled from lose of later support which was provided by the floor system.

The core was not cut. The mass falling through the building did encounter resistance. Large portions of the core stood standing in the wake of the floor system collapsed.

The CD's I've seen on video did not collapse at free fall speed, yet they were all CD's. They had different collapse speeds, as well, but they were still all CD's. Some CD's left shards or fragments of the building still upright, yet they were all CD's too.

The 9/11 collapses were no different than other CD's, in any way. Some collapse a little faster than others, some are more complete, and clean collapses than others, but they are all CD's.

Compare the 9/11 collapses to any total collapses, prior to 9/11, and we know they were all CD's.

The whole Truth Movement argument was it had to be CD because the towers fell at free fall speed. And there was zero resistance encountered. And the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.

One. The twin towers did not fall at free fall speed speed.

Two. There was resistance encountered.

WHAT 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.

www.skeptic.com...

The floor connections were ether bent or sheared in one direction, down. Proving the structure provided resistance.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

Three. The towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance. Large lengths of core columns stood standing after the complete failure of the floors systems. And only toppled in the wake of the collapse of the floor system.

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

Three buildings collapsed within seconds, on the same day, and had never even come close to happening before that day, except for hundreds of CD's that also collapsed within seconds. If you seriously believe there is nothing similar between these three buildings and CD's, you need a reality check.

But let's say it's a miracle event, that DID happen the same day three times, the problem is that any physical, mechanical events which ARE valid, can always be physically demonstrated. For example, a CD can be demonstrated by a small model, and removing its supports in rapid sequence, which will make the model collapse very quickly, straight downward, just like a CD collapse does.

Now, can you demonstrate this with a non-CD collapse model?

It is no different than a CD model proving how the removal of all its supports collapses real buildings in seconds, or in a fraction of a second, using a model.

But you cannot demonstrate it, can you? Of course not.

Because there is no physical mechanisms that can make a structure, or a model of it, collapse in seconds, or a fraction of a second, without removing its supports first.

And so all you can try to do is make excuses for why it can't be demonstrated, why it is so 'unique', how there's no proof of explosives, and how it 'bowed' before it collapsed, like that makes any difference, and so on.

In the end, you cannot demonstrate how it is possible without removing the supports first, because that's the only way it CAN be done.

Otherwise, you could easily demonstrate it, like I can with a CD. But you cannot.

a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no understanding of the collapse. You have no understanding of the sequence. You cannot explain how explosives would cause the inward bowing and buckling that caused the collapse initiation before downward movement.

It’s been showed the initial arguments of the truth movements were lies.

You cannot explain why a gravity collapse would be slower. When it is showed the collapse of the twin towers exhibited resistance.

And you have zero proof that pyrotechnics cut columns.

Got it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no understanding of the collapse. You have no understanding of the sequence. You cannot explain how explosives would cause the inward bowing and buckling that caused the collapse initiation before downward movement.

It’s been showed the initial arguments of the truth movements were lies.

You cannot explain why a gravity collapse would be slower. When it is showed the collapse of the twin towers exhibited resistance.

And you have zero proof that pyrotechnics cut columns.

Got it.

There's no proof flying pink elephants don't exist, either, does that make it true, too? Does the lack of proof they don't exist mean they DO, or CAN, exist?

That's like claiming an intact structure can collapse within seconds, from random damage or fires above it, which is proven to happen. unless there is conclusive proof that it cannot/did not happen, as you claim it did!

No, it is YOUR claim that has no proof, and cannot be proven to happen, in the first place.

Just because you claim something, nobody else has to prove you wrong, when you've never proven it in the first place. Just like claiming flying pink elephants exist, unless it is proven false!

Get it?

a reply to: turbonium1

Again...

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

Intact structures that lose all support at once are controlled demolitions, always were CD's, always will be CD's, because that's the only way to demolish entire intact structures within seconds - remove all it's supporting capabilities at the same time, or almost so, in a precise, split-second sequence, downward.

And that's why you'll never be able to demonstrate it, with actual physics, because physics does not work that way. So it's merely about cartoon physics , and nobody can demonstrate cartoon events in the real world, just like you cannot show cartoon collapses in the real world either.

You go on about no evidence, which is the collapses themselves being proof of CD's. As if it's even possible to collapse intact structures within seconds, without removing all the supports first, that is pure nonsense, a cartoon story.

No point debating a cartoon story like it's not a cartoon, from the start. A collapse of intact structures is always a demolition, that's beyond debate. If you could prove otherwise, you would have. And nobody can repeat nonsense claims, because they are not true.

a reply to: turbonium1

You have zero evidence of columns cut by planted pyrotechnics. Got it.

You

And that's why you'll never be able to demonstrate it,

Actually. Fire / thermal stress fits the video / seismic evidence. Planted pyrotechnics does not. Especially collapse initiation.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You have zero evidence of columns cut by planted pyrotechnics. Got it.

