They said the magical jet fuel traveled down 90 something floors to blow it up....

It must have traveled down in seconds because eyewitnesses stated that there was an explosion moments after the plane hit. http://youtu.be/rQk3XXBot9c

*They discredit eyewitnesses when it works in our favor, but use them for explanation with the planes, pentagon, and the sound of explosions.

They said the magical jet fuel traveled down 90 something floors to blow it up....

Magical indeed.

Given the design of the WTC's elevator system, it would seem unlikely that any appreciable amount of jet fuel (most of which atomized and burnt on impact) could have made it to the basement.

World Trade Center Elevators

That fireball encountered upon impact was the 95th percentile of the fuel burning up. Very little made it into the building to burn. The black smoke is indicative of a lack of fire and oxygen. Simple office fires at that point.

Indeed, and reviewing videos of the second plane impacting the towers, we see that the fuel burnt off so quickly that NONE of it made it to the ground outside the towers.

I'm not sure why the "debunkers" would assume that it would have made it all the way down to the basement via the elevator shafts - in liquid form.

Yep and the volume of the fuel had to magically grow to have sufficient fuel to cover the area they claim it did.

We need to tap into that magic way of growing fuel out of thin air. It would solve the global energy crisis.

eye witnesses are the worst piece of evidence you can possibly use

eye witnesses are the worst piece of evidence you can possibly use

Do you feel that way about ALL eyewitness testimonies, or are you willing to make exceptions under "special circumstances"?

What exceptions? People have HORRIBLE memory, it is a very tricky thing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-eyewitness-testimony-too-unreliable-to-trust

http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/08/eyewitness-testimony-on-trial

tl;dr: people are stupid and don't know what they really saw/heard

What exceptions? People have HORRIBLE memory, it is a very tricky thing

I was thinking of the Nuremberg Trials and Holocaust survivors, actually.

Certainly you don't question any of THOSE eyewitness testimonies, do you?

do i question that they said they were in the holocaust? do i question that there was gas chambers? no. do i question their statement that "so and so pulled out his 9mm luger and shot 6 people" sure. specifics are hard to remember. are you sure it was a luger? are you sure it was 6? are you sure it was so and so? THATS where memory gets fuzzy

Do you know what isn't "fuzzy", the reports of SURVIVORS that tell of devastation in the LOBBY - corroborated by video showing a firefighter passing through said lobby - with bare walls that had once been covered in marble (see 1:28:09).

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

what are you trying to say that it was or wasn't a bomb? bare walls? ok wwhat does that have to do with anything? what do bare walls mean?

what are you trying to say that it was or wasn't a bomb? bare walls? ok wwhat does that have to do with anything? what do bare walls mean?

Considering that said bare walls (that minutes before were faced with stone - marble) were in the lobby, and that dozens of stories of skyscraper were there to absorb the shock of the planes impacting high above, it would seem unlikely that the impact of the planes caused the marble to dislodge (and the windows to blow out, and the light fixtures to dangle from the lobby ceilings, etc.)

This, coupled with the statements of numerous witnesses (including seasoned firefighters), gives credence to the allegation that an explosion - an extremely powerful explosion, took place either on the ground floor or below.

What's your theory on the cause of said explosion?

ok.. but what is the purpose of the bomb? I thought thermite brought down the towers.. a bomb goes off in the basement but doesn't do any damage except knock off the marble? like i am just confused on what you think it means that no marble was on the wall..

to disable the emergency sprinkler system.

if the building does not burn, then they cannot claim fire weakened it enough to bring it down.

same thing happened at WTC7, big explosion wrecked the lobby/basement, disabled sprinkler system.

um...sprinkler systems aren't in the basement.. in big buildings like that they have what is called "machine rooms" or sometimes maintenance rooms which are empty floors with no offices with a bunch of equipment like water/hvac things like that. a water system in the basement would not be able to provide the pressure needed for sprinklers

Source: I work for an engineering firm

Regardless, it served it's purpose. The key supports needed to be destroyed prior. Te building would have remained standing if the central structure, concrete reinforced with steel - surrounding the elevator shafts, remained intact. Something that the impact was incapable of destroying. This was the pre collapse destruction.

The simplest of physics does not allow for the weight of the building to come crashing down, pulverizing to dust everything below it. Only high explosives are cspible of turning concrete reinforced heavily with steel into dust. This behabior is not reconcilable with the official lie.

thank you for your opinion engineer. Again.. the building fell from the top down. weakening anything at the bottle would not have mattered. controlled demolitions also do not happen from top down but bottom up

controlled demolitions also do not happen from top down but bottom up

That is just a complete lie:

Top down controlled demolition.

Guess who also planned and oversaw another top down demolition in 2000? The same company that upgraded the almost exact floors where the airplanes hit and participated in the WTC debris removal. Oh, did I say that it was the first and only demolition that company was part of, at least until 911?

ok.. but why does it matter what floors the plane hit if the building was set up to go own anyway? you are making connections that don't make sense. so what?

The building had to be weakened before being brought down, like normal demolitions do, that section could have been weakened after impact and then when it was done, press the trigger and it all comes down.

This is just my guess out of the blue, can be a completely different reason, if you really want to know with more in depth, google is your friend.

ok.. so why does it matter the plane hit around the same floors that were "upgraded"? like so what?

I just told you, to prepare the building structure before the final collapse by weakening it.

Crash the plane, start the pre-weakening process (thermite cutting structure links, for example), when it is over, initiate demolition at X time.

The key supports needed to be removed before any collapse would have occurred. The damage from the impact was not even close to enough to fell the overenginerred towers. Towers that were in fact designed, created, and built to specifically withstand exactly what occurred that day. The impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner at top speed. The central columns that we are discussing were more than strong enough to keep the towers standing by themselves.

The fantasy you've developed to support your flawed theory has been destroyed in this thread. The elevators did not run top to bottom, and the fuel was admittedly burned in the massive fireball upon impact. Leaving virtually nothing to seep down the elevator shaft, move across thr floor, seep down the elevator to the basement, and then start fires that resulted in explosions that subsequently destroyed the lobby and basement.

It was clearly planted explosives. The top of the building did not have enough energy to come crashing down, destroying all floors below it. Turning steel reinforced concrete not to rubble, but primarily to dust. Look to any other collapsed building, and find a single one that resulted in concrete turned primarily to dust.

