World Trade Center probably could not have been destroyed by planes

[HenryBHough]

The more I think about the more I have come to agree.

The World Trade Center was not destroyed by planes!

Nay, it was destroyed by the Muslim bastards flying the fucking planes!!!!

 

[PredFan]

And finally...

 

[Indofred]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.

Like this?

 

[Indofred]

Like this?

No.
That tower fell to the side first, but the rest of the building collapsed evenly, allowing a vertical fall.
As was shown in the video, one side of the tower was far weaker, so it should have fallen to one side, leaving much of that tower intact.
The other tower top went vertical, producing reasonably equal stress on the structure below it, but that tower's fall started to one side, so there was no reason for the rest to fall in the manner it did.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And finally...View attachment 58401

thats what our resident troll stoops to when he gets frustrated and cannot refute facts.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Like this?

No.
That tower fell to the side first, but the rest of the building collapsed evenly, allowing a vertical fall.
As was shown in the video, one side of the tower was far weaker, so it should have fallen to one side, leaving much of that tower intact.
The other tower top went vertical, producing reasonably equal stress on the structure below it, but that tower's fall started to one side, so there was no reason for the rest to fall in the manner it did.

the other thing these agents cant get around that the fires did not cause the collapse is there has never been a case in mankind history of a building collapsing in its own footprint at free fall speed due to fires ,they come down gradually over a period of time. anytime you challenge them to produce footage of a building collapsing like that,they never can.

there was this one shill like todd here once who in his desperate attempts to try to avoid defeat that he was losing the debate with me,he posted a pic of a building collapsing but the problem with his ramblings was he only showed the upper scaffolding collapsingthe structure itself remained standing.all he did back then was prove it for me that i am correct,that the entire structure of a building doesnt collapse.He could not handle the defeat though of course even though he showed everyone it was an obvious miserable fail.

these trolls are clueless to the fact that buildings like the twin towers are designed so that the office fires at the top of the building while they might collapse over a period of time,its impossible foe the whole tower to collapse into its own footprint because as you go lower,the steel columns are thicker and bigger than the steel at the top of the towers.

thats why the epic that misterbeale showed of the madrid building in spain that burned for two DAYS and never collapsed despite all the intense heat that was far more extreme than the small office fires on 9/11,thats why THEY did not collapse is because of that pesky little fact.

 

[Dale Smith]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.[/QUOTE}

There were 83 camera confiscated from surrounding businesses alone by the FBI which was the same M.O concerning the OKC bombing and of course no footage of what was on those cameras were ever released...why is that?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

There were 83 camera confiscated from surrounding businesses alone by the FBI which was the same M.O concerning the OKC bombing and of course no footage of what was on those cameras were ever released...why is that?
that dale is why the infiltraters here can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.
btw Dale,I notice you live in Dallas Texas.As you have seen me talk about on this thread quite a few times,I have done a lot of research into the JFK assassination as well.even far more than in 9/11.

Because of the fact that our corrupt school system has lied to us all these years about JFK and the government still to this day endorces the warren commission,tell me if you had the same thoughts in your head that day i had when 9/11 happened.

Because of the JFK assassination and their lies they have spun since then and over the decades i thought to myself back then on 9/11 i said to myself-I dont believe a fucking word of this what they are saying,that Bin Laden was behind these attacks.I think our government is behind this whole thing just to get us into another fake and phony war same as they did with vietnam "as you know,that was one of the main reasons the CIA killed JFK was he was going to pull us out of vietnam.they knew johnson would reverse kennedys policy on it as he did."

while I never had any facts or proof about it at the time which is why i accepted the possibility back then that the media might be correct,deep down because of the JFK assassination and being lied to about that event,I had a gut feeling back then because of that,9/11 was a lie.It just wasnt till three years later when I started talking to a friend of mine who started telling me the facts of the case,that I woke up about it and knew my initial hunch was correct. How about you,at the time 9/11 happened,did YOU have your doubts about it like I did?

also tell me if you ever run into these kind of people.Its not uncommon for me to run into these kind of people.I have run into quite a few of them over the years,they will acknowledge the CIA killed JFK but anytime you try to get them to look at the facts of 9/11,they refuse to and ignore the evidence and ignore the facts.

see they can handle it that the CIA killed JFK and they were lied to about that but they cant accept it that they were also behind 9/11 as well because 9/11 being an inside job hits too close to home for them and is much harder to deal with since it is so much more recent and they dont want to face reality that our government murdered 3000 of its own citizens.one of the mods here at this site is one of them.so do YOU ever come across people like that as well by chance?

I find that just INCREDIBLE how they can accept it that the CIA killed JFK yet they refuse to look at the facts that they were behind 9/11 as well dont you?

they can accept it that the CIA is an evil organization acknowledging the fact they killed JFK,yet despite that,they cant accept it that they were behind 9/11 as well even though it was for the same reason,to get us into another fake and phony war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon

How fast was it traveling before impact?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like this?

