Explosive News

reply to post by hooper



This is what I find so funny. You produce an event that happened, A hotel completely burns to a crisp and IS STILL STANDING. There was a fire, it must have been a very HOT fire and yet the steel didn't melt and fall down? OMG you must be kidding me. I don't care what kind of building it is nor the design. IT WAS ON FIRE AND DIDN'T COLLAPSE!!!

If I remember correctly it burned for 24 hours TOO!! And it was still standing. Funny how steel in one country is different from steel in another.

reply to post by seethelight


All very interesting (and of course not backed up by any evidence),

LOL, with the NIST and BushCo lying and destroying evidence -- sure. But what in PARTICULAR, do I need to support for maybe the 24th time?

why did the collapse start at the spot in the buildings where the planes crashed?

Did it? I noticed the top of the building slump first, and THEN it collapsed where the planes hit. If you planned this -- you'd have a grid setup hooked to a computer, and there was about 1 - 2 hours to get it right after the planes struck. So basically, the only thing different from a normal top-down demolition, is you start at a certain floor. It also would explain the crumbling in mid-air of other levels. Floor 70 on down -- CLICK. I could program something that simple. But really, It's not up to me to GUESS how this was done.

Even if it wasn't a demolition -- which I find incredible -- it's still a trail a mile wide leading to BushCo for LETTING it happen. Also, they are conspirators in the coverup.
If you simply take the legs out from under something they will either fall over or, as you guys seem to think is impossible, pancake.


I'm not saying a PANCAKE is impossible -- I suggested exactly that to my wife in 1999 when we visited the WTC after the first bombing -- she asked me if an airplane could take it down, and I said YES, if you could get 2 or 3 levels smashing down on each other -- the bridge-like construction designed to hold ONLY two times the standing weight of the floor might be overwhelmed. The load-bearing wall REQUIRES positive force from the hanging floors-- so if they go, it would fall inward and kick out of it's supports. I completely envisioned how the building could almost "fold inward."

Too bad I stopped video-taping our trip at that moment. But anyway -- I'm pretty dang smart and I came up with a better explanation for the CURRENT collapse than the people at the NIST -- and I did it BEFORE anyone else told me it was possible.

However; The core would still be standing, and a Pancake collapse would take about a MINUTE or more -- and there would be less pulverized dust and explosions. The other PROBLEM, is that it would take more than jet fuel to collapse a few levels -- the iron supports between floors should have still held -- and we can see that they were still standing where the plane went into the building -- Steel beats Aluminum every time.

Anyway -- Pancake is NOT farfetched -- only it takes TOO long and leaves too much standing. WTC did not pancake -- it's my own dang theory though I only have witnesses, no video. And ONE plane might require a LOT of explosives to drop a floor -- if you didn't just rig explosive charges.

In addition to that, what the witnesses reported was an explosion every 15-20 minutes after the planes struck. That's not how taking out the core would work.

Why? Whether there WERE or were not explosions -- some might be caused by fire -- NOTHING far below the plane strike would be weakened, or would be on fire -- now, if the STEEL were conducting heat (like it does), it might spread fires. THAT is why it is insulated. If the insulation were stripped -- like the "believers" propose, then YES, it can spread fires, but there would be NO WAY IN HELL the supports got weak because you have to heat up acres of steel assuming even ideal burning of the jet fuel (which would burn out in about 15 minutes).

Taking out the core -- IF I WERE DOING IT, would require a lot of pre-cutting, and a combination of shaped charges and Thermate. A strip of thermate all around the circumference of each tube -- and then the preset-shape charges would go off to kick it. Maybe one BIG bomb at the base to jolt it a bit because even with all the cutting and burning through with thermate, it might just rest on the core and not collapse. But only ONE boom that might be heard outside the building -- most of these charges could be missed in an average office if you weren't 20 feet from it -- just a "pop" like a muffled firecracker because all the force is pushed into little pieces of steel at a few times the speed of sound -- which bury into the supports. Mythbusters did a few episodes on shaped charges.

You'd have a massive explosion, then collapse.
No videos report that.

I don't think a MASSIVE explosion is needed. But there were eyewitness reports of a large explosion and photos of pyroclastic dust on the bottom floor. A few survivors talk about making it out through the basement just in time. You can't cherry pick these scenarios and claim THIS IS HOW IT MUST BE. We don't KNOW how it must be -- but you've got a fricken' explanation YOU have to prove, because No other steel buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire. I can think of quite a few ways that you DON'T need explosives -- and I'm sure if I had a few Billion Dollars and the Pentagon I could come up with crap you haven't heard of. They are 20 years ahead of what we get to see on development.

