Reply #37: All debunked. All of it. [View All]

[longship]

Explosions in a burning office building? I'm shocked, utterly shocked. Must be planted explosives, eh? BZZZZZZZZ.
I'm sorry, Mr PetGoat. There are many, many sources for explosions in a large office building which are not controlled demolition. First of all, catastrophic failure is almost *always* accompanied by very large bangs which anybody who's seen it happen would only describe as an "explosive" failure. But I guess you've never been around an engineering test laboratory so you might not know that. Second, there are many other sources in an office building which explode when heated, like in a fire. Electrical transformers are a notable example, but there are many others.

TV news reports? Yes, CNN reported that Flight 11 was a small airplane before what really happened sank in. So much for TV news reports. They are not definitive evidence.

Eyewitness testimony? Talk to the firemen on the scene about WTC 7. Small fires? Bullshit. And talk to all the witnesses, not just the cherry picked ones. And quote their entire statements, not just out-of-context snippets. And don't forget your fifth grade English class lesson on simile and metaphor.

Squibs? More bollocks. When a floor collapses, the air is squeezed out and is forced through any available openings. It carries the dust and debris from the collapse with it. This would happen if it were controlled demolition or not. So you *CANNOT* use these puffs of debris as evidence for controlled demolition.

None of the buildings fell in free-fall. None of them. Look at the debris cascading down around the falling towers when they collapsed. The debris, which looks like an umbrella shape, is falling in free fall and is falling faster than the floors are collapsing. So your claim that the buildings fell in near-free fall is debunked. Scientists at the seismic station whose data is usually cited by conspiracy theorists have said quite clearly that their data is being misused and misinterpreted, that the towers fell slower than free fall by a significant enough amount that the data could only have been deliberately misinterpreted!

Symmetric collapse from asymmetrical damage. And you would expect what from a 110 story building? Or even a 47 story building? The only way a building that tall can collapse is into its own footprint. Simple physics and freshman engineering. Really! This is another example of bad science from the conspiracy lunatics.

But all you kooks have been told this before. But it won't stop you from making the same stupid responses again, and again, and again, and again.

I'm done with you idiots.