No.
That tower fell to the side first, but the rest of the building collapsed evenly, allowing a vertical fall.
As was shown in the video, one side of the tower was far weaker, so it should have fallen to one side, leaving much of that tower intact.
The other tower top went vertical, producing reasonably equal stress on the structure below it, but that tower's fall started to one side, so there was no reason for the rest to fall in the manner it did.

the other thing these agents cant get around that the fires did not cause the collapse is there has never been a case in mankind history of a building collapsing in its own footprint at free fall speed due to fires ,they come down gradually over a period of time. anytime you challenge them to produce footage of a building collapsing like that,they never can.

there was this one shill like todd here once who in his desperate attempts to try to avoid defeat that he was losing the debate with me,he posted a pic of a building collapsing but the problem with his ramblings was he only showed the upper scaffolding collapsingthe structure itself remained standing.all he did back then was prove it for me that i am correct,that the entire structure of a building doesnt collapse.He could not handle the defeat though of course even though he showed everyone it was an obvious miserable fail.

these trolls are clueless to the fact that buildings like the twin towers are designed so that the office fires at the top of the building while they might collapse over a period of time,its impossible foe the whole tower to collapse into its own footprint because as you go lower,the steel columns are thicker and bigger than the steel at the top of the towers.

thats why the epic that misterbeale showed of the madrid building in spain that burned for two DAYS and never collapsed despite all the intense heat that was far more extreme than the small office fires on 9/11,thats why THEY did not collapse is because of that pesky little fact.

It's true. Never before in history had a building with the WTC's design been hit by a passenger jet filled with fuel
which then caused a collapse. Not until 9/11/2001.

 

[Skylar]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

You're missing three factors.

First, the load energy of the building was transmitted *around* floors via perfectly aligned vertical columns to bedrock. When the floors above impacted each floor below the load energy wasn't transmitted around that floor below. The floors were impacted directly. The floor would collapse virtually instantaneously. And did.

Second, the acceleration of gravity. As the floors above weren't gently placed onto the floors below during the collapse. They were accelerated by gravity and impacting the floors below. If you want a demonstration of the difference, gently balance a cinder block on your head. Now, drop that same cinder block onto your head from about12 feet, the average distance between floors on the WTC.

Though I warn you, you'll probably only do this experiment once. As the impact energy is far, far greater when accelerated by gravity.

Third, the dynamic amplification factor. Basically, the way a material responds when force is applied to it quickly compared to slowly.. Virtually all materials have less resistance to forces applied quickly than to the same forces applied slowly. The sudden impact of 16% of the building's mass would be dramatically amplified via the DAF. In the case of the WTC, by about double for that initial collapse.

Once the collapse began there was no structure within the building capable of 'catching' the falling floors and stopping them. The collapse would have continued, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground.

Which, in fact, it did.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon

How fast was it traveling before impact?

And why would they have a picture of the airliner coming into the pentagon? Who has security cameras pointed up to the sky?

 

[Dale Smith]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

You're missing three factors.

First, the load energy of the building was transmitted *around* floors via perfectly aligned vertical columns to bedrock. When the floors above impacted each floor below the load energy wasn't transmitted around that floor below. The floors were impacted directly. The floor would collapse virtually instantaneously. And did.

Second, the acceleration of gravity. As the floors above weren't gently placed onto the floors below during the collapse. They were accelerated by gravity and impacting the floors below. If you want a demonstration of the difference, gently balance a cinder block on your head. Now, drop that same cinder block onto your head from about12 feet, the average distance between floors on the WTC.

Though I warn you, you'll probably only do this experiment once. As the impact energy is far, far greater when accelerated by gravity.

Third, the dynamic amplification factor. Basically, the way a material responds when force is applied to it quickly compared to slowly.. Virtually all materials have less resistance to forces applied quickly than to the same forces applied slowly. The sudden impact of 16% of the building's mass would be dramatically amplified via the DAF. In the case of the WTC, by about double for that initial collapse.

Once the collapse began there was no structure within the building capable of 'catching' the falling floors and stopping them. The collapse would have continued, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground.

Which, in fact, it did.

The inner core of WTC 1 and 2 was concrete and encased rebar and there was no resistance as every floor collapses essentially at the same time and in free fall manner. Building 7 collapsed the same way. There is even video showing charges going off when Building 7 collapsed. There is nothing that can convince me that there were not explosives planted because I have seen enough implosions since I woke that proves this was indeed planned and for a litany of reasons.

 

[Dale Smith]

I didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon

How fast was it traveling before impact?

And why would they have a picture of the airliner coming into the pentagon? Who has security cameras pointed up to the sky?

Because according to the hole that was made, the plane was flying mere feet off of the ground for at least a hundred yards when that in of it's self would be impossible to do with an amateur pilot that failed even the basics of flying a Cessna plane.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon

How fast was it traveling before impact?

And why would they have a picture of the airliner coming into the pentagon? Who has security cameras pointed up to the sky?

