Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

In June 2011, 52 pages have been wasted again by rows of participants, trying to use PHYSICS to show a 911 OS-fanatical-Believer why he, and his OS-followers colleagues were so gravely mistaken.

This is just one post of those tries, on top of page 8, that insufficiently tries to explain too simplistically what is wrong with the opening post of that thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It does not answer or provide solid evidence against the OPs remarks like this one f.ex. :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course there is resistance, the debris of the exterior columns is coming down way faster than the building is in all the videos, plus the building came down in at least 14 seconds, no resistance would have made the building fall at 8 seconds. Nice try though

psikeyhackr offered a better explanation in this post,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Do watch his YouTube video ( www.youtube.com... ) and take the time to read the comments section under his YT-video and his answers to them :



Btw, this opening poster youngster, or young adult from Canada, who seems to be fond of smoking pot or makes fun of pot users and who's following 911 debunking sites we all know so well from the 911-OS Trusters side, is a prime example of a victim of Internet propaganda techniques, TV programs and commercials, stocked up to the limit with psychological tricks to let the viewer fade away into an all encompassing stupor that keeps the family trusting all these lies those criminals keep telling them via their boop tubes.

When looking up all his blocked by Photobucket or removed by himself, thread-pictures in his posts, you meet him at his Photobucket account.
Jason, be so smart to remove at least your family-name from it.
s931.photobucket.com...

And Jason, especially your remark in this post by you is completely wrong :

The core remains intact just like how the progressive collapse theory says it would after the floors collapsed and turned to rubble and dust.

It was called the Spire, to indicate that it was only a small core-column part of the 47 heavy steel vertical core columns, in fact a long one corner column still connected far lower to a few other columns, still sticking up after probably one or a few detonators failed.
It even could be an exterior corner column, I still did not take the time to meticulously measure it out in those existing videos.
Then the last bottom detonators took care of it and it SUNK down VERTICALLY as far as the camera could follow it..
It did not topple as expected in a truly gravitational collapse sequence.


It still amazes me to no end, why again at that time and up till now, nobody used my links below, in my signature line, to stop threads like this dead in their track, immediately and convincing.

Not one OS follower ever, even tried to oppose my, and David Chandlers and others, irrefutable evidence I offered for you all to use freely...years ago already.
But what amazes me the most, is the fact that to my knowledge, not one of the Truth seekers in this or other online forums ever used that evidence post to counter those nagging Official Story followers (The Trusters).

Especially David Chandler who pictured his completely straight 911 WTC-top collapse line chart proving no resistance at all from under that top part, compared with a real gravitational collapse in France.
Which were both measured by him with the same method, explained thoroughly by him.
A real gravitational collapse shows an upwards bending part in its VE- "speedogram" when resistance of the still standing building portion kicks in after the first few seconds.

Read my last 2 posts too, there :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For non-members who can't read my signature line its links at the bottom of each of my posts :

Long EVIDENCE list exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It includes Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau their publications.

Signature:

WISDOMwillWIN--->9/11=a LIE !--->EVIDENCE--->LIST

Members, VIEW and READ my signature line its links below, and do yourself a huge favor, at least read my irrefutable, huge 911 black-operations evidence post, and use it in the future to silence your OS-opposition once and for all time :

The top of the North tower was tipping over and was almost completely clear of the underlying structure. So what was the downward force capable of crushing everything beneath it?

Why are we supposed to believe that physics just did not apply on that day?

originally posted by: DerekJR321
The top of the North tower was tipping over and was almost completely clear of the underlying structure. So what was the downward force capable of crushing everything beneath it?

Why are we supposed to believe that physics just did not apply on that day?

That was the SOUTH TOWER

I believe fueled jumbo jets at speed ALONE could bring down WTC structures, based upon my own structural engineering experience.

originally posted by: DerekJR321
The top of the North tower was tipping over and was almost completely clear of the underlying structure.

It was? Care to show a picture of that

Why are we supposed to believe that physics just did not apply on that day?

Why do you believe that?

a reply to: hellobruce

It was? Care to show a picture of that

I'll go one step further for ya.....

NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".

there are still 240 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support remaining on each impact floor that MUST simultaneously fail to have occur what we all see.....


we see that tipping top moving in TWO directions at the same time, as a single unit....moving as one....which can only do so by complete severance from the structure below.....if ALL columns are not severed, that top does NOT move as it did....


and FIRE is the only allowable cause for this to occur......to which the 2005 NIST found NO evidence of.......

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

.....and a 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a 'brand new never before seen physics phenomenon" where 'warm steel' allowed these collapses to ensue, even creating a 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration equal to g. within the first 1/3 of the WTC7 6.5 second collapse......brand new physics/science phenomenon they refuse to prove through physics/science.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse models"

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: DerekJR321
The top of the North tower was tipping over and was almost completely clear of the underlying structure.

It was? Care to show a picture of that

Why are we supposed to believe that physics just did not apply on that day?

Why do you believe that?

the most obvious......if those remaining 240 columns don't fail simultaneously, that upper mass doesn't move as 'one'. Simple. Try looking at the blueprints.
That upper mass has shifted 22 degrees off center....HOW can it possibly impart an EQUAL force, [as it must do for the visual we all see i.e. global collapse], on the opposite side of the building when it's toppling over to ONE side?

quick...post some bunker site jingle....

a reply to: hgfbob

if ALL columns are not severed, that top does NOT move as it did....

Are you saying they only needed one column on each side to hold up all the floors above?
If not please tell us how many are needed on each side and how YOU determined this.

a reply to: samkent

Are you saying they only needed one column on each side to hold up all the floors above?

and I have NO idea why you would think that....I suggest learning what you are talking about before you talk about it....there are plenty of videos of the towers construction...go look at the way the '3-column-trees' are applied to the perimeter...see how they stagger the application....there is NO continuous seam going around the building at any point as there would be in a stick framed application, no floors to interrupt the continuous steel load bearing either, all floors at the towers were attached to both the core and the perimeter continuous vertical support from the hat truss to the bedrock...sitting on angled plates attached to the load bearing support.

we see that tipping top is moving as a 'whole', not part of it, the ENTIRE top moving as a single unit.....before it moved there are 240 intact columns undamaged by impacts on each tower according to the 2005 NIST scientific investigation..

the floors are still attached to ALL columns ABOVE the damage floor, and floors are still attached BELOW the damaged floor as that top moves in two directions as soon as it starts to move.....how can it move in two directions unless it is completely severed at or very near the damage hole to allow it to do so.