So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?
So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.
Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.
That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?
Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.
Right. Caused by impacting debris.
My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.
Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.
You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.
Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?
And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.
Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up.
So all of the building falls at the exact same time.
The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.
The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:
The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.
Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.
When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.
And no need to soften your language, Gam.
The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.
Dude, seriously...you are absolutely clueless......stop trying to "piggyback" off of your "me too" pal....it makes you look desperate....sheeesh.
Notice how you don't actually address any of the truck sized holes in the 'explosive demolition' theory.
1) How the towers came down exactly opposite of explosive demolition.
2) The absurdity of planting and hiding 50,000 cutter charges and their apparatus in an occupied building.
3) And the complete and utter lack of any cut girders, despite the explosive demolition theory requiring tens of thousands of them.
But pretending that these theory killing holes doesn't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You can close your eyes, but you can't make *us* unsee just how awful your explanation is.
It would not take 50,000 cutter charges to bring either one of the two twin towers. If you watch the videos of that event, you can see the "squibs" that are going off ten floors below the free fall.
You clearly have no idea how actual controlled demolition works. First off, its bottom to top. With the structural supports being taken out at the bottom and kicker charges breaking up the building so it all falls together.
That's not how the towers fell *at all*.
The towers fell top to bottom. With each floor destroyed, one at a time. Exactly opposite of controlled demolition. The supports on each floor would have to be destroyed. All 47 core columns and 249 outer panels.
Second, when an ACTUAL squib goes off, that section of the building falls like a train dropped from the sky. But your version of a 'squib' fires. And then....nothing. Nothing falls at the point of the explosion. Its not until the debris field reaches the location of the 'squib' that the location actually collapses.
Um, Dale....that's nothing like controlled demolition.
And of course, there are no cut girders. Controlled demolition cuts girders. The explosive demolition theory requiring 10s of thousands. And you have none.
That's layers and layers of obvious contradiction to your theory. And you close your eyes to all of it, pretending none of it exists. Why? Because 'nothing can convince you'. Says who? Says you.
But why would a rational person ignore what you do?
So in addition to the myriad of patently false, unsubstantiated and easily refuted claims you have made, in response to having had your last YouTube blow up in your face you:
