They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.
Yeah, riiiiiight...
Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?
You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.
Yep we heard the man say it was "LIKE" not it was..Now please tell us what makes him an expert on demolition? Or better yet what makes him more of an expert than the real experts that do it for a living.... BTW We've seen this video at least 100 times.....It still proves nothing other than people have opinions....
Him and his FDNY brothers were there and eye witnesses and people like him and others were thoroughly ignored by the 9-11 omission and NIST.
The pancake theory has been dismissed even by NIST.
The real world physics don't add
up with the rapid descents or the conservation of momentum, nor is it consistent with the properties of steel, or fire.
The OCT fanatics aren't discussing these real objections to their government theory, and that is all they are believing in, an unscientific theory...with incomplete data or legitimate proof and evidence that support any of it.
You can not dismiss the science or physics, and dismiss any alternative theories simply because CD crews were not seen entering or leaving the complex. Hell that would be easy enough to do simply by controlling the ******* security, and any work rigging the buildings could have been "renovations".
To anyone who observes the WTC being destroyed, and objectively studies the physics behind the objections to the OCT, it's really clear and convincing, and makes a solid case against the government guesses.
I still await the OCT idiots on here to explain to us how it is the WTC can have minimal resistance, and come down just short of FF acceleration, when debris was exploded and ejected away from the actual collapse front, and couldn't contribute to any "crush down" like you pancake heads are implying.
You people only have 2nd grade thinking ability and ad hominem attacks, when you are asked to confront the above mentioned parts of the debate, and posting excerpts or bits of the NIST report is useless, as it does not explain any of what is asked either. Even their own fire tests
do not prove the extreme fire temps. Their computer model of the WTC 7 is a joke, and can't be accessed for replication. It is clear they don't want anyone to even think about this, and going by what we get from you people, you actually DON'T think about it with any degree of intellect.
Until you face and address these issues, you remain trapped believing an explanation that only demands you believe it because it comes from the government and its agencies, who historically have lied to you and the rest of the American public.
The OCT 19 fanatical jihadists fantasy believers have less evidence to back up their beliefs, then those that believe something else helped destroy the WTC other then planes and fires.
So explain to us how it is the WTC can have minimal resistance, and come down just short of FF acceleration. I await your usual avoidance of questions like this.
