Debunked: WTC Towers Fell in Their Own Footprints

Grieves

Senior Member
Debris fields X20 is NOT consistent with a controlled demolition. Most controlled demolitions have very little debris outside the literal footprint.

Some Demolitions gone wrong. These are typically trained professionals who's best efforts didn't produce the desired result, and the demolitions lead to collapses which in many cases took place WELL outside of their 'footprints'. Obviously demolition, even when carried out by professionals, doesn't always lead to a full collapse, nor does it always result in contained debris. On 9/11 you have 3 skyscrapers which went through full and complete collapse apparently with no professional help whatsoever, due to the impacts of two planes. Whatever arguments you might make about what consists of 'their own footprint', there's no question the buildings were completely and rapidly leveled, and in none of the three collapses was there any leaning, tilting, sliding, or any 'off-center' aspects to their destruction. All three came down top-to-bottom swiftly and fluidly, and more-or-less straight down. Do these collapses, individually, have all the hallmarks of controlled demolition? No. Are there indications of demolitions of some sort taking place? Yes. Otherwise demolition experts wouldn't be identifying building 7 as a demolition before they know the building collapse they're watching was part of the WTC.

The man being interviewed is dead now, crashed his car into a tree a couple of years back.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
because they weren't controlled demolitions!!! too easy Oxy!
Oh thanks... I better get on with my Farmville and update my Facebook to keep those nice CIA folks busy... don't want them getting laid off because they haven't got enough to do, wouldn't be good for the economy.:)
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The almost identical nature of their collapse in spite of the very different manners and locations of plane impacts, coupled with the many eye-witness accounts of explosions on the lower floors, so far as I'm concerned.
What do you think of Danny Jowenko's professional opinion, SR? Worthless when measured against the majority, I take it?
 

Clock

Active Member
Oxy, why do you believe that the towers did not fall into their footprint? You can clearly see in the first 2 pictures posted by Mick and SR1419 that pieces of the building are scattered all over the place.


I think we would also have to define what you mean by falling into it's footprint. Do you mean the hole that was made in order to build the building or in the surrounding areas of it?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
What is meant by 'falling into its own footprint' is that the buildings fell straight down, with the roofs 'landing' in the general vicinity of the foundation. If the buildings had tilted or leaned in their fall, landed on their side/at an angle, they'd have fallen 'outside their footprint'. It has no bearing on where the debris winds up, just on how the building itself came down. Y'all are, indeed, focusing with a goofy obsessiveness on the term itself.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
The almost identical nature of their collapse in spite of the very different manners and locations of plane impacts, coupled with the many eye-witness accounts of explosions on the lower floors, so far as I'm concerned.
What do you think of Danny Jowenko's professional opinion, SR? Worthless when measured against the majority, I take it?
But the buildings were identical. They had nearly identical impacts from fully loaded jets traveling very fast. I fail to see how that is "very different". I would expect the results from both impacts to be similar.

The eyewitness accounts of explosions are not consistent with controlled demolitions in that they occurred well before collapse- Of course, the well documented explosions and damage done from fireballs of jet fuel traveling down elevators shafts, and indeed severed elevators themselves smashing to the ground are also likely sources of the aforementioned explosions.

There were likely a lot of things falling, breaking, exploding as the damaged buildings sat and burned.

This thread is about the Towers- but- Danny's opinion is relevant and noted. It does look much more like a controlled demolition than 1&2. It doesn't sound like a controlled demolition, however.

How do you reconcile the very different natures of the collapse of WTC 1&2 VS WTC 7?

Did they really use 2 different methods of controlled demolition?
 

SR1419

Senior Member
It has no bearing on where the debris winds up, just on how the building itself came down. Y'all are, indeed, focusing with a goofy obsessiveness on the term itself.
That is not true. That is not how the parlance in Demolition industry regards the term- they specifically use that term to designate the debris field to be as minimal as possible, ideally within the "footprint"

When Truthers use the term they insinuate that the Towers collapse looks identical to a controlled demolition...when, in fact, it does not.