Hell, the fact that they did not test for explosives, coupled with the rushed disposal of evidence, shipped to China should tell you much. You're publicly supporting a lie. A lie that the majority of American and world citizens are clearly aware of. A little behind the times, I'm afraid. Prior to all the lies that gave the warmongers a blank check, their "new Pearl Harbor" right on queue, the people would have believed you. Now that everything has been proven corrupt, not so much.

ok.. but what is the purpose of the bomb?

Gee, I don't know. What was the purpose of planting a bomb in the WTC in 1993?

I thought thermite brought down the towers..

You did? Wow. I never had you figured as a "Truther".

a bomb goes off in the basement but doesn't do any damage except knock off the marble?

That's a silly thing to say. Like saying the only damage done by the bullet that hit JFK's head was to spatter blood all over the limo.

like i am just confused on what you think it means that no marble was on the wall..

It indicates that there was a major explosion - likely in the lower levels - and that it was powerful enough to send shock waves through the lobby that were strong enough to cause significant damage.

What was the target? I can't say for sure, but weakening the central core columns would be a good guess.

The camera doesn't lie.

Like ones who tell you about babies getting hurt before Desert Storm? That kind?

How do you think a Jury rules on a verdict?? LoL, evidence and eyewitnesses.

Or the law, yaknow

Who claims the crimes occurred? That the laws were run afoul?

Human perception and persuasion does not constitute as fact and evidence

Facts stand true regardless of personal take or opinion.

They said it looked like a controlled demolition because evrtyone could see that it was a controlled demolition. Impossible with the story they claimed. The facts and physics of the Michael Bay style event are clear.

Eyewitnesses are still the worst pieces of "evidence" there are. Video is available and is less biased, more concrete of a fact and better as far as evidence is concerned.

On another note, how many of those eyewitnesses saw the towers fall with their eyes, not on video, and had seen enough controlled demolitions before to draw on their knowledge and make a comparison?

It looks like a controlled demolition to me and I've studied on the subject and watched videos.

That still doesn't discount the fact that eyewitness accounts have been proven to be shit in cases. Concerning my comment above, just because a jury is swayed by an eyewitness testimony doesn't qualify it as fact. It is merely a retelling of events as they make someone perceive them.

Which physical evidence supports. This is not the case with the official government conspiracy theory.

Do you not fucking follow the conversation you join? Fuck man, I didn't say that it doesn't appear as a freefall. In fact I agree that it was a demolition. That still doesn't fucking affect the original point I was making that eyewitnesses are shit and you don't even address that in your side remarks.

Neither does a government lie.

yeah thats what they use. the thing is it has been PROVEN that eye witnesses are so fucking bad as evidence they shouldn't even be used. Just like how we don't allow lie detectors

Yeah, yeah, proven. Just like they proved the jet fuel blew up the basement, which goes against all logic. My point of posting the video was to shed light on the fact that a person got critically injured less than a few seconds after the bomb, I mean plane, hit the building. So, with that said how in the hell did the jet fuel cause that? No way it traveled that fast down 90 floors to blow in the basement.

so if they used thermite why would they use a bomb as well? and a random one in the basement

always the questions never the answers

i am still trying to figure out why "they" would use "drones" to fly into the WTC when they already had 4 perfectly good airplanes with autopilot, only to use thermit AND bombs

of course you are.

meanwhile, i am still trying to figure out why you aren't banned yet

That bitchin technology used to bring down all three towers with conventional explosives apparently is too much for some to understand. I love how they will hang on to one simple piece, as if not being able to answer one question somehow negates all of the other evidence that clearly runs against the grain of the official conspiracy theory (commonly known to most as a lie).

Hey, he's just asking questions.

notsureifserious

No, he isn't. He's 14ing and 17ing.

Hey, why are you attacking him!? He's just asking questions, guys! He's not forcing his opinions on you, just trying to help you see the truth!

The topic at hand is the collapse of the basement prior to the towers falling. He's derailing the discussion from that topic.

10 day account.

words and knowledge buy credibility, not account age

Well, you certainly have words.

Because hijacking one plane at a precise time is hard. Hijacking 4 planes in close time frames is considerably more difficult. Odds are the planes were remote controlled. Whether the original planes or planes substituted is hard to say. I dont have any of the redacted information.

they people saying eye witnesses are bad aren't 9/11 people.. its pretty much scientists and police and everyone who knows how bad they are.. the two have nothing to do with eachother

If witnesses are so bad, drop to the physical evidence. The official lie does not even begin to cover the video and photographic evidence. We clearly watched a pre-planned demolition that morning. The security firm responsible. The unplanned power outages prior to the event. The acting, to make the towers appear full, when in fact they were hardly occupied. The lowest they had ever been occupied. The suspicious companies that conveniently broke their lease just prior to the fateful morning. The insider trading - thr put options on stocks they knew would spiral out of control. The warnings that some people received prior. The video editing, tower rendering issues. The obvious editing of the video colors and quality. Bush and Cheney going on cipro far prior to the anthrax attacks. Both Bush and Cheney criminally giving their side of the lies while not under oath, or recorded in any fashion. Even simple work notes.

It is so incredibly clear what occurred that morning and afternoon.

The eyewitness in question does not describe a secondary explosion. They felt the plane hit the building. That was, obviously, an explosion felt moments after the plane hit. You know. As it was caused by the plane. Hitting the building. Then exploding.

Well obviously you didn't watch the video, or just had it on mute. If you watched it for the first minute you would have heard Mr. Rodriguez state that after hearing the initial rumble, which was the "plane" hitting the building, a fellow co-worker runs into the room with all of his skin hanging off. That jet fuel traveled fast down 90 something floors didn't it?

I agree with you, r/conspiratard, in fact the person in question did change his testimony a "bit" when compared to the first one.

In the later years he stated the he heard an explosion from under his feet before the airplane hit but in his first reports he didn't mention any of this.

Wether it is a lie or not I stand by saying that his testimony is not reliable, at least until someday evidence proves him right.

I am not being sarcastic here, I am actually taking your side on this one because it is reasonable.

Ok. Upvote for you for everyone maintaining a calm reasonable head.

I simply think testimony, years after the fact, which contradicts his original testimony made while it was fresh in his head, should be not viewed as more credible. You always have to take all eyewitness testimony, regardless of source or age, with a grain of salt. I'll just leave this here.

(Edited to sound less snarky)

But, I don't see how testimony, years after the fact, which contradicts his original testimony made while it was fresh in his head, should be viewed as more credible.

It absolutely isn't, that is why I consider his later testimony to be not reliable.

If anything, his first fresh testimony is more credible than his latest.

