oioioi wrote:


That's a good one, not heard that before

oioioi wrote: As I say, I've read the official explanation, I've read the debunking stuff...total rubbish. Every time I've seen the debunkers attempting to discuss the issue in real time they just have no valid arguments:

If you believe the official story then no high rise building is safe, lol
They should knock them all down.

andyh wrote:
What lack of evidence

Scaled-down weapons exist now, and are being routinely used on the battlefield.

SilvaRizla wrote:
Show me a weapon that can turn the WTC into dust in seconds from the top down.

On the other hand I have proof that thermite can cut through core columns and gravity can do the rest, simples.

So occams razor gives likelihood to the latter.

andyh wrote:
Show you a top secret classified weapon? I can't do that. I can show you a scaled down version that uses the same technology if you like?

The "ballistics" signature of said weapon has been found and documented.

SilvaRizla wrote:
Like I said, I have proof of something that can work, you merely have a theory. Do you see where this is going

andyh wrote:
I can show you how resonance completely destroyed a 6,000ft bridge if you like?

I don't see what is so different about your back yard small scale test. Its called proof of concept, and its something I can show you if you want to see it.

SilvaRizla wrote:
I know of acoustic resonance to destroy a bridge, seen it done.
However...it won't pulverise it into tiny pieces, nor will it do it from the top down.

So I need a specific example of something that can pulverise the WTC from the top down at freefall speed

andyh wrote:

andyh wrote:
Well I can't show you that, but then again, your backyard proof of concept doesn't show that either.

Space Bandit wrote:

HAHAHAAAA!!!

Oh jesus lol :p

@spcacebandit.
I've just copied your last post to me, as the whole post between us was getting awfully long'

Bold added to ''you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory''
I'm saying that there was no plane, it's CGI, it's an error by the technicians, they mistimed their footage on the original broadcasts, so they needed to try and cover this up by creating aeroplane shaped debris as a graphic patch/smear.



How does flaming debris or bits of debris create a singular shadow?

oioioi wrote:
John Kerry admits WTC7 was demolished in a controlled fashion.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
But a different method was used for the twin towers, why?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
If the plane is CGI then why is it changing shape & trajectory is the point.
It should surely remain constant.

I've no idea what the shadow thing is about.... but I've also seen it postulated that images of Bin Laden have been inserted into the flames.
I do hope we're not going down that path!

For interests sake heres a building taken apart manually, the P&O building in London from the bottom up.
As we can see, the core remains in place.

@spacebandit

I've cropped this image of the 'plane front entering the WTC' as per the official story.

And 'leaving'

I don't see any uplift, to me it's meant to be a plane, the debris would have been smashed up if the plane was smashing steel and reinforced concrete, I doubt the debris would have popped out of a forced hole in the construction in a plane shaped form, it would be likely if the towers were made or a soft material such as marshmallow for the debris to pop out in the shape of the form that hit it, but in a brisk hard building the debris would have surely scattered in the building and not collect together to form a steel busting plane shaped kinetic energy enhanced projectile.

oioioi wrote:
A demolition in the traditional way to the twin towers would have likely damaged the man made basin wall of the Hudson river, causing a huge flood in NY.

Then why not use the same method as the twin towers for wtc7?