Add to that all the PROOF videos which claim to show squibs, etc. and the video evidence which actually shows the weight of the top floors bending the steel beams in, not out, at the beginning of the collapse and your shaped charges idea doesn't really stack up.

Are you talking FOR the INSIDE job scenario or against? We don't KNOW they saw squibs in the video -- but they might have been. MY idea is that they were only on inside supports, and angled in toward the building -- coupled with a pre-burn of Thermate so that it doesn't take a lot. Now if a few of them were angled wrong -- you MIGHT see a puff of smoke.

A demolition would collapse the inside core FIRST, and draw the material IN towards the building -- that's how they drop floors in their own footprint. You are taking a normal demolition scenario and saying it PROVES it wasn't -- or I'm just lost with what you are saying. A normal building collapse, would have parts flying every different direction. And I don't know HOW a normal collapse would embed steel supports in buildings nearby -- another detail for the record books.

And YES, steel bends -- it doesn't usually snap. If we HAD SOME decent photos of the aftermath - we might know for sure. Unfortunately, the site was off limits and I don't see any EVIDENCE of either scenario. In the first WTC bombing, we had ample evidence and documentation and the only reason it's missing with a BIGGER event -- is that people working for the government did their best to make it that way. Why would you bother hiding everything if you had nothing to hide?

Originally posted by seethelight
So you guys never answered my questions, huh?

And you never explained why Jones would create propaganda either...

Awesome.

I wasn't here every minute of the day -- I just posted SOME answers to your questions. They weren't terribly hard or scary -- if there are more -- keep them coming.

"Why would Jones create propaganda?" WTF? Why is Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on TV and not on a park bench screaming at pigeons? Seriously? Whoever says the right things gets a great job with benefits. We've got bloggers for Exxon posting crap for $.25 a shot betraying America.

I don't follow Alex Jones, I'm sure others might have more to say -- I'm not really interested in trying to track all the SHILLS for the Kleptocracy -- there are TOO DANG MANY.

It seems to me, that once again, if I were evil and plotting this... I would make sure I had one of my people posting compelling evidence and half truths and suckering a lot of people in and then falling flat just enough to kill legitimacy.

The Bush Crime Family has ALWAYS engineered their own criticisms: After Iran/Contra, a long time Bush family friend said he had EVIDENCE that Bush met with the Iranian fundamentalists in France. The press went crazy with the news -- and then Credit Card receipts showed he was in the US at the time. Press got burned.

Bush Jr. has nobody and no evidence he ATTENDED the Army Reserve in Alabama -- which I'm sure, any real soldier would have. When CBS did an expose on Bush -- 95% of their very damning evidence was never disputed. One document, was "PROVEN" a forgery. The interesting thing was; the "experts" were a group hired by the White House, nobody else "proved anything" and CBS immediately apologized and threw Dan Rather under the bus.,

Dan Rather later took it to court, but the evidence was not heard and the appeal was thrown out; SITING INFLUENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON CBS

More with Sumner...

But there are no real reporters anymore like Greg Palast, all those people who helped little Georgie out of hot water got some serious payola and good careers -- you know, like Harriet Myers.

Oh, and we NOW learn that George Bush requested a tour in Vietnam but was turned down for more experienced pilots -- was that from the same people who got him the Senator's furlough by getting him National Guard Flight training over more experienced pilots in the first place, or the one's who destroyed all the documentation that could prove Bush wasn't AWOL?

Bush never past a test to ENTER flight training. And he has about as big a record of crashing planes as John McCain.
Here is Palast's article talking about the behind-the-scenes plots at CBS to cover up for Bush and take out the nettelsome Dan Rather

I'm late for getting out of here tonight -- just know that there are a LOT MORE incidences of the Bush Crime Family orchestrating their own criticism's. I mean; Bin Laden -- he's the biggest Goldstein ever. He comes from the ruling family, and then he leads all the people who want to take them down (al Qaeda). And Bush is still such best buddies with his family he flies them out and won't let the FBI interview them.

And of course, Sarah Palin is now leading the Tea Baggers to fight against bigger government. While her latest grandbaby is getting free health care due to his Father's
status as an American Indian decedent in Alaska. Fight the power Palin!

