Sup LC. 133m4n of JREF here. I come in peace.

I present a challenge. This is for those who are certain that the collapses of the Towers and WTC7 were controlled demolitions by instinct. In other words, for those who look at the videos and say, "Gee, that sure looks like a controlled demolition".

Now to say that the collapses "looked like a controlled demolition" begs the question: What does a non-demolition collapse look like?

And therefore, my challenge is for these people to describe in detail, what such a collapse would look like--what the collapses of 9/11 SHOULD have looked like, were the "official story" correct.

Not asymetrical.

Not near freefall.

Not through the path of most resistance.

Without powder thrown outward from the inside-out, top-down.

No evaporated steel.

No sulfidation.

No "meteor".

No mysteries and coverup.

No crime scene coverup.

No familiar OKC faces.

No "low chance of probability".

Remember the leaning top section? I believe that would have continued if the core columns stayed in tact.

The buildings took the planes and fire as expected.

Read about the explosive 118, google Graeme MacQueen.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm

No you don't...and you know you don't. Your MO from that site is on display for all to see...you 'come' looking for the ultimte 'stundie'. You 'come' just like all your brethren...needing a pat on the back from the madding crowd and a gravy stain on your shirt.

For those who like to start a thread at it's earliest beginning.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...333#post3274333

MM

I'm never ceasing to be amazed at the groupthink at Jwoof. Ever seen a nature show on jackals? Very similar, except we know why jackals act that way.

Excellent pictures, BC! The "debunkers" will say they are not relevant because these buildings aren't 110 stories. :rolleyes:

Well those building came down because of earthquake damage, so their ground foundations have been damaged, thats why they have tipped over.

Now if you would have done the same thing on WTC, it would had tipped over.

If you want to compare WTC with some other building, then start looking for buildings that have been hit by a large jetliner.

Blarney,

I'd like for you to be wrong about this and for JREF, just this once, to show that it is able to operate to a level of integrity comparable to the esteem that it holds itself in.

My head tells me it won't and that you are correct. You only need to follow the link to the JREF froum that germinated the intial post above to see what really transpires.

I will watch this one closely but my expectations are low.

Are you related to Issm1337 at all?

How do you know? Do you have evidence from other buildings constructed like the WTC that have fallen down due to earthquake damage?

Your speculation is no more valid.

...Now to say that the collapses "looked like a controlled demolition" begs the question: What does a non-demolition collapse look like?

Why does it beg the question?

And therefore, my challenge is for these people to describe in detail, what such a collapse would look like--what the collapses of 9/11 SHOULD have looked like, were the "official story" correct.

What is the purpose of this exercise? You are specifically directing this question to people that you have already stated have concluded instinctively. Knowing your stance on the issue this suggests that you have no regard for their opinion anyway so why ask the same people for further speculation on what the collapse SHOULD have looked like?

This is a strawman and reveals your true intentions.

The fact is that the complexity of the WTC is such that the debate is not about what the collapse should look like. It is reduced to whether enough energy was available to initiate collapse and maintain it. The energy concepts are broad enough to cope with the level of detail that we can model.

there arent any such NON-demolition collapses, if by "collapse" u mean an entire building crumbling uniformly and symmetrically all the way down, at a pace thats only 2 to 3 seconds slower than freefall speed. no building has ever crumbled the way the wtc's did, at least NOT without the aid of strategically placed demolition charges. so why dont YOU provide some examples of complete structural failure due to fire and/or due to damage to a few support columns?

dont u mean "incorrect"? the official story claims to be correct: it claims that what we saw was indeed caused by fire and some structural damage.

the officially story is/was incorrect bcuz there would NOT have been any collapse, especially a complete one (from top to bottom). what would a jetfuel induced fire look like? like a fire. could such a fire lead to complete collapse? no, it never has before or since. could such fire added to damage to a few columns cause a building to self-destruct or come undone at a uniform pace and in a uniform manner, ALL THE WAY AROUND and DOWN the building, at a pace that is only 3 seconds longer than freefall? no.

and how about wtc7, which incurred no direct damage from planes, yet somehow managed to catch fire and also fully crumble down, symmetrically and uniformly? show us a building neighboring a plane crash that somehow managed to crumble completely. show us a building that has incurred falling debris damage from a neighboring building, and then managed to come completely undone.

so not only are your questions "loaded", but they are posed in a confusing and mis-stated manner.

seeker 135, don't feed the troll. Those pictures are not admissable as evidence and are not necessary to answer the strawman question anyway.

An admittedly knee-jerk reaction on my part. I originally went to JREF to get 'the other side of the story'. Initially, I was fairly impressed with the arguments they presented to defend the OCT. As time went on however, it became a 'twoofer' bashing contest, with everyone going against their group-think seen as needing to seek the help of a mental health professional, or worse.

There must be a least two dozen threads there that bear a striking resemblance to the OP posited here, and nearly every thread there seems to have one of crew saying how they've already debunked every angle of the events of 9/11, and how tired they are of the same old thing. I would tend to agree that the so called physical anomalies has been beaten like the proverbial dead horse, so why try to resurrect it here? I guess I should've made my comment to say. "What's the point?" and left it at that.

I see my post was quoted over there with the thought that there is "a lot of pent up anger". A more descriptive word would be disgust.

dont feed the troll