WTC 1 and 2 looked nothing like that.



http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What is meant by 'falling into its own footprint' is that the buildings fell straight down, with the roofs 'landing' in the general vicinity of the foundation. If the buildings had tilted or leaned in their fall, landed on their side/at an angle, they'd have fallen 'outside their footprint'. It has no bearing on where the debris winds up, just on how the building itself came down. Y'all are, indeed, focusing with a goofy obsessiveness on the term itself.
Well why not say that then? Why confuse the matter?

And who means that exactly? It sounds like something made up to cover a false claim.

When demolition people talk about something falling in its own footprint, they generally don't mean that it will fall on top of adjacent buildings.

Would you say that WTC6, WTC5, and WTC7 were in the footprint of WTC1?

 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member
What do you think of Danny Jowenko's professional opinion, SR? Worthless when measured against the majority, I take it?
I am curious as to what do you think of Danny's opinion that WTC1&2 were not brought down by controlled demolition??

Watch from the 3:30 mark:

 

Grieves

Senior Member
They had nearly identical impacts from fully loaded jets traveling very fast.
There was nothing identical about the impacts. They occurred on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage. That they both collapsed in essentially the same way with neither building left partially intact, and that neither building experienced any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse and obliteration, strikes me as suspect. As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.

Well why not say that then? Why confuse the matter?

And who means that exactly? It sounds like something made up to cover a false claim.

When demolition people talk about something falling in its own footprint, they generally don't mean that it will fall on top of adjacent buildings.
I honestly didn't think the matter was so confused. We all saw the collapses, all saw how they happened. It should be pretty evident what we're talking about. If I'm covering someone's false claims, that's their business... I'm expressing my interpretation, and what I believe the general interpretation of 'falling into its footprint' means in this context. No ones suggesting that the buildings collapsed into neat piles. Obviously they didn't. They did, however, fall relatively neatly in a straight-downward direction, with little to no diversion from the 'footprint' of their foundations as they did. I'm not a demolition person, didn't even know 'footprint' was a common term of the trade (is it?). If I've ever used the term, I've used it in the context of the collapses themselves... as I'm pretty sure most everyone else who uses it does. All the buildings fell more or less straight-down.

It seemed as if all the roofs were more or less aligned with their foundations as they came down. The buildings looked very much like they were collapsing down 'into themselves'. Hence 'into their own footprint'.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.
They did survive the impacts of two planes. They didn't survive the ensuing fires which weakened the steel.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was nothing identical about the impacts. They occurred on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage. That they both collapsed in essentially the same way with neither building left partially intact, and that neither building experienced any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse and obliteration, strikes me as suspect.
Not me. As soon as you get "gradual deformation", then that means the columns are out of alignment, so they fail. Immediately.


As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.
Not me. As is equally often mentioned (see above) they did survive the subsequent impact. Then they had both big fires over several floors. And both ended up collapsing when the fires had done enough damage and weakening.

I honestly didn't think the matter was so confused. We all saw the collapses, all saw how they happened. It should be pretty evident what we're talking about. If I'm covering someone's false claims, that's their business... I'm expressing my interpretation, and what I believe the general interpretation of 'falling into its footprint' means in this context. No ones suggesting that the buildings collapsed into neat piles. Obviously they didn't. They did, however, fall relatively neatly in a straight-downward direction, with little to no diversion from the 'footprint' of their foundations as they did. I'm not a demolition person, didn't even know 'footprint' was a common term of the trade (is it?). If I've ever used the term, I've used it in the context of the collapses themselves... as I'm pretty sure most everyone else who uses it does. All the buildings fell more or less straight-down.
What's bamboozling is why people expect them NOT to fall straight down. I think it's a problem of scale. The buildings were 208 feed wide. You can't just "tip over" something that is 208 feet wide. It's basically physically impossible for the building to go anywhere other than straight down.

It seemed as if all the roofs were more or less aligned with their foundations as they came down. The buildings looked very much like they were collapsing down 'into themselves'. Hence 'into their own footprint'.
The use of the term is nonetheless misleading. AE911 describe WTC7 as falling into it own footprint, meaning it looked like a typical building implosion (from a distance at least). Extending that to WTC1&2 is misleading because of the suggestion of a demolition implosion, when in fact the collapse looked nothing at all like that.

Really, if you want to clearly make the point that the buildings fell straight down then use the phrase "the buildings fell straight down" or "the buildings did not tip over"
 

Grieves

Senior Member
He suggests it looks like a top-down demolition likely because of the bolts blowing out all the way down the core-columns, and that that's what the firefighters in question were seeing and experiencing. When asked why he thinks it couldn't possibly be explosives, his answer is because 'it would take a year'. Not 'that's not how explosives work' or 'what you're seeing is absolutely not evidence of explosives'. He's not commenting on the impossibility of explosives in such a collapse. He's expressing his firm disbelief that such a thing would be undertaken. The footage featuring his opinions on Building 7 are taken after he gives his opinion on the WTC towers. Where building 7 is concerned, he does not identify it as a feature of the 9/11 attack, and so comes to the more or less immediate conclusion that explosives were most clearly involved, and set in place by practiced professionals. He estimates 30-40 people could have gotten the job done. When he's told that this was indeed an aspect of the 9/11 attacks, he is visibly taken aback. When told the collapse took place 7 hours after the 9/11 attack, he makes the hushed and doubtful admission "Then they'd have to have worked fast...." when told the building was also on fire, he expresses how wholly beyond explanation he finds that.

So in regards to the towers, you have him disregarding the notion of explosive involvement because he feels it would require far too much pre-planning... and then moments later, after viewing the building 7 collapse, he comes to the firm conclusion demolition teams were involved, and cannot explain how they could possibly have set up after the attacks took place, implying that if the building was demolished, it required a great deal of pre-planning.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
That they both collapsed in essentially the same way with neither building left partially intact, and that neither building experienced any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse and obliteration, strikes me as suspect. As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.

Both buildings were damaged in "essentially' the same way. To say that they did not "experience(d) any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse" with any confidence would suggest you had access to the interior of the buildings and could document the lack of gradual deformation....I am doubtful you can document that.

The buildings were designed to withstand a slower, lighter plane with no account for the fuel load. They were NOT designed to with stand planes this heavy traveling at this speed (500pmh). Nor were they designed to withstand unobstructed fires on bare steel.

No ones suggesting that the buildings collapsed into neat piles.
That is exactly what is suggested by the term as per industry parlance. Again, the term is used to insinuate controlled demolition- so, how the actual demolition industry uses the term is quite relevant.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He suggests it looks like a top-down demolition likely because of the bolts blowing out all the way down the core-columns, and that that's what the firefighters in question were seeing and experiencing. When asked why he thinks it couldn't possibly be explosives, his answer is because 'it would take a year'. Not 'that's not how explosives work' or 'what you're seeing is absolutely not evidence of explosives'. He's not commenting on the impossibility of explosives in such a collapse. He's expressing his firm disbelief that such a thing would be undertaken.


...

...






 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member
He's not commenting on the impossibility of explosives in such a collapse.
Not true- he specifically says "it can't have been explosives as there was a huge fire...if there had been any explosive they would have already burned"

watch at 5:35


Which begs the question- how did any explosives survive the even longer fires in WTC7?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
What's bamboozling is why people expect them NOT to fall straight down.
I think most people expected them not to fall at all. I sure as hell didn't see it coming. If anything, I'd have expected the tops of the buildings to start crumbling and falling away above the damage, and the structures to remain relatively intact below the damage. With big wounds at high points and fires raging above them, that seemed the direction things were going to go.

As soon as you get "gradual deformation", then that means the columns are out of alignment, so they fail. Immediately.
Several core columns were severely damaged if not severed outright by the plane impacts, weren't they? They clearly didn't fail immediately. By 'gradual deformation' I don't mean melting like Dali clock.

And Mick, I don't believe, if explosives were used, that they 'began at the top'. Explosives below the points of impact would not have gone off in the fires. You're leaving out what I referenced like I'm making it up or something.

Transcript:
Q: But he says it was as if.... (refencing the firefighters description of progressive demolition explosions.)
A: That's what it looks like. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible.
Q: Why not?
A: Of course its not.
Q: You wouldn't do it like that?
A: It would take a year.
Q: A year to place all those explosives?
A: and prepare them and hook them up.

again, he states it's impossible because it would take a year. He also says the collapse looks like a demolition, something adamantly denied in this forum.

Not true- he specifically says "it can't have been explosives as there was a huge fire...if there had been any explosive they would have already burned"
That's in reference to a 'top down' demolition.
Which begs the question- how did any explosives survive the even longer fires in WTC7?
Fires were all on upper-floors. What effect would that have on core-column charges in the lowest levels? With steel structured buildings one doesn't need to rig the entire thing up to demolish it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Several core columns were severely damaged if not severed outright by the plane impacts, weren't they? They clearly didn't fail immediately. By 'gradual deformation' I don't mean melting like Dali clock.
There was gradual deformation, for quite a while, several feet worth. But once it passed a certain point there was nothing to stop it continuing rapidly.

See here, the outer columns were gradually deformed inwards:



Then this happened:
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For the demolition experts:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member
What is meant by 'falling into its own footprint' is that the buildings fell straight down, with the roofs 'landing' in the general vicinity of the foundation. If the buildings had tilted or leaned in their fall, landed on their side/at an angle, they'd have fallen 'outside their footprint'. It has no bearing on where the debris winds up, just on how the building itself came down. Y'all are, indeed, focusing with a goofy obsessiveness on the term itself.
How would you expect them to fall? The part that fell straight down was heavy, it wasn't going to blow over, it was going to fall straight. It then pancaked the floors underneath. What did you expect.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
There was nothing identical about the impacts. They occurred on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage. That they both collapsed in essentially the same way with neither building left partially intact, and that neither building experienced any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse and obliteration, strikes me as suspect. As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.


I honestly didn't think the matter was so confused. We all saw the collapses, all saw how they happened. It should be pretty evident what we're talking about. If I'm covering someone's false claims, that's their business... I'm expressing my interpretation, and what I believe the general interpretation of 'falling into its footprint' means in this context. No ones suggesting that the buildings collapsed into neat piles. Obviously they didn't. They did, however, fall relatively neatly in a straight-downward direction, with little to no diversion from the 'footprint' of their foundations as they did. I'm not a demolition person, didn't even know 'footprint' was a common term of the trade (is it?). If I've ever used the term, I've used it in the context of the collapses themselves... as I'm pretty sure most everyone else who uses it does. All the buildings fell more or less straight-down.

It seemed as if all the roofs were more or less aligned with their foundations as they came down. The buildings looked very much like they were collapsing down 'into themselves'. Hence 'into their own footprint'.
The buildings were both the same. They were both hit with fully loaded and fueled jumbo jets. Both jets sliced through the facades into the buildings. Both resulted in the same damage: slicing through the skin, leaving jet fuel and fires. One of the videos clearly showed debris falling and flowing out of the building as the floor collapsed, then the building buckled. Since the other had the same incident, the other building had the same damage. How did they differ? The photos above clearly show they did NOT fall in their own footprints. You seem to think the roof fell straight down and was aligned right below were it was, immediately below. Clearly the photos show it did not.

As truthers are often CORRECTED, the building was supposed to have remained standing if a 707 traveling slowly and low on gas hit it. How many times do you have to be told that? HOw many times are you going to say they were "were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts".
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Fires were all on upper-floors. What effect would that have on core-column charges in the lowest levels? With steel structured buildings one doesn't need to rig the entire thing up to demolish it.
So what you are saying is that they waited till the part above the impact collapsed, then timed the lower charges to blow as the top part came down? That [makes no sense]
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Originally Posted by Grieves

