Feel free to demonstrate your critical thinking skills at anytime, as I've seen no evidence for such a claim thus far. You are basically ranting and that is of little merit in this environment, but from your side of the debate it's becoming quite fashionable.

Ever stand on a soda can and have someone flick the outside? No matter where you flick it, the can will crush straight down. It doesn't fall to one side.

Look here you side stepping fool,

Just like your sneaky side stepping pal the parrot, you as well side step the PROOF of building 7 being an inside job.Trying to change the subject will not work here either so FAIL

As far as your timeline bullshit or explosions possibly being from some boiler, you FAIL shills. Now use that little pea brain of yours and you might see the OBVIOUS reasons why your BULLSHIT does NOT make any sense

As far as your soda can example, anyone that has ever recycled aluminum by stomping on the empty aluminum cans can attest that you are WRONG thinking the can squashes straight down every time. More times than not, the can squashes sideways

If only WTC was a soda can...

It has nothing to do with BEING a soda can and everything to do with the principles for why the can collapses they way it does. With the way those buildings were constructed, it would have been nearly impossible to get one to fall sideways.

Besides, why would the government care about the towers falling in that fashion? They did want to kill TOO many people? Lol. I mean really, what's the logic there. It doesn't make any sense.

Physics And structural engineering explains why the towers came down the way they did.

But seriously, why would the government WANT to take them down so neatly? Why would they care? Why would they risk being found out instead of just letting them fall however? They wanted to blow up the buildings and kill people, but not if they building fell sideways and killed MORE people? Seriously, what's the logic here? I don't understand.

So they were worried about property damage but demolished the two most expensive buildings in the country and a third building just for the heck of it. And, later, demolished more buildings that were too damaged from the collapsing structures anyway, but they didn't want to risk TOO much damage? It makes zero sense.

Those buildings were built of many reinforced light weight steel column...which also lends to the point that type of design would have sheared the wings...not 4 well placed SUPER COLUMNS...but hundreds of light weight steel reinforced columns...

It was built to resist wind load not gravity load...but even that does NOT explain why it collapsed inward without tipping...

the columns in World Trade Center 1 and 2 were made of concrete and steel not aluminum and glass...

So they were worried about property damage but demolished the two most expensive buildings in the country and a third building just for the heck of it. And, later, demolished more buildings that were too damaged from the collapsing structures anyway, but they didn't want to risk TOO much damage? It makes zero sense.

It a not my explanation, it's physics and structural engineerings explanation. I'm not making anything fit. They fell. There's not debate there. They came pretty much straight down. No debate there. A plane hit the building. No debate there. The plane would have weakened the structure. No debate there. Fires would have also weakened the structure. No debate there.

So why would you jump to the conclusion that explosives must have been used? I'm looking for what the motive is. There is no motive in what I believe happened. Just physics. But what would be the purpose of preventing the buildings from tipping sideways? They would know that a demolition of two buildings that size would cause massive amounts of collateral damage to the surrounding buildings. So there isn't much real estate to be saved. So why risk exposing yourself? Why risk someone finding evidence of a controlled demolition? It doesn't make any sense.

Weight bearing steel posts were weakened and warped by intense heat, they bend under the heat, the wright that they are holding becomes too much, ergo they give way and collapse.

I find it harder to explain it simpler to be honest with you.

SRV, I am so sorry, but I have NO idea what the hell you are trying to say here.

You have gone on and on and on about us debunking your main man, yet there is NOTHING to debunk, so what are you trying to discuss now?




You have no proof it was an inside job, but what has this to do with your Mr Jennings?





I have never said it was from a boiler, I said that they do make an explosive sound.

Are you even aware that there were boilers and a storage of some 12,000 gallons of diesel?

there are many reasons to not want it to tip...

COLLATERAL PROPERTY DAMAGE FOR ONE...that would cost them money...dead civilians do not cost them anything...

Physics also considers the opposing mass...

so the building that got hit much lower...this argument begins to have some merit...

as the mass would very quickly become greater than the mass below...because the initial load was exponentially larger...

again the second building that was hit a lot closer to the top of the building...not so much...

We can see the centre column's failing in the footage that shows the hat-truss supporting the antennae collapsing just before the outer shell.

I have to say that it is refreshing to discuss this subject with Nuffan, as he sticks to the subject at hand.

Class, 9-11 had two objectives, the first was to get the American people behind their planned war in the Middle East, and the second was to “justify” the passing of unconstitutional laws to suppress constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms. The target was the Middle East and America itself.

Louie

Quote from progrocknic: I think your memory is suffering. We went to war in Afghanistan after 9/11, not the middle east. All we needed to justify war in Iraq was three letters. WMD. Seems odd to need a massive conspiracy just to justify war in Afghanistan when all it took to invade Iraq was the mention of WMD's. And since 9/11, more Americans own guns now then ever before. So it kind of seems like a huge waste of a conspiracy.


Afghanistan is in the middle east GENIUS....LMAO


I can agree Louie has some missing cheese from his cracker...

but you do not do yourself any favors with statements like that...lol

Higgy, oh ye faceless, Godless, Liberal,

Quote from srv63:And your going to tell me now that the boiler was what exploded multiple times and the boiler is the cause of the stairs exploding out from underneath Mr Jennings feet as well?

**************************************************************

He said he HEARD explosions, he never saw them, he only heard them and they could have come from anything and anywhere.

There were generators in the buildings, there were diesel oil storage tanks and hell knows what else that could have caused the explosions. Lots of things explode when hit by fire.

When are you going to show us your proof or cite your source of the tin fuselage...or are you just going to ignore it and hope it will go away?

Tell you what, don't bother, we know you can't and ergo, you are debunked, again.

I think your memory is suffering. We went to war in Afghanistan after 9/11, not the middle east. All we needed to justify war in Iraq was three letters. WMD. Seems odd to need a massive conspiracy just to justify war in Afghanistan when all it took to invade Iraq was the mention of WMD's. And since 9/11, more Americans own guns now then ever before. So it kind of seems like a huge waste of a conspiracy.