Sorry, guess I edited that as you were replying. I realized you were agreeing with me completely so changed it slightly.

Anyway.... tips hat

I worked in the North Tower and WTC7 and it looks to me like the dust coming up from that video is coming out at street level on the Westside Highway on the west side of the North Tower and not from the collapsed trench that's in your first photo. I'm willing to be wrong on this one but don't think I am.

But otherwise good work here. I've never seen that first pic or even heard that this collapse occurred. The detractors here be damned, jet fuel running down 80 flights of elevator shafts [it's basically kerosene so its steel weakening properties are yet unproven] and igniting an inferno hot enough to collapse that much steel and concrete pad is just wishful hopeful thinking by those who don't want their worldview shattered or are hired thug-typists of the controling-elite in my opinion.

That's a big trench with a massive amount of support structure blown away. Is there an "official" accounting of how this happened?

I worked in the North Tower and WTC7 and it looks to me like the dust coming up from that video is coming out at street level on the Westside Highway on the west side of the North Tower and not from the collapsed trench that's in your first photo. I'm willing to be wrong on this one but don't think I am.

You are absolutely right, they are not both the same location but they are both connected underground, the point of that smoke picture is to indicate that the basement was producing smoke at that location to link it to the explosions recorded on video and eleminate the possibility of it being just a vehicle on fire, which is confirmed on the other video once the jet dust rises during the collapse.

They are not both the same place but they are both connected and the smoke rising from it strongly indicates that there was activity inside the basement, such activity that produced a white/caramel/dirt smoke, like the smoke of structure elements being destroyed.

EDIT; Forgot to answer your question

That's a big trench with a massive amount of support structure blown away. Is there an "official" accounting of how this happened?

Not that I know of, this issue was never explained in the official version.

Conventional explosives, taking out the key supports. A requirement to fell all three towers. Happened like clockwork, for the world to see. Those who believe the fantasy have a difficult time reconciling the evidence with what occurred.

I used to think the same thing. I totally thought that the buildings came down with controlled demolitions of some sort.

A few months ago I watched a video on youtube that changed my mind. For anyone that has not seen "Where did the Towers Go?" link:http://youtu.be/RqbcsU0_RjU The theory proposed is that the buildings where collapsed with a directed energy weapon. One of the points of evidence in the video to support the theory is that of toasted cars. I had never seen the images or videos the OP has posted here. To me this is just more evidence that supports the theory in "where did the towers go".

Instead of just down voting me if you do not agree, please respond with why you disagree so that we can have an intellectual discussion about this topic. I want the truth as much as anyone of you.

I just want an independent investigation.

I find the directed energy theory too far fetched for me to buy with any real conviction. We know the official story has massive holes in it I see no reason to introduce alternative theories.

The independent investigation would hopefully address alternative viable truthful results

PS EDIT; More people need to remember

Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.

An independent investigation would be wonderful. I wish for one as well. Since the chances of that are slim to 0, my thought is that the best we can do is independent research (like is done here) and share what we have learned with all that we know. That way the truth still gets disseminated, circumventing the propaganda machines.

so that the missing gold and other preciousss missing from the basement vaults, likely carted off in ambulances and fire trucks, doesn't get spotted for a long, long time ...

see: multiple gunshot bodies and blood stains found in subway transit/system, Rodriguez testimony et al

"Oh, lord, didn't I say it would be an interesting fantasy to read? And from no one else but a r/conspiratard." What happened on 9/11

by: /u/75000_Tokkul

Upvotes: 48 | Downvotes: 23 | Timestamp of this thread.

Upvotes: 3 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.

If this was an error, send me a message

I would suggest you to listen to Dimitri Khalezov theory. He's suggesting that there was tree nuclear underground explosions that resulted in the collapse of WT1,2 and 7. His theory would explain a lot in terms of near free fall collapse. Steel truning to dust. Mini earthquake before the collapse of WT1. And the underground fire that last months after the collapse.

I already researched that theory and I do not agree with it, one of the main reasons is the shockwave necessary to cause the damage to the core along it's height would also destroy the windows through it's path or at least produce a noticeable movement/morphing of the outter structure.

I find that theory to be far-fetched in order to accomodate the points of "it would need a lot of explosives to bring it all down" and "they would need a lot of people and time to plant all of those explosives".

How can a basement collapse? It is a hole. If you want to claim the building collapsed in to the basement, go ahead. The entire premise you're positing is flawed.

I never claimed such thing, do not attempt to put things in my mouth.

Something caused the basement to collapse and since fire couldn't have done it, debris didn't and the collapse didn't, there is only one explanation for it, afaik.

You accuse me of having a flawed premise yet you didn't debunk anything and you even assumed something that was a false.

I stand by logic and fact. Thank you. I will put things in your mouth if I want to.

I stand by logic and fact.

I will put things in your mouth if I want to.

Ladies and gentlemen, the typical debunker.

Flawed that we have physical evidence that supports multiple explosions in the basement. Hell, the videos of the lobby should tell you much about what occurred.

Gravity

Edit: ok too snarky.

However the main dark area appears to be the set of chairs in the before photo with a bit of blurryness from the poor photo in a darker area due to building shadows. The extra dark area further to the right appears to be a mass of building shell with a burnt backside that fell off the tower, note the vertical bits that match the columns.

However the main dark area appears to be the set of chairs in the before photo with a bit of blurryness from the poor photo in a darker area due to building shadows.

Can be the chairs, certainly!

The extra dark area further to the right appears to be a mass of building shell with a burnt backside that fell off the tower, note the vertical bits that match the columns.

You know that the floor was already filled with the alluminium covers, especially in that place, and those are it hanging on the ledge of the collapse, right?

If not then I will be waiting for you to show me that mass of building shell that fell. There are plenty of videos recording the towers until they collapse, I am sure that if you are right you will find it falling right on that spot.

So all the debris would have a place to pile in to.

Elevator shaft's are actually airplane funnels?

Didn't you know? The 911 airplanes were special! They could be at 2 different places at the same time while evading 80 pentagon cameras, they could also bury themselves so well that most of the airplane could not be recovered, especially the 40 passengers that were in it!

911 was a magical day!

Zeus vaporized it with his lightning, as he was upset with the hubris of the men in those buildings. Hades helped him by opening up the earth, and by making the fires bigger than possible with the quantity of fuel.

The Gods have their way.

Seems as plausible as the official story. We seem to be regressing to times when if a person of authority tells a story the MASSES eat it up and will even defend the story, even if it cannot exist unless they also believe in magical forces, the boogeyman, and Santa Claus.

