UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 5
th, 2018 at 1:17am:
Gnads wrote on Sep 3
rd, 2018 at 7:44am:
I think you wouldn't have a clue. The explosions that were heard as the videos show (if you had cared to watch them
) were heard at ground level no where near where the supposed planes hit the building.
That's what is required to bring a building down in it's own footprint.
No planes hit building No.7 & it had a few minimal fires.
The video shows a lecture presented to architects & engineers as well as statements by physicists that fully explains that the official story is bogus.
More like you would not have a clue. There has been video after video of the collapse of the buildings. All of which show no sign of a demolition job (other than the ones that both planes caused). The planes both were near full of their fuel for their across the country flights, at the point of impact with the towers. The fuel on board both planes did not just completely combust into flames. It would have taken minutes to completely use up the amount of ignitable fuel that was splashed across the floors of the buildings. Added to the fuel being inflamed, so too were the desks and papers and all kinds of flammable sources that would have prolonged the fires. As such, the fires would have compromised the integrity of the structure to a point where the weight of the upper floors would have collapsed and then set about further collapsing of the lower floors.
I sat in a friend's loungeroom that September 11 night, thinking "I reckon that second building will fall. But that first one should remain standing". Alas, both towers fell. Later, we heard about how building WTC7 collapsed. And whilst I find it strange that the building, being not too close to WTC1 & 2, the claim was that fires had spread underground to WTC7 and set off sufficient damage to collapse the building. I did figure that perhaps the building fell from a controlled demolition. But the explanation of fire damage was credible enough not to warrant further (now redundant) investigation.
I do wonder how you think that the WTCs were brought down into their own footprint. That has to be the messiest alleged "controlled demolition" I have ever seen. People must have been literally running for their lives for a quarter mile down the street before they could have felt safe from the collapse. I would surmise that many of those who just got out of the building would have had to run a good 200 metres away and/or then taken cover to have had reasonable chance of surviving the debris falling. Plenty of evidence of cars nearby having been hit by debris.
Then you have seen naff all controlled demolition .... and you never watched those videos.
Random organic collapse is what should have happened to those buildings ..... & it didn't.
Collapse by fire doesn't cause powderised concrete dust.
They all collapsed in their own footprints no ifs or buts.
Furthermore you fail to explain the multiple photos of skyscrapers that were completely gutted by fire going back decades that never collapsed.
Nor the fact that the Empire State building was struck by a fully fuel laden B52 bomber in 1945 with several floors burning and it did not collapse.
The WTC buildings were decades younger & no doubt built to even tougher standards yet they collapse along with a building that wasn't struck & had minimal comparative damage & also in it's own footprint.
Baaaaa baaaaa baaaa ... you sheep.