911 argumentation - The towers "collapse"

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1wk0tp/911_argumentation_the_towers_collapse/

created by [deleted] on 30/01/2014 at 14:00 UTC

1 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)

This will be, hopefully, something to help you when discussing the 911 tower "collapse" with someone that defends the official story and it is based on a example scenario for a better understanding.

Court case Official Story vs Conspiracy

Judge: "The consp. states that the buildings were brought down via demolition, do you have anything to back that up?

Consp: "Yes, the following are real life demolition examples that share the same characteristics of that day;

Near free-fall speeds achieved and almost exactly the same descent signature that of a demolition[1].

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

Squibs[2], which are a demolition unique signature[3], caused by the pulverization of core columns to eject outwards.

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF6DZmdZjEQ

3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw&feature=player_detailpage&t=130

The non-symetric damaged sections could not have caused global collapse without the help of explosives, only partial collapse could result. Explanation.

Throughout the entire mankind history there has never been any tall building global collapse caused by fire, and there have been many fires that last longer and were far stronger.

Near free-fall speeds have been only achieved in demolitions, not one actual building collapse has achieved such speeds before and after 911.

There were bright flashes visible[4] which can only account for charges going off.

4: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1rdi34/i_know_911_is_old_news_but_here_is_a_vid_taken/cdm9g10

As you can see, demolition explains all of the above."

Judge: "NIST, can you provide anything that proves the official story?"

NIST: "We have studied and created simulations that explain how and why the buildings collapsed the way they did which are available for the court to analyze."

Judge: "Seems plausible, can you give us the data you used in your simulations so that we can confirm that they respected realistic/real world parameters and replicate the simulation?

NIST: "No."

Judge: "And what about the global collapse? You don't explain why the buildings completely collapsed, only how they started to collapse, how do you explain that?"

NIST: "We can't explain it."

Judge: "So, on one side we have **real world examples and the testament of history** proving that those were actual demolitions and on your side you **have nothing except your word which only accounts for half of the case**?"

NIST: "Yes."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You be the judge.

Comments

Comment by [deleted] at 30/01/2014 at 14:30 UTC

5 upvotes, 1 direct replies

And remember, they can't show us their data as it would be a threat to national security.

Comment by FunkaTron_3001 at 30/01/2014 at 17:37 UTC

4 upvotes, 1 direct replies

There is literally a mountain of inconsistencies associated with 9/11. How anyone cannot see the bigger picture here is beyond comprehension. You can tell something is fishy, to this day, by how much downvoting and disbelief on the subject.

For example: I'm lifelong Denver Broncos fan. I spend alot of time in r/denverbroncos go figure. I have never been to r/seahawks nor do I care to. I have no desire to downvote and argue every Seahawks post just to be a dick. People who come to r/conspiracy to downvote and argue everything on 9/11 are the same boat. If they really don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, then why are they here? Why spend all your time arguing with "tinfoil hat crazies"? The only logical explanation is that these people are paid to do this. Cause the only reason I would spend all day in r/seahawks trolling people is if I was paid to do so.

Here is a simple experiment for people to try this theory. Create 2 new posts. The first one should be about something like Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. The 2nd one should have either WTC7 or 9/11 in the title. Monitor both posts. With the Bigfoot/Chupacabra post, you should see people joking around or sharing their stories. In the WTC7/911 post, you will see alot of "Your crazy!" "Show my the proof!!!!" "You are wrong wrong WRONG!!!!!!!". It is pretty creepy. Kinda reminds me of this famous scene where Arnold Schwarzenegger lures the Predator[1].

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCG_ETMZvyg

Comment by iamagod_ at 30/01/2014 at 19:23 UTC

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

This is a very apt explanation of the various views. One side is obvious fiction, otherwise evidence backing it up would have been released in the last decade.

Comment by indocilis at 31/01/2014 at 16:37 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

you can see it online on the website http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

Comment by Myconspiracyname at 30/01/2014 at 14:18 UTC

-1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

This would actually be considered a "mistrial".

Comment by jackherer at 30/01/2014 at 14:28 UTC

-4 upvotes, 0 direct replies

People are still beating this horse? All the people who believe in 9/11 should be rounded up and sent to Russia.

Comment by frostybollocks at 30/01/2014 at 17:40 UTC

-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Explosives weren't used. The planes were transformers who after entry wrecked the building. Problem solved