Originally posted by starchildtesla
yes it did buckle because the core columns were evaporated by thermite causing a deceptive looking collapse
That is absolutely false. Where did you get this information?
This video proves absolutely nothing of a kind. This building was gutted for weeks ahead of time and was constructed of concrete. All the pillars were pre-weakened weeks ahead of time as well. Explosives were used to blow the top half of the building to fall on the second half. Nice try though but your just making a fool out of yourself.
Originally posted by mike3
Hi.
I'm quite skeptical of all these 9/11 Bomb theories. Just a short time ago I came upon something which shows that yes, a "pancake collapse" of a large building is indeed possible:
www.youtube.com...
No explosives were used, the building actually crushed itself after that one floor failed, causing the top to drop onto it. The impact of the top falling just ONE FLOOR had enough strength to crush the floors beneath it.
What do you think? Looks like such a collapse really is possible. It just takes ONE FLOOR of fall to start the process, and the whole thing goes down. The whole tower was destroyed. It just doesn't happen, unless someone wanted it too.
Hmm.
Originally posted by utgardloki
reply to post by evil incarnate
I did read that, but the statements were definitive without support (as you recognize). It surely must be as important to identify why the claims made are untenable. Simple statements of fact are the bane of evidential discussion...
Originally posted by utgardloki
reply to post by mike3
Hi all! First post, so treat me gently...
First of all, it's always useful for evidence purportedly against the 'conspiracy theories' to be provided. The physics of 9/11 has to be definitive. Maybes aren't good enough. Which is why expectations for a definitive alternative to the official narrative is naive.
With respect to this video. On first inspection, it is quite impressive. But beware first impressions!
A number of queries spring to mind.
It is claimed no explosives were used. How long were the cameras trained on this building, to catch it just as it spontaneously fell?
How was it safely weakened, avoiding demolition workers caught in the collapse? Was any supporting structure removed from the bottom half? The top half appears almost disconnected from the bottom. However, in both the twin towers, more than 90% of the columns were intact. What caused them to simultaneously fail?
Certain claims for this video, such as the non-use of explosives, are not sustainable, for reasons hinted at above. There will be many other red flags.
It's fun finding them!