SRV, I'd like to take your query regarding the 45 degree angle cut to the guys at Metabunk. There are scientists and engineers there who might be able to shred some light on the subject.

Could you possibly consider how you'd like it worded before I submit the enquiry? No profanities and it must be a logical enquiry free of bias and emotion.

I'm keen to resolve this issue.

Why can't 9/11 truthers act like normal human beings?

Why cant shills be unbias?

The first response:

"All the evidence seems to point to it being cut with a thermic lance during cleanup. It's a column at the base of the building, so there's nothing to be gained from weakening it for a top-down collapse."

And that sums it up. I can't believe we all overlooked that simple point!~

Guess what, this welder has PROOF that a thermic lance or any type of lance could have been used on that cut but lets give more responders time to give their two cents on this subject.

Btw, if there was no importance at weakening that column at ground level, explain to me why MANY eyewitnesses testified that explosions were going off on the ground level and in the sub basements of each tower BEFORE they collapsed.

Explain the 2 inch thick windows in each towers lobby as well as the walls being broken off.

Yes, apparently the weakening of the ground level building support columns were important to eliminate

No, that has nothing to do with the above claims. I doubt there will be many more responses to that thread as that point of Mick's nailed it shut.

Quote from noclass,

"No, that has nothing to do with the above claims. I doubt there will be many more responses to that thread as that point of Mick's nailed it shut."

Good luck with nailing it shut with Micks response. Your gonna have to do one hell of alot better than that because this bulldog aint letting go unless you produce worthy explanations and micks explanation is FAR from it.

Notice how mick DID NOT address the uncut corners on that column. Clearly, he is blind or an idiot

@ Noclass,

Keep one more thing in mind, the floors at ground level of each tower WERE NOT the bottom floors of each building because each building had like 7 floors under the ground therefore 7 floors beneath the ground surface was where each buildings true base was.To NOT add the ground level main building support columns to the demolition experts "to-rig with explosives list", would be the same as a controlled demolition company rigging up and demolishing a building but yet leaving 7 floors of the building standing. Now how stupid would that be?

The reason why the demolition experts did not prep and sever any of the main columns below ground level (as the one pictured), is because the rest of them main columns below ground level were encased in concrete and impossible to attach explosives or thermite to the steel columns without definitely raising suspicion. This is why the lower most columns being severed were the ones at ground level like the one pictured.

Now add this to your wannabe debunk site and see what them asshats have to say about it. While your at it, ask them f**kin morons why the 4 corners of the pictured column are NOT CUT and how the top portion of the column was removed WITHOUT cutting completely thru the column.

He didn't need to address anything else for the logic speaks for itself. There was no need for such a cut for a top down collapse. It's that simple.

And that makes sense to you why? Since when did you become so educated in controlled demolition as to come to the conclusion that demolishing the lowest 7 floors of a building "were not important?" If i didn't know any better, i would say you don't posses the balls to have that moron shill mick to explain to you why demolishing the last 7 floors of a building are not worth messing with. Better yet, tell the spineless f**kwit to bring his a** to this forum so i can make mince meat out of his moronic ass.I would join that dumb site of peckerwoods with fantasies of logic and common sense but i'm sure the spineless little b*tches would flag me because they couldn't handle the real truth

That does it for me, as a CD is illogical in so many ways already.

If you give in that easily then no wonder your one of the dying minority believing in that retarded nist report. Throw in the towel dumb ass, we don't care

I don't think you can produce anything to counter the logic of his argument. Give it a go, but if it's crap, I will let you know, and why.

I already buried that f**kin morons logic and i still have not used the "big guns" that will sink his little dingy.

Why don't you join Metabunk and teach Mick the error of his ways? Have you the stones?

Your question already answered above.Them punks couldn't handle THIS Truther


BS excuse to follow.

Has it ever occurred to you that cutting completely through a large beam then allowing it to simply fall could end up getting someone killed? Has that ever crossed your mind srv?

Your very right.Finally we agree. But are you also aware that cutting a beam or in this case a huge,(heavy as 5 dump trucks) main support column at a 45 degree angle and trying to fell it like a tree is astronomical in danger of possibly killing everyone within a hundred yards? But to remove the top sections of each of the 94 main columns at ground zero, you must cut all the way thru them, or am i wrong? Which is it parrot?

More regarding your CD theory has been addressed in the link below. A site dedicated to controlled building collapse

I will watch it later when i have time but i'm sure you already know that i most likely will make swiss cheese out of it



http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

""DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.""

And that makes sense to you why?

Since when did you become so educated in controlled demolition as to come to the conclusion that demolishing the lowest 7 floors of a building "were not important?" If i didn't know any better, i would say you don't posses the balls to have that moron shill mick to explain to you why demolishing the last 7 floors of a building are not worth messing with. Better yet, tell the spineless f**kwit to bring his a** to this forum so i can make mince meat out of his moronic ass.I would join that dumb site of peckerwoods with fantasies of logic and common sense but i'm sure the spineless little b*tches would flag me because they couldn't handle the real truth

If you give in that easily then no wonder your one of the dying minority believing in that retarded nist report. Throw in the towel dumb ass, we don't care

I already buried that f**kin morons logic and i still have not used the "big guns" that will sink his little dingy.

Your question already answered above.Them punks couldn't handle THIS Truther

The first response:

"All the evidence seems to point to it being cut with a thermic lance during cleanup. It's a column at the base of the building, so there's nothing to be gained from weakening it for a top-down collapse."

And that sums it up. I can't believe we all overlooked that simple point!~

The reason why the demolition experts did not prep and sever any of the main columns below ground level (as the one pictured), is because the rest of them main columns below ground level were encased in concrete and impossible to attach explosives or thermite to the steel columns without definitely raising suspicion. This is why the lower most columns being severed were the ones at ground level like the one pictured.

And what qualifications did your genius shill buddy show you to confirm that he's an authority on controlled demolition therefore giving his response merit? Oh what's that,he works at McDonald's as a dishwasher? Why am I not surprised at your level of ignorance