look again said:
So why have you already ignored trying to explain the sudden onset of the collapses?
The fact is that was exactly the effect which can be observed.
You gibbering idiot, you blow all the floors
at the same time. This is the entire point of not just relying on gravity to do the job.
If you wait for the floor above to reach the one you're blowing you've waited too long as the material above will be deflected by the still intact floors beneath. Not to mention that if you drop thousands of tonnes of metal and concrete on carefully rigged explosives you'll rip them straight off the beams.
Big time strawman here, as the evidence being presented for demolition was the speed of the collapses.
How is this a straw man? Show me a film, show me one film that shows debris falling at the same speed as the tower? You can't. The videos you fawn over show the exact opposite.
This is full of speculation and again avoids trying to explain the observed nature of the collapses.
Not really, it's a vital point. If you managed to use sufficently tiny explosives, if you decided to rig them to go off in such a non sensical manner, if you could find the manpower and the time to rig it all, none of that would hide explosives on every floor. Your entire point is speculation based upon the experience who's never touched demolitions kit or done any training.
How is all that metal and concrete being ejected out horizontally going to achieve this?
What is your point? That physics is stupid for making things not fall perfectly straight? If you want to defend the point then bloody well defend it.
He was talking about all the steel in the buildings, most of which was sliced.
Who said this was anything like normal procedure?
Are you stupid? This isn't about normal procedure, this is about physics. Cutting charges do not
cut. This is what an I beam looks like after you use a cutting charge on it (photo won't stay up for long). You don't need to cut the webbing to destroy structural integrity, although if you do want to make sure you stick three charges on the beam.
The problem is their was no pancake collapse observed, and it is even more evidence of controlled demolition.
The goal of controled demolition is to get a pancake. Is this not what you meant?
You disingenious bastard. You fucking trolling moron. That's the result of thousands of tonnes of metal and concrete hitting the floor. If you're so fucking dishonest to claim that wouldn't happen with a normal collapse...
Ah, yes, as i was saying the dust as the towers (like WTC7) are falling are far too small.
This is too small a distance?
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5415/132105410e13167d588b5xp.jpg
That photo is of the building with the green triangle roof, seen here.
My god you're getting worse.
If they'd strapped Anti tank blast landmines to the supports then it'd do that (having said that the distance they are being projected is too small)
The reference was to the distance the supports were projected as the building collapsed, not for when it made a pile on the floor. But heaven forbid you read what i type.
Here is testimony from CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE Interview Date: November 7, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
pg 15: Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion…
All the explosions could have been many different things, but it's exactly what would be observed if the building was demolished.
The molten steel was reported by numerous witnesses, so what is your explanation for it's existence?
CAN YOU NOT READ?
Military explosives do not explode with a red flame. No high explosives do, low explosives might if they rely on combustion rather than explosion. If you set off plastic you do not get a firery ball of death. Of course this could all be the work of Al'Guyfawkes.
Sequential explosions argue against controlled demolition.
It is not what you'd see if the building were demolished as no one in the building would make it out alive, there would only be a fraction of a second between the first charges going off and the people at ground level being killed by the shrapnell from it. Look at the sodding film footage of buildings that are blown up. Oh, no wait. That's never going to happen.
I do not try to explain the molten metal, i merely point out that it's completely fucking irrelevant. I merely point out that it is not a sign of demolition and this,
this is how you try to rebut me?
All in all i've concluded you're too stupid to breathe, not to mention having intelectual honesty that would shame Blair and Bush's bastard offspring.
A seperate post will address your internal inconsistencies.
Take a commendation!!