Oh yeah, and here is CBS burying the news about Abu Ghraib

--- doesn't seem like a company that would be backing up a guy like Dan Rather. If Nixon had today's press, he would have been in office for 4 terms at least.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
This link on WT7 is interesting since it brings into the equation certified, estimated, fire resistance for portions of the building, rather than a general overview of the building as a whole.

911review.com...

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

Show me any witness that says they heard hundreds of timed explosions and I'll check it out.

I have never seen such a thing.

In fact I've seen many truthers claim that the reason that DOESN'T EXIST is because secret government technology was used.

I've seen truthers post links to documents about "silent explosives", etc.

They say "it takes all kinds," and certainly there have been claims made within the Truth movement that I thought were pretty far out there, but it is possible, especially if there are other factions other than Al Quaeda behind the attacks, that might finance groups or individuals to make specious claims in order to discredit and divide efforts to bring out the truth.

Now, none of them know what you're talking about, and I certainly HAVE LOOKED and haven't seen anything like that, but if you show me witnesses saying they heard hundreds of timed explosives I will check it out with a VERY open mind.

So please, show me.

There are no single witnesses that claim to have heard "hundreds of explosions" and I would be somewhat suspicious if some one did. The way the attacks went down, people were fleeing, on-lookers were herded from place to place, many of the first responders are now dead. But there are hundreds of witnesses and first responders who reported hearing many explosions, and reports that included reports of "secondary [explosive] devices." Here are some of them:











I find particularly damning of the Official Story the testimony of William Rodriguez, the maintenance worker who experienced a severe explosion in the sub-basement below him moments before the first plane hit. He was a true hero that day, going back into the buildings and assisting rescue workers several times, then tirelessly raising money for the Red Cross. He received several awards/medals for his rescue efforts, and was the last man out alive, getting trapped as he helped others to safety and then being rescued himself several hours later. He gets mentioned by FDNY fireman John Schroeder in this interview, where he talks about explosions throughout the first building hit and his shock at the buildings' collapses:



He also mentions an announcement that was made to the tenants in the other tower to stay in their offices and go back to work. Was this an attempt to get a high body count for more shock value?

In researching videos for the issue of explosions, I also came across this video, which talks about the illegal removal and destruction of evidence. I hope that there will be no cat-calling about me wanting to leave the steel to hamper rescue efforts, we're talking about once the steel was moved, it was quickly cut up and sold by Rudy G and NYC to India and China. This took place while efforts were being made by forensics investigators to gain access to the dump where the steel was kept under lock and key.



It is a felony to destroy evidence from a crime scene. Yet Giuliani ran for president on his performance (a very apt description) on 9-11, instead of being tried for destroying evidence and obstructing justice. My question is, did he act alone or in concert with others, because if it's the latter case, it would be a conspiracy. If he acted on orders from the governor of NY or the president of the US, that would make it a conspiracy of nationwide importance. But those questions were never asked, and most likely never will be asked, by anyone in the DOJ. Certainly Dr. Jone's theories of nano-thermate being used would be easily settled if the building materials would have been saved.

When you have a key player in this drama taking what to any of us would seem a big risk by breaking state and federal laws to quickly destroy evidence (this was done less than 2 weeks after the attacks!), it seems reasonable to ask "why?" What could Giuliani hope to gain, or what was he trying to hide? Certainly it must have been something worth the risk that he took. But maybe--and this is totally my speculation--the risk was not as great as one might think. If he was ordered to get rid of it quickly by, say, George Bush or Cheney or Rummy or someone of their stature on a federal level, someone who could bring the power and the resources of the federal government behind Giuliani to protect him from prosecution, then the risk would be minimal. Unless, of course, the conspiracy ever saw the light of day.

I know that this last bit is perhaps deserving of its own posting, but I am curious, seethelight, as to your opinion on why Giuliani would destroy the evidence even while forensics experts were trying to access to it?

Here's a link to an interesting web site that contends small, tactical nuclear bombs were used to take down the towers. This would explain the China Syndrome aftermath, with molten metal in the basement burning for months, as well as all the radiation symptoms experienced by people who were at the scene:

wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

This link on WT7 is interesting since it brings into the equation certified, estimated, fire resistance for portions of the building, rather than a general overview of the building as a whole.

911review.com...

Wow! Excellent analysis of the NIST report. I didn't realize they had gone so far off the deep end that they now contradict all the other plausibilities they relied on in their previous analyses, although please recall that they did claim that their previous assessments had a "low probability of occurrence."

But it does lay to rest the standard explanations Deniers have relied on for so long: NIST plainly states that neither the diesel fuel tanks nor the damage from the debris being explosively ejected from the Twin Towers played a significant part in Building 7's collapse.

Although their computer-generated model of the building's collapse does not appear very similar to the videos we have all seen, there are certain to be those who will say "well of course you can't see the events shown in the simulation--you can't see the inside of the building with the floors crumbling away!" But their simulation does not show half the penthouse mechanical building collapsing, then no activity for 2 or 3 seconds, followed by the rest of the penthouse and then the rest of the building.

Great find on the review of their latest report. Makes you wonder why the folks at NIST would do such sloppy work. maybe they are just getting tired of being counted on to make the impossible come true.

I am amazed that a newspaper like the WP would even allow one of their reporters to write about the inconsistencies within the OS and NIST's work.It looks like as we approach 10th anniversary we may start seeing more articles like this.

I've been a lurker here for about 4 yrs now and I wish new registers were allowed to start topics else I wouldn't post this here.
But here goes one theory.

Operation Failsafe:
Owners of the WTC Complex had a failsafe mechanism in place should the need ever arise. The reason operation failsafe was put into play was because if there ever was a future terrorist attack on the WTC complex and the buildings were gonna fall, the owners wanted to make sure the buildings would collapse into it's on footprint instead of toppling over onto adjacent buildings like dominoes and cause even more damage. The failsafe was to PROTECT adjacent buildings and structures in case the towers WERE to topple. When the terrorist slammed those planes into the towers, that fuel ignited the failsafe and they used the thermate already present against us. The fires caused the chain reaction and the ignition of the failsafe. That's why they came down in their own footprint. Yes they were control demolitions. But they were there as a failsafe which the terrorist used against us. That's why the thermate was there. THE OWNERS PUT IT THERE as a safeguard and had no idea it would be used against us. That's why Silverstein said "Pull It". He knew about operation failsafe. And he used the failsafe on Bldg 7. That's how the thermate got into the building long before the planes ever left the runways. Notice Bin Laden and Shiek Mohammad both said they didn't expect the towers to fall. Maybe they didn't. It might have been sheer LUCK that the terrorists ignited the failsafe. And nobody wants to admit putting operation failsafe into play cuz it would make them an accessory to mass murder. Operation failsafe must have been designed to use the thermate to bring the bldgs down AFTER they had been evacuated. But the fires started the failsafe BEFORE folks got out.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Do you have any sources on this?

Second line.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

By the way, I claim Jones is a fraud, not as an ad hominem attack, but because I've seen him use photos which he KNOWS have been doctored, so that they appear to show one thing, when actually they show something else entirely.

He either knows that, or he's claiming something he hasn't researched and obviously doesn't understand.

So a fraud and a liar, or grossly negligent and incompetent.

You can call him either, I've watched him speak, he doesn't seem stupid, so I assume he knows he's lying, which makes him a pretty despicable guy.

Go watch that video and then tell me he's not lying.

I mean, just do it, man.

Couldn't be easier.

Professor Jones doesn't seem stupid to you? That surprises me, because he seems stupid to me. He speaks too slowly for TV, and doesn't handle on-the-fly questions or challenges well at all. Tucker Carlson manhandles Jones completely in this clip and discredits him by making him appear incompetent:



But that doesn't make his science wrong.

So, what video is "that video" you refer to? I've seen at least half a dozen videos of him, I can't imagine which one you mean. Please let me know which pictures in "that video" you are talking about, too, maybe by listing the time in the video where they are displayed. If what you say is true, then it would appear that he is not being entirely honest about his research, although that does not invalidate the science, which still classifies your argument as an ad hominem attack. For example, George Bush is a patently dishonest person who ordered security agencies to violate the rights of American citizens, lied to Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and started not one but two illegal wars of aggression against sovereign nations, which are crimes against humanity. So he's a liar, a scoundrel, a murderer, and a conspirator. But if he stood up & gave a factual talk on dolphins, claiming that his statement that dolphins are mammals and not fish is false based on his well-evidenced failures of character does not invalidate that statement and does qualify as an ad hominem attack.

But regarding Prof. Jones, how do you "know" that he knows the photographs (you claim are false) are false? In the case of a demonstration's audio-visual aid, someone would have to tell him it was wrong. There's no way to be sure that he read whatever you read , is there? Someone writing something about you or about something you wrote or said is no assurance that you are going to read it. Is there some way that you "know" beyond reasonable doubt that he knows that the pictures he uses to illustrate his point is a misrepresentation?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Do you have any sources on this?

Second line.

