a reply to: AnkhMorpork
It's been discussed before ATS. The collapsing floors and debris acting like a piston forced pulverized concrete and drywall out ventilation ducts.
Funny how it's symmetrical in the middle?
The squibs were air currents pushing pulverized dust and dry wall around in the wake of falling debris.
Let's put it this way. The Towers have been debated for 15 years. You have no new arguments.
There has never been a top down demolitions implosion of a building floor by floor.
There has never been a building imploded with demolitions over 50 floors.
So the conspiracists narrative was carried out flawlessly by a demolitions system compromised by fire twice in one day of a top down floor by floor
implosion demolition of buildings 110 floors.
Also, by persons that were trying to work the country into a war frenzy by dropping the towers neatly into the conspiracists narrative of the towers
own footprints? Why?
There was a minimum of 110 charges per tower to fit the conspiracists narrative. A more realistic number would be 4 per floor. That would be 440
charges, or 880 charges for the two towers. (Steve Jones used to talk about a million ceiling tiles coated with thermite?)
No audio of demolitions detonations on WTC videos. The most recorded terrorists attack in history.
No columns drilled, prepared, or work on by cutting or blasting charges.
No physical evidence or fragments of shape charges, blasting caps, remote detonators, ignition systems, nor items to contain a blast to columns and
prevent the spread of shrapnel.
No shrapnel worked on by demolitions spraying out of the towers, imbedded in near by buildings and equipment. No shrapnel worked on by demolitions
recovered with victims, bodies, nor human remains.
Richard Gage stated the charges were designed to fizzle and not flash. Where does that leave persons claiming to have witnessed explosions at the WTC
And your argument comes down to dust clouds from a 500,000 ton collapsing tower that has been explained without explosives.
10-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)