Because according to the hole that was made, the plane was flying mere feet off of the ground for at least a hundred yards when that in of it's self would be impossible to do with an amateur pilot that failed even the basics of flying a Cessna plane.

the plane was flying mere feet off of the ground for at least a hundred yards

At what speed?

 

[Skylar]

The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.

So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.

Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?

You're missing three factors.

First, the load energy of the building was transmitted *around* floors via perfectly aligned vertical columns to bedrock. When the floors above impacted each floor below the load energy wasn't transmitted around that floor below. The floors were impacted directly. The floor would collapse virtually instantaneously. And did.

Second, the acceleration of gravity. As the floors above weren't gently placed onto the floors below during the collapse. They were accelerated by gravity and impacting the floors below. If you want a demonstration of the difference, gently balance a cinder block on your head. Now, drop that same cinder block onto your head from about12 feet, the average distance between floors on the WTC.

Though I warn you, you'll probably only do this experiment once. As the impact energy is far, far greater when accelerated by gravity.

Third, the dynamic amplification factor. Basically, the way a material responds when force is applied to it quickly compared to slowly.. Virtually all materials have less resistance to forces applied quickly than to the same forces applied slowly. The sudden impact of 16% of the building's mass would be dramatically amplified via the DAF. In the case of the WTC, by about double for that initial collapse.

Once the collapse began there was no structure within the building capable of 'catching' the falling floors and stopping them. The collapse would have continued, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground.

Which, in fact, it did.

The inner core of WTC 1 and 2 was concrete and encased rebar and there was no resistance as every floor collapses essentially at the same time and in free fall manner.

No they didn't. The debris falling outside the WTC 1 and 2 from the impact hit the ground at essentially free fall speeds. As one would expect of falling debris. The towers themselves came down at significantly lower than free fall speeds.

Building 7 collapsed the same way. There is even video showing charges going off when Building 7 collapsed.

No it didn't. The penthouse imploded roughly 10 seconds before the rest of WTC 7 came down. Demonstrating that the internal structure of the WTC 7 was already collapsing before the facade came down.

And explosive charges are ridiculously loud. The collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence. A physical impossibility with explosive demolition. Especially one where you could see the charge going off.

In fact there was no charge or apparatus of explosives ever found in any of the collapsed buildings. Not one charge, not one inch of blasting wire, not one detonator, blasting cap, timer, transceiver, anything. Despite the need for tens of thousands of them. Not one girder cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition was ever found. Despite 10s of thousands of such cuts had the building been explosively demolished.

Plus, WTC 7 was on fire. Explosives and fire don't play well together.Explosives would have exploded, blasting wire, timers or transceivers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic.

Rendering the 'explosive demolition' theory among the poorest explanations for the collapse.

There is nothing that can convince me that there were not explosives planted because I have seen enough implosions since I woke that proves this was indeed planned and for a litany of reasons.

Then your mind is closed and the presentation of evidence is irrelevant. As nothing can convince you.

I, however, remain open to evidence. The evidence simply doesn't match your narrative.

 

[Skylar]

uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lol

There is so much smoke being thrown up, it's very hard to separate fact from lies, nut jobs with really daft theories, and what actually happened.
It's very clear some are deliberately pushing extremely silly theories, perhaps because they're stupid, or perhaps because they're working for interested parties, so want crazy ideas on the market to make all who are unconvinced about the official story look crazy.

Some things are solid facts - here's two.

As we see in the picture, the majority of the damage to both towers is to one side, one being quite a way off centre, the other being almost all on one side.
Whilst I fully understand the spread of aviation fuel and other combustible material would have spread the heat out fairly evenly over the floor, the most damaged side of the building would have been weakest and hottest, so most prone to collapse first, leading to the top of at least one building falling to one side, and likely the other.
The vertical fall just doesn't ring true.

The other thing, and the killer for me is the pentagon.
They can't produce a single photo of an aircraft, even with all the security cameras that were available on that day.
Agents removed footage from every building in the area, but not a one showed an aircraft. Then add the total lack of any damage (pre collapse) that was big enough for an airliner hit, and the official story stinks.
Had an aircraft really hit that building, there would be a thousand pictures, but there isn't a single one.

That's easily enough to question the official version of the story.

thats why the explanation that a plane hit the pentagon is as much of a joke of an explanation as the fires causing the collapse the fact they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon despite all the hundreds of cameras there which is why we have all these infiltraters of the government trolling this thread in their desperation.

they cant produce ONE SINGLE PHOTO of the airliner coming into the pentagon

How fast was it traveling before impact?

And why would they have a picture of the airliner coming into the pentagon? Who has security cameras pointed up to the sky?

Because according to the hole that was made, the plane was flying mere feet off of the ground for at least a hundred yards when that in of it's self would be impossible to do with an amateur pilot that failed even the basics of flying a Cessna plane.

How much skill does it take to crash a plane?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the paid shills are out in full force as always i see.