It's just a theory bro. No sources other than
my imagination.

It's one theory that I have not heard brought up here
on this web site and wanted to share my thoughts.
Maybe the thermate was there for an intended good
purpose but ignited unexpectedly by the jet fuel's intense
fireball in WTC 1 & 2. And used intentionally by owner's
in Bldg 7. Bldg 7 was basically evacuated before it came
down. Stands to reason.


Do we even know how much anti-terror planning
and protocols are implemented in high security areas?
Every building I know has a fire exit strategy, a bomb threat
strategy, who says they can't have a failsafe in the event of a
terrorist attack?

Maybe this was an extra-insurance counter measure safety
feature gone terribly wrong or implemented prematurely
due to fire.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
It's just a theory bro. No sources other than
my imagination.

It's one theory that I have not heard brought up here
on this web site and wanted to share my thoughts.
Maybe the thermate was there for an intended good
purpose but ignited unexpectedly by the jet fuel's intense
fireball in WTC 1 & 2. And used intentionally by owner's
in Bldg 7. Bldg 7 was basically evacuated before it came
down. Stands to reason.

Fair enough. I read it as a matter of fact post so my bad then I guess. It is an interesting theory. I would have thought something like that might make sense but then I also thought we would have heard from some of the people that designed or implemented such a thing since it would have been long before 9/11 and I am sure they would want people to know that they watched the government lie. That is just me though.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Yeah, politics. This isn't treason now, this isn't mass murder now, this isn't evidence of an extremely serious crime now. this isn't terrorism now- this is POLITICS!

No, it remains planted four-square in the Stupidity section of life. CIT still doesn't have witnesses who saw the aircraft pull up and fly over the Pentagon, PfT still don't understand departure procedures from a major airport nor what a "Prohibited" flight area is. Gage still doesn't understand cardboard boxes, Jones doesn't understand earthquakes. The ATS supporters of the aforementioned lunatics don't understand reality.

Its STUPIDITY!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
... but then I also thought we would have heard from some of the people that designed or implemented such a thing since it would have been long before 9/11 and I am sure they would want people to know that they watched the government lie. That is just me though.

we did!!! Silverstein said in his interview that they made the decision
to pull and they watched the building come down. But we have never
gotten clarification on that statement.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
we did!!! Silverstein said in his interview that they made the decision
to pull and they watched the building come down. But we have never
gotten clarification on that statement.

Sure we have had that clarified. Just read these boards. The OSers will tell you that he meant the firemen. Then when reminded the firemen were already gone, they just claim that he had no authority to tell them to pull a building. Then when reminded he also does not have the authority to pull the firemen either, they start over.

Now when you remind them that his actual words were "They made the decision to pull" they change the subject altogether.

How is that not clear?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
How is that not clear?

yep seems clear to me
that they're avoiding the content
on camera. Wanna dance ??? lol

reply to post by seethelight


Seethelight, I never said that was total proof my friend.
In fact, that is a misleading title in my opinion. The person who created it
shouldn't have emphasized the title in such a way. So, I agree it's not
TOTAL 100% truth. Though, I did expect you to bring that up.

Anyway, with that said, I see your point.
BUT, the simple point I'm 'attempting' to get across, and I speak for some out there, is that it just doesn't seem to fit logic or rational, period.
BOTH towers were hit at nearly the top.
WTC7 was behind ANOTHER building.
YET, they all seem to fall down in the same exact manner (okay, maybe not 100% exactly Seethelight, but you know what I mean).
You have bush on tape lying about the incident on camera: www.youtube.com...
(Please don't say "it could have been a minor mistake")

So, my overall question is: If the government had absolutely no involvement, and 9/11 Truthers are just typical, crazy conspirators, then why don't they just get the investigation over with? If they know Alex Jones is out there promoting this "Anti-American Lie", with such a huge following, then why not just shut us all up? Prove us wrong and get it all over with?

Why not?



[edit on 08/16/2009 by 11Indigo11]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by bsbray11

 

This an incredibly bogus response.

So one side of the truther movement says all the steel beams we're sold to China... the other side says all the steel was pulverised....

riiiiiiight...

And btw,, here's some serious questions for you:

Name another non-steel-re-enforced concrete building over 40 storeys tall.

Now name one that's been hit by a giant plane full of fuel and not collapsed.

You can't do either.

Show me evidence of peopple claiming to hear the hundreds of timed explosives it would take to demo the WTC.

Explain why the WTC is the only demo in history that started 3/4 of the way up.