Fires were all on upper-floors. What effect would that have on core-column charges in the lowest levels? With steel structured buildings one doesn't need to rig the entire thing up to demolish it.
So what you are saying is that they waited till the part above the impact collapsed, then timed the lower charges to blow as the top part came down? That [makes no sense]
That's because its not at all what I was saying. First off, that point was in response to this comment:
Which begs the question- how did any explosives survive the even longer fires in WTC7?
Which specifically and exclusively pertained to Building 7, the building which suffered no plane impacts. Should keep a closer eye on who/what I'm responding too, I try to make it clear by including quotes.
In the case of the twin towers, I don't think it would be anywhere near so impossible or nonsensical a process as you suggest. If general impact-zones had been predetermined, and explosives were already in place, all it would take is someone watching with their finger on the button.
Again though, let me make it clear as I have in past threads that I'm by no means 'certain' explosives were used in the twin towers. Their near identical collapses has simply always been highly suspect to me, the ensuing collapse of building 7 as well making it all the more-so, and the idea is only without evidence if you re-define the word 'evidence', which many debunkers here seem to frequently do.

How would you expect them to fall? The part that fell straight down was heavy, it wasn't going to blow over, it was going to fall straight. It then pancaked the floors underneath. What did you expect.
Once more, I didn't expect them to fall at all. That these two massive skyscrapers collapsed rapidly into massive dust-clouds because of damage and fires on the high-upper floors isn't something I saw coming in the slightest. What I 'foresaw' was the upper floors continuing to burn and crumble and collapse away from the 'trunks' of the buildings, perhaps for days.

was supposed to have remained standing if a 707 traveling slowly and low on gas hit it.
They designed the building to withstand the impact of a plane that was 'slow flying and low on gas'...? Where are you getting these specifics? Seems a rather odd thing to aim for as an engineer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They designed the building to withstand the impact of a plane that was 'slow flying and low on gas'...? Where are you getting these specifics? Seems a rather odd thing to aim for as an engineer.
They all prefer that quote, as opposed to the quote that says 'designed to withstand the impact and resultant fires of a fully fuelled 707 at hitting at 600mph'... they think if they keep repeating it often enough it will sway people into believing it.

I think they all cheer every time one of them states it :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
For the demolition experts:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Ah... they think you can implode 110 storeys into own footprint then... no virtual about it. Perhaps they have records and pictures?

Amazing how the 'terrorists' managed to get the fire on the very support beam... located far on the left.... to give way resulting in a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ah... they think you can implode 110 storeys into own footprint then... no virtual about it. Perhaps they have records and pictures?
That's not what they said.

Amazing how the 'terrorists' managed to get the fire on the very support beam... located far on the left.... to give way resulting in a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
That was essentially random. Different fire and damage configurations would lead to different outcomes.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
because they weren't controlled demolitions!!! too easy Oxy!
If you can get ANY demolition expert to 'collapse' a wtc like Genga pile in a controlled demolition, (not moving one piece at a time:)), directly into it's own footprint I will concede the point and publicly apologise.

How about that.

If you cannot, perhaps you would like to do the honourable thing :)

Reach your aim and claim your prize:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member
If you can get ANY demolition expert to 'collapse' a wtc like Genga pile in a controlled demolition, (not moving one piece at a time:)), directly into it's own footprint I will concede the point and publicly apologise.
I have showed you numerous examples of controlled demolitions that created very little debris outside of the "footprint". It can and is done.

You seem to the think that the entire spread of the debris field is from "bouncing" once it hit the ground...meanwhile ignoring the immense amount of debris that sheered off the building and toppled over well outside the footprint landing on buildings blocks away- no bouncing involved. You ignore the visual evidence of large masses of debris arcing out and away from the collapse- not straight down...30-40 floor chunks of facade that did NOT fall straight down. Are you really trying to suggest that the 40 other buildings damaged by the collapses is entirely from material "bouncing" when it it the ground?

The collapse of WTC1&2 looked nothing like a controlled demolition. Nothing you have presented has brought evidence to suggest otherwise.


here are some implosions that didn't bounce or cause collateral damage:





 

Attachments

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I have showed you numerous examples of controlled demolitions that created very little debris outside of the "footprint". It can and is done.
Yes I have seen your 'evidence' :)



No debris at all... do you think it may well have been taken away on the back of big lorries or are you suggesting that is all that is left of a building post demolition?

You seem to the think that the entire spread of the debris field is from "bouncing" once it hit the ground...meanwhile ignoring the immense amount of debris that sheered off the building
All that is quite normal when you consider that they were COMPLETE buildings... not stripped to resemble scaffolding... they were replete with fascia, windows, walls etc, not tents, not car parks, not arenas...

The collapse of WTC1&2 looked nothing like a controlled demolition. Nothing you have presented has brought evidence to suggest otherwise.
Rewriting history I see... millions of people could not fail to see how similar it looked.

So I take it you cannot get the Jenga to put itself back in the box via controlled demolition then... shock horror.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are not making any sense Oxy. I think you've got this discussion backwards.

How exactly do WTC1&2 look like a controlled demolition? Is there an example of any size that they resemble?
 

SR1419

Senior Member
Yes I have seen your 'evidence' :)



No debris at all... do you think it may well have been taken away on the back of big lorries or are you suggesting that is all that is left of a building post demolition?
No debris "at all" ?? Your blindness explains a lot.

The photo was taken within 12 seconds of demolition:

"see" for yourself:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roger_gordon/464493801/in/photostream/

Sorry- your "Jenga" challenge isn't really worth commenting on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You are not making any sense Oxy. I think you've got this discussion backwards.

How exactly do WTC1&2 look like a controlled demolition? Is there an example of any size that they resemble?
Millions of people think it looks like a demolition, despite all the Psyop websites trying to deny it, much as on here.

"Science isn't science unless it is made public"

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Millions of people think it looks like a demolition, despite all the Psyop websites trying to deny it, much as on here.
But why? Consider that it looks nothing like any demolition they or you ever seen at that point. Why would they think it looks like a demolition?
 

SR1419

Senior Member
That's in reference to a 'top down' demolition.
but it WAS a top down collapse- he was referencing what he saw and said it would have been impossible for it to have been explosives.


Fires were all on upper-floors. What effect would that have on core-column charges in the lowest levels? With steel structured buildings one doesn't need to rig the entire thing up to demolish it.
Not true:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But why? Consider that it looks nothing like any demolition they or you ever seen at that point. Why would they think it looks like a demolition?
In any poll it would come out as 'looking like a demolition', because that is what it looks like. Whether it was a demolition is not proven but they certainly look like the demolitions which are well documented.

It is a massive psyop to try to counter the huge number of theorists who do not accept the flawed official story... They cannot stand it and are fighting back on the net with bunk and unprecedented surveillance. 'Agree with the government or you are suspect'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cia+surveillance+centers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


 

SR1419

Senior Member
All that is quite normal when you consider that they were COMPLETE buildings..
Can you show ANY controlled demolition that looks even remotely like this?

Can you show Any demolition that has material exploding up and outward?

Its NOT normal for any controlled demo.

ny_4.jpgWTCeject.jpg
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Can you show ANY controlled demolition that looks even remotely like this?

Can you show Any demolition that has material exploding up and outward?

Its NOT normal for any controlled demo.

View attachment 1974View attachment 1975
Of course it is normal if the building has not been stripped to its bones beforehand. Where on earth would you expect the material to go? You think it would evaporate and disappear into thin air do you?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The questions asked was what demolitions look in any way like the WTC1&2 collapse? And WHY do you think it looks like a demolition?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It 'looks' like a controlled demolition ONLY because that is what we are used to SEEING. Buildings that collapse in storms or earthquakes are never filmed. THE only experience we have with the quick demolition of a building is with the pictures of controlled ones.

I could show 1000 folks a picture of a rare breed of dog, and I would get a variation of answers, ALL based on dogs that they knew. Most would call it a mix of some type. That would NOT make it a mixed breed.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 13
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Mick West Debunked: US "False Flag" Plan to Start War with the USSR [Cuba Intervention Pretext Idea] Conspiracy Theories 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top