Zeus story makes more sense than the official story because it explains why body pieces were found so far from the WTC towers that they could only have reached those distances if they were blown away.

I am now a believer of the Zeus story!

He saved their ID's tho. Such a convenient god.

And a perfectly clean and intact bandana too that was being used by a person obliterated in the one of a kind bury-it-self-airplane crash!

It makes a bit more sense than the official story. At least it plainly states it is magical powers that made it happen. :)

At least it plainly states it is magical powers that made it happen

Exactly, in a fantasy world anything can happen!

In this case yes. I mean they wanted those 3 buildings to go down, they didn't want other stuff getting wrecked.

Elevator shafts. The burning jet fuel fell down them and started explosions and fires across the whole building. This would, presumably, include the basement.

Oh, lord, didn't I say it would be an interesting fantasy to read? And from no one else but a r/conspiratard.

Are you seriously stating that there was enough fuel to travel down the elevator shafts - after it was practically consumed on impact - started fires across the whole building - where is your evidence? - and caused explosions in the basement so strong that it destroyed concrete reinforced columns?

What was inside the basement that could produce such a strong explosion when ignited by the fire? Vehicles?

Are you literally stating that an exploding vehicle has the same force as a bomb capable of destroying multiple support columns?

The same cars on the street that were burned down provided such a strong explosion that destroys support columns, but leaves the vehicle carcass intact?

Care to provide evidence that supports your claim or you'll just keep writting words that violate common sense?

Even by a debunker's standards, claiming that fire caused explosions that destroyed the basement columns is ludacris.

EDIT: I post my reply, 30s later I already have a downvote, that's r/conspiratard for you, folks!

EDIT2: 2 3 5 downvotes on the thread, 2 3 5 downvotes on my reply, nice! And rising, r/conspiratards are having fun with this!

Just so everyone sees how delusional his reply is, here you have the basement support columns still standing after the 1993 wtc bombing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Not one of the columns is down and urthen is saying that fire did what a bomb couldn't.

Debunker's truly live in a world of delusion.

maybe you got downvoted because you're trying to pass off utter bullshit as fact

Like saying that fuel can explode 3 times in the same shaft stronger each time it does the further it gets? "utter bullshit as fact", now that's the official story stamp.

who knows what kind of explosions all those chemtrail chemicals can make though! Remember that all planes have those too.

I don't know, I never believed in the chemtrail story. You should ask that to the people that are responsible for 100000 deaths in Iraq because of a WMD lie, maybe they know it. Or the people that said that the 19 terrorists were afghan when they were actually from saudi arabia, or the people that invaded afghanistan without having any confirmation that they had anything to do with 911.

Ask those people about the chemtrails chemicals.

I think they already got with their logic-cancelling chemicals, are you wearing your tin foil hat? They could already be controlling you with microwaves too!

You really are a childish person.

fuck you're already a lost cause. I'll alert our brothers in /r/conspiracy!! The truth will be heard!

EDIT: I post my reply, 30s later I already have a downvote, that's r/conspiratard for you, folks!

EDIT2: 2 3 5 downvotes on the thread, 2 3 5 downvotes on my reply, nice! And rising, r/conspiratards are having fun with this!

God you are paranoid. Stop trying to blame them for all of your problems.

Also, maybe you should check out the reddit faq

How is a comment's score determined?

According to the same principles as a submission's score.

A comment's score is simply the number of upvotes minus the number of downvotes. If five users like the comment and three users don't it will have a score of 2. Please note that the vote numbers are not "real" numbers, they have been "fuzzed" to prevent spam bots etc. So taking the above example, if five users upvoted the comment, and three users downvote it, the upvote/downvote numbers may say 23 upvotes and 21 downvotes, or 12 upvotes, and 10 downvotes. The points score is correct, but the vote totals are "fuzzed".

Also, maybe you should check out the reddit faq

umadbrah? Is it because I specifically said "r/conspiratards" and hurt your feelings?

And don't try to pass it off as some reddit feature, in 30s I already had 0 points from 1 downvote, then I had -1, -2, -3 and so on.

That's not just how many downvotes I had, that's the points as well. r/tard logic strikes again! Go back to defending the Iraq invasion based on WMD lies, your government needs you.

Oooh, youtube links, we've truly crossed the threshold into credible reporting now.

1. I'd imagine vehicles were stored in the basement, yes. They tend to contain fuel. Fuel starts fires. Fires tend to destroy things.
2. It takes a surprisingly low-pressure explosion to break down walls. Source: 42-year vetran NYPD fire chief Notice: It takes less pressure to knock down a brick wall than it does to cause lung damage.
3. I'm not going to watch an hour and a half youtube video to find your source for the fuel/elevator shaft math. Seriously. Please stop linking to this shit when attempting to counter debunkers. We want articles. Something we can scan for salient points. I'm going to substitute this article, let me know if you think this is unfair: http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-cover-up-jet-fuel-caused-the-incendiary-explosions-in-the-wtc-lobby/5358433
4. The assumptions made by this article are massive. They assume the jet fuel spread perfectly evenly across the floor. A simple thought experiment shows that isn't likely true: There are walls and corridors all in the way. Where to corridors tend to lead? Oh, right! The elevators!
5. Even assuming only the amount of fuel in the article is correct, the article posits that all fuel would have been absorbed by the walls. This might be true if it were a slow leak, or you perform the entirely unscientific experiment (like the article did) of throwing some kerosene on a wall, but this was 120 gallons falling straight down. Most of it wouldn't touch a wall.

1. useless point, never argued that fire didn't destroy things

2. walls =/= ground but nice try, it is as good when you guys compare wtc7 with a house of cards

3. I linked you to the important part of the hour and a half, which is just a couple of minuts, but it is nice to see that you still reject it because "it's shit". You demand articles and yet NIST provided absolutely none proving that the jet fuel could have reached the lobby or the basement, while I provided a video that explains it clearly. You are so full o shit.

4. Please provide evidence that the jet fuel was channeled to the elevator shafts.

5. Still more than what NIST did about proving that jet fuel could travel down the shafts. And you are still left explaining how 120 gallons could have exploded the lobby to the point of removing the marble from the walls and still reach the basement in order to set fire to something else.

One of the problems with your version is that you interpret everything without providing any evidence to back it up or providing evidence to something that is not correct. Just like claiming that 20 floors can obliterate 95 with gravity alone, defying the basic laws of physics.