Explain why it was the only demo to only fall at free fall speed for about 1/8 of its collapse.

Explain why prominent truther Stephen Jones would repeatedly use an obviously false photo in his big scientific paper.

Explain why, if the info is SO conclusive less than 1/10th of 1% of all licensed engineers has publicly gone on record against the OS after 8.5 years of research.

---

Those are serious question which I have asked repeatedly to you serious researchers, but which none of you will bother answering... if this is sooooooooo clear cut, it should be easy to answer them.

OK, I believe a lot of these points have been addressed, but I want to put them into a post with full quotations of your list so that you can't pull any of your typical shenanigans and claim that they weren't all answered.

On the very first one, don't you mean non-concrete-reinforced steel building? If not, there are the Petronas Towers. Regardless, I do feel this question is irrelevant because the core of the WTC Twin Towers was steel reinforced by concrete. So what we have is a concrete-reinforced steel core, with a non-concrete-reinforced steel curtain outer perimeter wall. At the time of its construction, it was unique and allowed the buildings to be much taller than with conventional methods of the day. Notably, the Towers' central cores were contructed so that they could NOT carry fire up and down the building. The elevators for one section would be offset in relation to the shafts for the sections above and below, making it impossible for a chimney effect to occur, or for fire to use the shafts to spread--another innovative design for the Twin Towers.

On the second question, you are also being irrelevant by your use of vague phrases like "giant plane full of fuel." How about you answer me one? Give me an example of a "giant plane?" Because the Boeing 757 and 767 are hardly the largest things in the sky. The Boeing 777 and 747 are larger, as is a C-130, an MD-11, a Lockheed L-1011, or an Airbus A380. Nor were the tanks "full" on the jets that hit the Twin Towers.

Honestly, why do you think that you are so clever? Seems blatant that you are attempting to build a logical cage by laying the foundation of limits around your "super question" that will show that since there are no other buildings with the same construction as the WTC that have been hit with "giant planes full of fuel" there can be no apples-and-apples comparisons made. Except of course, to each other. And they both collapsed--from fire and collision damage--in a neat 110% correlation, thereby proving that planted explosives are unnecessary for the Towers to have fallen, ergo no controlled demolition. The problem is, your foundation does not fit the circumstances of the WTC, therefore, this is a red herring fallacy. If have the courage to make declarative statements that are easily understood, please do so instead of using this tired, trite, "I'll ask questions that make YOU tell my idea in a way that you can't refute" tactic that is obviously beyond your language skills to pull off.

Your third question also seeks to limit the debate in ways that make you "win," but only if one is naive enough to grant that your arbitrary limits on the question a) are valid in that they restrict from answer all unreasonable, incorrect, and incoherent responses, and, b) do not preclude similar or dissimilar answers or situations that also support the "truther" or "faither" claim that explosions were heard, seen, or experienced that support the concept that the Twin Towers' collapse could or must have been undertaken using explosive devices.

I'm not going to grant you either of those concessions. I have provided you with plenty of video evidence that "many explosions"were heard, seen, or experienced by hundreds of victims, survivors, first responders, and onlookers throughout the morning up to and until the towers collapsed, and that the number and severity and placement of and timing of those explosions lends credibility to the concept of a controlled, and novel, demolition. (If you want to a list that proves actual hundreds, since there are only tens of witnesses on the links I provided earlier, you will have to make that request specifically, and I will post the list in a new thread here.)

Your next question is a burden of proof fallacy, so that forces me to ask you to prove that a) the collapses started 3/4 way up the buildings of all three (or even just both the Towers) and b) that no other demolitions have started 3/4 the way up in history. Once you have done that, it becomes a red herring fallacy. Where is the relevance? The starting point of the demolition does not prove or disprove whether a demolition has occurred, does it?

Again, the next question is another burden of proof fallacy. You are making a claim that the Twin Towers and building 7 collapsed in a prescribed manner, and you are asking a question based on that claim. Prove it, so I can answer your question.

Your next question, on Professor Jones, I also answered above--it is plausible that no one has told him about it, maybe because those who could don't believe it, right or wrong. He may not have read the critique you have and may be unaware of it's bogusness.

Your next question is an ad populum fallacy. The truth or falsity of a claim is not determined by how many people approve of it. Your question again, is irrelevant, and again, suggests that this "prove your point with questions" tactic or strategy is beyond your command of the language.

Actually the last group of "questions" that each begins with "Explain" are demands, not questions, anyway. Nearly out of space, continued...