You

And that's why you'll never be able to demonstrate it,

Actually. Fire / thermal stress fits the video / seismic evidence. Planted pyrotechnics does not. Especially collapse initiation.

We see three buildings, completely intact, below random damage/fires on a few upper floors, that suddenly collapsed within seconds, and if that's what you think 'fits' your argument, you are delusional, or in denial, because it simply does not happen with anything but controlled demolition, a removal of all structural support within the building, there is no other possible way for such a collapse to occur, in the real world.

Sorry to tell you, but it really isn't some sort of 'requirement' of all CD's, to feature a brilliant pyrotechnical display during collapse!

What caused these collapses, is the very same thing which caused every other total collapse of a building, within seconds, and that is by a CD. There is no need to repeat a CD collapse, because it's well proven already.

But there certainly IS a need to repeat, or demonstrate, this could be a NON CD collapse, since none have ever existed before.

Why don't you mention that most of the actual evidence was DELIBERATELY stolen by the same scum, or their paid lackeys, which you keep defending here? Claiming these collapses were not by CD, is the same as arguing it was not a deliberately planned mass murder, and ignoring their criminal removal of all evidence at the crime scene is what confirms you are one of their lackeys, as anyone honest about the removal of evidence would denounce it, denounce them as criminals, regardless of everything else.

Anyone who is honest, does not ignore that despicable crime, and you've ignored it completely.

When someone doesn't believe God exists, or believe that they will not face God's judgement, for their acts on Earth, they are extremely foolish, selfish, short-sighted people. We shall reap what we have sown, in the end.

a reply to: turbonium1

You still cannot provide evidence of CD.

Got it.

Why don't you mention that most of the actual evidence was DELIBERATELY stolen by the same scum

That truth movement lie?
You mean the thousands in tons of steel in photographs and video? Like the chunks of buildings show in the 9/11 threads with zero indication of being worked on by explosives?

Or your ignoring the steel was sorted on site, taken to Fresh Kills for examination and sampling? The examination of WTC rubble that resulted in something like over 18,000 pieces of human remains being recovered? 6000 small enough they could fit in test tubes.

The thousands of tons of WTC steel that are in 9/11 memorials around the world for all to see?

That steel?


Again

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And free fall vs resistance.

See the leading edge of the falling debris to the right and left of the part of the tower still standing. That is in free fall. The collapse front of the mass “falling” through the still intact floors is lagging behind because it is encountering resistance of the intact floors.

The floor system was stripped from the core.

Sections of core columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system. And only because the core columns toppled from lose of later support which was provided by the floor system.

The core was not cut. The mass falling through the building did encounter resistance. Large portions of the core stood standing in the wake of the floor system collapsed.

The CD's I've seen on video did not collapse at free fall speed, yet they were all CD's. They had different collapse speeds, as well, but they were still all CD's. Some CD's left shards or fragments of the building still upright, yet they were all CD's too.

The 9/11 collapses were no different than other CD's, in any way. Some collapse a little faster than others, some are more complete, and clean collapses than others, but they are all CD's.

Compare the 9/11 collapses to any total collapses, prior to 9/11, and we know they were all CD's.

The whole Truth Movement argument was it had to be CD because the towers fell at free fall speed. And there was zero resistance encountered. And the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.

One. The twin towers did not fall at free fall speed speed.


Two. There was resistance encountered.

WHAT 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.

www.skeptic.com...

The floor connections were ether bent or sheared in one direction, down. Proving the structure provided resistance.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

Three. The towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance. Large lengths of core columns stood standing after the complete failure of the floors systems. And only toppled in the wake of the collapse of the floor system.




The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no understanding of the collapse. You have no understanding of the sequence. You cannot explain how explosives would cause the inward bowing and buckling that caused the collapse initiation before downward movement.

It’s been showed the initial arguments of the truth movements were lies.

You cannot explain why a gravity collapse would be slower. When it is showed the collapse of the twin towers exhibited resistance.

And you have zero proof that pyrotechnics cut columns.

Got it.

You express often gibberish. A controlled demolition/implosion sucks in the outside frame/ perimeter. The Bowing in is caused by a internal collapse developing inside the building. The debunkers choose to belief the floor trusses are pulling in due to fire, but that event can easily be generated by controlled demolition also, it not limited to one scenario.. 

NIST study explantation doesn’t make lot of sense the floor trusses weakened first, the best explantation, is the steel hat truss failed and took the floor trusses with it when the collapse began. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Again...

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

You don’t consider this is an explosive event?

What's the energy level here to push steel outwards and break up concrete to dust? According to NIST the blast for controlled demolition is 130db and what happened here the energy levels are obviously lot higher.

neutronflux

Check out the top of the building. The core gone. The energy required to remove a steel hat truss up top is  beyond imagination and can’t be generated by a collapse starting at the top on a few floors.  The collapse breaks all natural physics principles. There another energy inside that building forcing out the debris around all corners of the building. You want to believe fire collapsing a few floor trusses, caused that implosion, go ahead knock yourself out.