And one more thing, had it been fire in the basement then why isn't any smoke coming out of the hole? You know, the fire that vehicles produce for a long long time?

Pathetic, it's like watching someone bury themselves with their own hands. At least this has been very entertaining.

Here's how debunkers work:

"provide a witness proving what you say"

"nah, that witness is worthless because he is a nutjob"

"nah, witnesses are worthless because they are unreliable"

"provide evidence proving your point"

"nah, that video is too long, ain't gonna watch that"

"nah, youtube videos are worthless, provide a study from an official entity"

Always demanding more everytime we provide with what they ask.

1. Fine.
2. Walls are destroyed = shit on top of them tends to fall down
3. Sorry, you did link to the right time, I just ignore youtube in general because of the reasons I mentioned. I watched a few minutes and it seems like the same arguments as in the article.
4. Please provide evidence it wasn't. We don't have evidence either way. We can only make reasonable assumptions. See next question.
5. Let's just isolate this particular controversy: a) jet fuel falling down elevators caused explosions in the lobby b) planted explosives did.

So, what evidence do we conclusively have:

1. There were planes of some kind
2. Planes have jet fuel in them
3. The towers have elevators in them
4. Jet fuel falls down elevators given the chance
5. There was fire around, so the jet fuel was on fire, within reasonable certainty.
6. There were explosions out of the elevators in the lobby.

So, both A and B could fit given the known evidence. I'll give you that. But, A requires very little additional evidence to be a reasonable theory. B requires much more.

1. Someone would have had to have planted the bombs
2. There would have to be a massive coverup hiding the fact someone planted the bombs
3. The coverup would have to be incredibly effective, because nobody's come forward to say "we planted the bombs"

These assumptions lead to some more suggestions:

• This suggests there are likely be threats to kill, if not in fact killings, of the people that planted the bomb.
• This further suggests they must be willing to kill anyone threatening to expose them

Finally:

• You're threatening to expose them on a public forum.
• It would be incredibly easy for you to be tracked by a properly motivated government agency, given your activity here.
• You're alive.

Walls are destroyed = shit on top of them tends to fall down

Columns support "shit on top of them", not the walls.

Like I said before, the 1993 WTC bombing wasn't enough to destroy these columns, not even the street level ground, so how could the cars do it

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Please provide evidence it wasn't. We don't have evidence either way. We can only make reasonable assumptions. See next question.

A uniform spread damage through all floors, no channeling occured.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jmdhn0-eqhs/TesK-vNMYiI/AAAAAAAAAS0/xU9MLw0Ev5A/s1600/wtc2impactdamage.jpg

Someone would have had to have planted the bombs

http://911blogger.com/node/2487

Also:

Turner Construction company "upgraded" the almost exact floor levels where the airplanes hit and where the collapse initated.

That same company helped plan and oversee a top down demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000, the first and only demolition they were part of at least until 911.

And that same company also participated in the collection and disposal of the WTC wreckage.

There would have to be a massive coverup hiding the fact someone planted the bombs

Only if you create your own theory, regardless this is not an argument that is evidence of anything, it is simply your opinion constructed on personal incredulity. "Someone would have spoken" is also not evidence to disprove anything.

The coverup would have to be incredibly effective, because nobody's come forward to say "we planted the bombs"

Again, this is based on your own interpretation of events. It's the same as saying that "even the dogs had to know it was an inside job" without even giving it a reasonable thought.

If I were to follow your logic then you would be stuck with "Why didn't any of the hijacked airplane pilots send a hijack squak code that only takes 3s?" "Why weren't the hijackers stopped in the airport when their boxcutters triggered the metal alarm?" and on and on.

This suggests there are likely be threats to kill, if not in fact killings, of the people that planted the bomb.

This further suggests they must be willing to kill anyone threatening to expose them

You are still trying to disprove something with your own assumptions and interpretation of events. I explained above why this is completely irrelevant.

Ok, we're pretty much going back and forth on baseless speculation at this point. You look at odd coincidences and see conspiracy. I don't. Neither has proof, and at this point, without someone admitting (and being able to prove) they had a part in it, I don't think there will be any.

I haven't been able to find any (non-denialist) source for the fact those particular floors were updated to the exclusion of others, but TBH search results are mostly clogged by denialist sources. I'm not denying it happened, but your own interpretation - they do much more construction than demolition work - implies to me that it's not unreasonable they were simply doing construction work.

Also, looking at your own image of fuel dispersion (which is awesome btw), I'd like to mention two things.

1. It's clearly not an even spread across the floor. It's quite concentrated to the lower-left quadrant, in fact.
2. There clearly is channeling towards the center. Please see my (not really) super scientific interpretation. Big arrow is the primary direction of the plane & fuel, little arrow is the significant amount of fuel channeled away from the plane towards the center.

According to other floor plans, the core section of the building is largely elevators, stairwells, utility shafts, and other vertical things. This image seems to me to conclusively show there's both enough structural damage to rip them open, and enough fuel ready to pour down them.

EDIT: Before you read all of the below, I just want to make sure that you understand what 120 gallons is

This fish tank is 60 gallons

http://rowlandheights.olx.com/60-gallons-fish-tank-for-sale-iid-94695122

We are discussing 2 of those fish tanks worth of fuel. Hope you realise what 120 gallons means.

It's clearly not an even spread across the floor. It's quite concentrated to the lower-left quadrant, in fact.

There clearly is channeling towards the center. Please see my (not really) super scientific interpretation. Big arrow is the primary direction of the plane & fuel, little arrow is the significant amount of fuel channeled away from the plane towards the center.

Sorry, guess we both have a different understanding of what "channeling" means, here is what I consider to be a channeled event:

Pentagon airplane impact diagram

and enough fuel ready to pour down them.

I linked you to a video explaining in a couple of minutes that it did not have enough, but you refused to watch it. There's also the problem of that same fuel being able to cause 3 explosions in the same shaft: The one near the impact floors, the one at the lobby and the one in the basement.

This means that the fuel - assuming that it had enough for this - Traveled down the elevator, exploded one elevator door in one floor but did not explode the windows -essentally loosing pressure by doing so - kept going down and exploded another door at the lobby with such a force that all the windows were broken and the wall marble was knocked off the wall and then it still had more fuel to go down the basement, explode that door and still manage to set something on fire, when there was no fire on the lobby nor the first floor.

If you truly believe that this is possible then there is nothing else I can say in this discussion.

Note for consideration: And this is all ignoring the pressure mechanics that tells us that high pressure will escape through the path of least resistance (in this case it's the hole from where the fuel got in), meaning that no matter how strong the fuel fire was, it would escape from the same path it came before it could explode 1 door, let alone 3. And we are also ignoring the obstructive element that is the elevator box itself present inside the elevator shaft, which would greatly reduce the travel of the fuel or even the explosion itself.

The 120 gallon figure is dependent on the assertion that the fuel was spread evenly across the entire surface of the floor. Your own image shows it wasn't. Your video (yes, I watched it now) indicates it might be 5 cubic yards; just over 1000 gallons. That's an order of magnitude difference. But, as the video says, and I tend to agree, that probably wouldn't have caused the secondary explosions minutes/hours later. Only an immediate rush of burning fuel downwards.

I don't know what caused secondary explosions. Could be many different things, given everyone just says they heard explosions. Elevators falling? Heating fuel lines exploding? Pooled liquid fuel exploding? I don't know. But lack of knowledge does not mean I must conclude it was a bomb.

The 120 gallon figure is dependent on the assertion that the fuel was spread evenly across the entire surface of the floor. Your own image shows it wasn't. Your video (yes, I watched it now) indicates it might be 5 cubic yards; just over 1000 gallons. That's an order of magnitude difference.

It really makes a huge difference being 120 gallons and 1000, that's why I was thinking that you perhaps were not understanding the small portion that it was.

I don't know what caused secondary explosions. Could be many different things, given everyone just says they heard explosions. Elevators falling? Heating fuel lines exploding? Pooled liquid fuel exploding? I don't know.

. Elevators falling couldn't have caused such loud explosions because not even the debris falling came close to that sound, and those were way heavier than elevators. There's also just one record of one elevator falling, the others were safe in place by the safety breaks

. Heating fuel lines exploding? No fires in the lower levels and no records of fuel lines either so no

. Pooled liquid fuel exploding? Pools of liquid fuel do not explode, they just burn.

But lack of knowledge does not mean I must conclude it was a bomb.

This is why the best way is to eliminate the possibilities until you are only left with just a few or just the one. It's called reaching a conclusion by a process of elimination.

The fuel could not have exploded the elevator shaft 3 times and stronger the further away it traveled, the vehicles (I have added a better example in my thread now) in the basement did not have enough power to knock down the columns, but we do have a major collapse on the ground level that happened after the planes impact and before the towers collapse.

There is, however, recorded audio explosions the moment the smoke rose from the ground.

Logic dictates that explosives created the registered collapse of that basement section.

100% absolutely sure about this? Can't be without evidence, but seen that we already ruled out fire, explosive is the most probable conclusion left, unless there is another one that I cannot see.

You look at odd coincidences and see conspiracy. I don't.

what are you here for then !?

this is r/conspiracy not r/coincidences after all.

There was very little if any fuel to spread, as you state. The 95th percentile of all fuel exploded in the massive fireballs of impact. There was no fuel left to come crashing down the elevator. To make it all the way to the basement to cause these secondary explosions that truly assisted in the planned collapse of all three towers. Hell, the wave of destruction is visible in all videos of WTC 1&2s relative collapses. It doesn't take an enginner to see these as clearly destroying the lower floors as the towers fell. Turning everything below the line of collapse to dust. Rubble not possible without massive and powerful shockwaves. Concrete fractures with high explosive.forces only. Collapse does not turn concrete to dust.

shots fired

"I'd imagine vehicles were stored in the basement, yes. They tend to contain fuel. Fuel starts fires. Fires tend to destroy things."

This is true... It requires that the fuel from above that was immediately on fire... reached the basement.

"It takes a surprisingly low-pressure explosion to break down walls. Source: 42-year vetran NYPD fire chief Notice: It takes less pressure to knock down a brick wall than it does to cause lung damage."

Yes? I am not sure what you are getting at with this one. (not being a smart ass)

"I'm not going to watch an hour and a half youtube video to find your source for the fuel/elevator shaft math. Seriously. Please stop linking to this shit when attempting to counter debunkers."

I can understand that. There are a lot of long videos. What if the person supplying it were to provide you a youtube link that started the video at the relevant time in the video to that particular topic? (I don't know that they will). In addition, if you do not examine evidence is it not better to keep your mouth shut? (this applies to both sides of the argument). You cannot discount evidence without first reviewing it. That is not rational. As I stated, this does apply to BOTH sides. I've opened the article you linked and will review it.

"The assumptions made by this article are massive. They assume the jet fuel spread perfectly evenly across the floor. A simple thought experiment shows that isn't likely true: There are walls and corridors all in the way. Where to corridors tend to lead? Oh, right! The elevators!"

I haven't watched the linked video, but I've studied this topic before. You mention 120 gallons falling straight down. First.. this is inaccurate. I will explain why.

1) We see huge balls of flame on impact. This would have consumed a bit of that 120 gallons. (EDIT: the 120 or so gallons is the theoretical amount that would have remained from 3500 gallons)

2) The structure weakening is claimed to be due to the fire caused by jet fuel. It cannot be up there, and everywhere melting/weakening steal beams... and also have been down in the basement. 120 Gallons is insufficient quantity to have coated or come close to covering that distance. You can do the math on this. (EDIT: See my edit above... 120+ Gallons was remainder not total... which makes sense... 120 Gallons in fully loaded plane... is just stupid on my part)

3) Let's say it did reach the elevator shaft. It is on fire. I think we've all seen what happens when fuel burns. For it to work in an engine it has to be quite explosive and burn rapidly. You have less than 120 gallons now because it already consumed some in the initial impact explosions, and we can assume the fuel that remains is ignited... as it wouldn't make sense for it not to be. (EDIT: must keep in mind original amount estimated at around 3500 gallons)

4) The distance it has to fall still has to obey physics. During the fall it is on fire, and is a substance that burns very rapidly. It will take 7 to 8 seconds for it to reach the basement. Try counting that out and keep in mind this is less than 120 gallons that is ignited.

5) Assuming it did reach the basement... now the story is it was a large enough quantity to ignite cars in the basement. It would have to be a lot of cars. We've had car bombs, we know that simply blowing up one car does not tend to be a chain reaction that ignites other nearby cars.

6) How many car bombs do take out walls, and support columns? Those are intentionally explosive, while gas tanks in cars are engineered for at least some level of safety.

Ultimately, it comes down to it seeming to be impossible for the fuel to have reached the basement before being consumed. If by some chance it did reach the basement, then the quantity would have been quite small and not even close to 120 gallons. If it did ignite a car, that could not have caused a chain reaction to ignite all the cars, and does not explain the structural damage.

NOTE: I did not tell you anywhere in my responses what DID happen. I have only told you what could not happen.

EDIT: I just checked... the person that linked the video DID link you to the exact point in the video related to this topic. It certainly would not have taken you an hour and a half to watch it. Only a few minutes. This shows you have no interest in reviewing evidence that people took time to put together, and instead just intend to push your current view with absolutely no possibility you could be wrong. Again, not rational.

EDIT 2: I am reading your linked article now.

EDIT 3: 3500 Gallons certainly makes a lot more sense than 120 gallons. I'll add an edit in response to that after I finish reading it. You can decide whether you want to wait for that before responding or not. Your choice.

EDIT 4: I am willing to admit when I am wrong. Your article is a good one. It basically addresses what I was getting at, and I wish I had read it before responding in this particular post. Your youtube bash set me off as someone who discredits something due to where it came from. The article has some really good points. I had some questions as I was reading it. It talks about the absorbancy nature of some materials, yet that doesn't tell how fast they absorb. It also does not really take into account that it still can only flow at a certain speed, fall at a certain speed, and it was on fire. Physics still applies. I do agree with the questions it raises though.

EDIT 5: I hope you'll accept my apology for what I stated in the first EDIT. I left it for historical reference.

Ok, gonna have to restart some of the point-by-point due to your edits. I think you're done now. I'm sure I missed some things but here's some big points.

• Fuel burns very fast when vaporized. It generally burns very slowly by comparison in liquid form, which is what we're talking about. Note the difference between burning liquid gasoline vs what happens in a car engine, for example. I've never seen jet fuel on fire in person but I think it's reasonable that it works the same way.
• The fire doesn't have to weaken the entire building. It only has to weaken a small amount of the structure for the whole structure to fall down. If you look at many of the videos, it looks (to me, at least in the case of the south tower) that one corner was weakened just enough to buckle slightly. The momentum from all the structure above that buckle, combined from the fact that now the weight is all out of whack from where it was designed to stay, caused the critical overload and total collapse.
• Once fuel reached the basement, it probably started an inferno, not a chain reaction of car explosions. I realize were getting into speculation here, but what I'm imagining happens is that huge boatload of burning fuel pours down, ignites massive inferno, cars are caught up in the conflagration. But, like I said, we're into pure speculation at this point.

I do not believe based upon math and even the article that you linked that the fuel would have been sufficient to have reached the basement and caused this. As to inferno. Those structures were heavily coated with asbestos. Recent cost to remove all the asbestos at the time had been calculated to be a fairly huge price. In the offices, other materials could contribute to fueling the fires. In the basements, this would have been less of an issue, especially in parking garages.

I am glad you acknowledge what you say as Speculation. Much of what I am stating is as well. As long as you identify it as speculation, and not fact then I can certainly entertain the possibilities you propose.

EDIT: As to Asbestos documentation. I've heard about this, so I tried to track down documentation. so far all I've found is people looking for the same. http://911blogger.com/news/2006-11-26/destroyed-records-pre-911-wtc-estimated-asbestos-removal-and-demolition-plans

Searching for anything 911 related is buried in thousands of search hits. :)

The assumptions made by this article are massive. They assume the jet fuel spread perfectly evenly across the floor. A simple thought experiment shows that isn't likely true: There are walls and corridors all in the way. Where to corridors tend to lead? Oh, right! The elevators!

Check out the design of the WTC elevator system.

You might want to rethink that theory.

Oooh.... mainstream media.... we've surely crossed the threshold into credible debunking now.

I'll take "Things I didn't reference in my post" for 1000, Alec.

What is... "mainstream media"

Mainstream media is any of the thousands of news sources controlled by essentially 5 or 6 corporations. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, FOX...

Youtube isn't controlled. Since you attacked its credibility simply for it being "youtube"... I used a similarly stupid attack on mainstream media in response to you.

There is a lot of crap on youtube. However, it is not controlled. It simply coming from youtube is not sufficient grounds for doubt. It is as equally possible to be valid there as any other source. It is also possible it is crap. Your statement implies it is immediately crap because it came from youtube. Which is very poor reasoning.

That was the part of your post I attacked. As to the rest.... I can do that in a separate reply to that post.

I'm not implying it's crap evidence simply because it's from Youtube. I'm implying it's crap presentation and I don't want to have to watch it to understand your argument. I can read really fast. I can't put youtube on fast-forward. Link articles, not videos.

I can respect this. I prefer to read myself.

You realize that every single one of these is a stretch, right? Fuel in vehicles somehow magically caught fire and exploded. And somehow these fuel tank explosions were enough to bring down key supports, walls, and as you say, lower pressure explosions can take out brick before they damage human kung tissue. Wow. The mental gymnastics require to believe these lies is incredible.

weak. even for a tard.

This has been debunked... The maximum fuel in a jetliner is known. The volume of the fuel is insufficient to cover the distance indicated. Unless it is magically creating more fuel. If that is the case... we need that tech. It would solve all of our energy problems.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] "Oh, lord, didn't I say it would be an interesting fantasy to read? And from no one else but a r/conspiratard." What happened on 9/11

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

What sad person tries to earn some karma points by attempting to promote drama where there is none.

Pathetic.

The evidence is quite clear. There was explosions capture multiple times from the basements of the towers. Now why would that be, if not for planted explosives on key support structures. Structures that were engineered into the building from the beginning. Created to allow for the impact of a fully loaded airliner at top speed, and come out relatively unscathed. The architect specifically planned the buildings to be able to withstand the very attack that befell her. Yet all three came crashing down. Key supports physically removed.

The burning jet fuel fell down them and started explosions and fires across the whole building. This would, presumably, include the basement.

fantasy. the shafts don't go straight down to the bottom. a maintenance elevator did, and there was someone stuck in it. they didn't report getting doused by burning jet fuel either. points for imagination though

This is an extremely valid point that must not be overlooked. There was ni elevator that would take you top to bottom. Destroying the flawed theory that the fuel that was not burned up on impact somehow made it down the elevator to cause secondary explosions in the basement. The towers used a method that is now quite common to speed up elevator commute times. Something you now see heavily in towers such as in Las Vegas. To get to where the impacts occurred, one must switch elevators to continue their journey to the top. Separate shafts.

Theory of fuel mysteriously making it through the explosion and to the basement in liquid form to cause secondary explosions - THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED

quiet down guys, GAYUNICORN6969 has something credible to say

Ad hominem, nice! Better attack the alias of someone than the issue that is presented!

its just hilarious to me when someone with a ridiculous/funny username tries to be serious. It's like walking into a lecture hall and the professor introduces himself as Doctor Asshat or something.

I am glad that at least you are having fun and mocking in a thread that discusses a huge problem about the day that thousands of people were murdered.

Stay classy.

and they were murdered by terrorists who flew planes into the building. Remove the tin foil hat, our government is not that good at hiding secrets, especially one of this magnitude. From what your claiming about an inside demolition, there would have to be 100's of people involved, someone would have talked.

our government is not that good at hiding secrets,

The argument of incredulity strikes again disguised as evidence to refute anything a person wants. Talk about fallacy, this one is right on the top.

Operation Northwoods : An operation proposed by the Department of Defense of the United States and signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff was a False Flag operation to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere.

It went secret for 35 years and no one said anything.

there would have to be 100's of people involved, someone would have talked.

Somehow, the ability for people to keep secret in X numbers is less credible than 3 buildings violating the laws of physics. This is not logic, this is a delusion.

there would have to be 100's of people involved, someone would have talked.

Not if they were the operatives of a foreign power, our own black ops agents, or killed afterwards. Easy disposal would be to lock them up inside the towers that they rigged. (if it was rigged.)

Yes, to the average conspiracy theorist our government is both completely inept and completely brilliant at pulling off amazing feats of secrecy simultaneously.

The same folks responsible for other great false flags. Known throughout history. Executed while not flawlessly, very well. These aren't government pencil pushers. They are the ones making heart attack guns. Creating chemical and behavioral manchurian candidates.

They are the ones making heart attack guns. Creating chemical and behavioral manchurian candidates.

Yeah... We just took a hard right turn into conspiracy nonsense.

heart attack guns... conspiracy nonsense

Not aware of the Church Committee hearings in 1975?

Yeah, a gun that uses a cyanide capsule to spray a concentrated poison at the person was a real item used by the KGB. And at autopsy is readily apparent that it is in the person's system. But a gun that leaves no trace, and appears to just be a cardiac arrest isn't real. As in conspiracy nonsense.

Also, I realize the allure to conspiracy theories... That you have it figured out more so than the rest of us. It's a confidence booster. And I should know, I used to be a believer like you, until I realized I was just stroking my ego and that most of the stuff I was reading was half-truths and/or just plain false. Now, there are legitimate political conspiracy theories out there, in the truest since of the word, but this stuff that you are peddling is bunk. Heart attack guns are bull. Oh and 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. If you take a moment to research the history of the situation, you'd realize that all the anger the perps needed was from years and years of U.S. involvement in the Mid-East. Simple case of blowback where many innocent Americans were murdered.

I get it man, some of us here have a sense of humor. Comedic relief is what you are tagged as now friend.

May I present Dr. Doom, Ph.D.

https://sites.google.com/site/travisdoom/

I love people with names like his, and like mine. To reveal judgmental people like you.

its a joke, relax, take a hit.

Most conspiritards are used to blindly defending things they don't have the capacity to realize are jokes.

For pointless jokes please use r/conspiratard from now on, r/conspiracy is not the place for that, although you incorrectly assume it is.

This sub greatly appreciates if r/conspiratards would just stick with their sub instead of coming here making fun of everything that other's believe, marginalizing us just because you don't agree is not something to be proud of.

Fire did it.

In other news. Heat falls.

Fun fact: Burning, liquid fuel does!

Yeah, yeah, proven. Just like they proved the jet fuel blew up the basement, which goes against all logic. My point of posting the video was to shed light on the fact that a person got critically injured less than a few seconds after the bomb, I mean plane, hit the building. So, with that said how in the hell did the jet fuel cause that? No way it traveled that fast down 90 floors to blow in the basement.

What exceptions? People have HORRIBLE memory, it is a very tricky thing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-eyewitness-testimony-too-unreliable-to-trust

http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/08/eyewitness-testimony-on-trial

tl;dr: people are stupid and don't know what they really saw/heard

What sad person tries to earn some karma points by attempting to promote drama where there is none.

Pathetic.

Eyewitnesses are still the worst pieces of "evidence" there are. Video is available and is less biased, more concrete of a fact and better as far as evidence is concerned.

On another note, how many of those eyewitnesses saw the towers fall with their eyes, not on video, and had seen enough controlled demolitions before to draw on their knowledge and make a comparison?

It looks like a controlled demolition to me and I've studied on the subject and watched videos.

That still doesn't discount the fact that eyewitness accounts have been proven to be shit in cases. Concerning my comment above, just because a jury is swayed by an eyewitness testimony doesn't qualify it as fact. It is merely a retelling of events as they make someone perceive them.

controlled demolitions also do not happen from top down but bottom up

That is just a complete lie:

Top down controlled demolition.

Guess who also planned and oversaw another top down demolition in 2000? The same company that upgraded the almost exact floors where the airplanes hit and participated in the WTC debris removal. Oh, did I say that it was the first and only demolition that company was part of, at least until 911?

The key supports needed to be removed before any collapse would have occurred. The damage from the impact was not even close to enough to fell the overenginerred towers. Towers that were in fact designed, created, and built to specifically withstand exactly what occurred that day. The impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner at top speed. The central columns that we are discussing were more than strong enough to keep the towers standing by themselves.

The fantasy you've developed to support your flawed theory has been destroyed in this thread. The elevators did not run top to bottom, and the fuel was admittedly burned in the massive fireball upon impact. Leaving virtually nothing to seep down the elevator shaft, move across thr floor, seep down the elevator to the basement, and then start fires that resulted in explosions that subsequently destroyed the lobby and basement.

It was clearly planted explosives. The top of the building did not have enough energy to come crashing down, destroying all floors below it. Turning steel reinforced concrete not to rubble, but primarily to dust. Look to any other collapsed building, and find a single one that resulted in concrete turned primarily to dust.

Hell, the fact that they did not test for explosives, coupled with the rushed disposal of evidence, shipped to China should tell you much. You're publicly supporting a lie. A lie that the majority of American and world citizens are clearly aware of. A little behind the times, I'm afraid. Prior to all the lies that gave the warmongers a blank check, their "new Pearl Harbor" right on queue, the people would have believed you. Now that everything has been proven corrupt, not so much.

No, he isn't. He's 14ing and 17ing.

notsureifserious