I've said there are proofs to the fact that the towers we're brought down by control demolition and provided some sources as first steps of investigating those proofs.
I've also provided direct proofs with the first quote. Even thought this proof is a thought experiment it is a very solid one and if one would fit the real life data onto this exact experiment one would realize this thought experiment reveal the truth, the primary reasons for the towers to fell the way they felt can't be fire and only fit control demolition.
This is all explain in the first 2 video I provided.
What you are writing seems to imply you won't look into these links because you personally believe it would be too difficult for it to be an inside job.
Your beliefs aren't proofs of anything and doesn't and cannot disprove anything.
If something happened to someone we love and for some reasons it got into a court of justice and a judge would end up saying, nah I'm not going to look at your proofs because I have a preconceived belief that goes against the proofs then we'd all be very upset and rightly so.
Your belief is just that a belief. As I already said it doesn't prove or disprove anything nor can it.
As I've said, the undeniable proofs the towers were brought down by control demolition are pretty easy to understand and easy to find.
it wasn't controlled demolition. heat weakens steel. steel doesn't have to melt to be weakened.
heat from the building/fuel fire caused by impact weakened the structure that was already weakened by impact. once one floor fails, the rest collapse.
if you don't believe me, here's an experiment: go take a cinder block, put a Coke can on it, balance another cinder block top of the can. repeat for three stories or so, then drop a cinder block on top. it'll all collapse at once.
WTC7 wasn't hit by an airplane. Office fire cannot significantly weakened steel to the point all the steel beams would fell straight in their own footprint through the path of most resistance.
Heat from the fire affecting the steel beam would have dissipate through the steel beams and wouldn't have weakened them equally everywhere making all steel beams to fall at the same rate all through out the whole building the way they did.
Watch the first 2 video I mention above if you care to learn more about why your assumption are wrong and learn about how they have been proven wrong.
As you can see it's very easy for an office fire to weaken steel.
The whole structures of the 3 towers hold on until point of collapse then all of the steel beam collapsed onto themselves through the path of most resistance like the video demonstrate.
I said, office fire cannot significantly weakened steel to the point all the steel beams would fell straight in their own footprint through the path of most resistance.
Even if the Steel would have been weaken by any amount of %, the way the towers felt straight through the past of most resistance defies the laws of physics if we are to believe the official version.
Your comment in noway refute what I said.
Welcome on Steemit as this seems your very first comment ever, after just receiving your account today.
Also, ignore the fact that on the video, with careful observation, you can clearly see that the center columns collapsed first. They were not damaged by "isolated fires." That building was demolished. Period. Next question please...
wtc 7 was hit by a piece of the other buildings that flew from their collapse.
If that made the building collapse, why did the center columns collapse first?
To melt steel, a basic office fire is far the temperatures required. It would need a metric tonne of thermite on every floor igniting perfectly at the exact same time to have that kind of effect.
How can you be soooo naive !!
What's naive about it?
Not a valid engineering comparison example.
What dropped on TOP of the building to crush it like you say ?
The plane flew into it from the SIDE.
Using your logic is should have fallen sideways.. by a measurable smidgen at least.
Please explain to this lowly test engineer your logic .. im keen :)
what dropped on top was those many floors ABOVE the failing column. dropped all at once, massive impact. buildings aren't designed to withstand that.
it fell mostly level because the support was central. try my experiment, and you'll see that the cinder blocks fall mostly level.
I don't know if you truly believe what your comments on this tread transpire but if you do I have sympathy for you and I recommend you watch the 2 movies above as I had already said.
May people recognize my first comment I made on this tread as true or at least intriguing enough to learn more on the subject.
They could save a lot of time and agony by watching these videos instead:
Oh dear .. armchair engineering alert.
Actually the buildings I have been involved with all got heavily modeled for exactly the physics you describe.
I suggest you read more Physics 101 because what you are saying does not fit with reality and its making you look a little silly.
Be brave and boogie on baby :)
Could you be more specific? I hold a master's in mathematics, and I've aced every physics and engineering class. Bring it.
Lol, really :) Love ya vigour.
thank you. is that it?
What the hell are you talking about, @lostinthesauce?
Balance some blocks on some loose drinks tins?
Balance? Just balance?
Have you actually seen photos of the Twin Towers before their controlled demolition?
The strongest, the most dense, the most concentrated network of the thickest steel girders, forming an actual, vast, thick cage around the whole outside of the building, with similar steel interior suport in the core of the building.
With foundations going down 10 floors worth of space underground.
There were no buildings on earth like them, before or during their time or since their demise.
You want to compare that to balancing concrete blocks on drinks cans in a fragile way and then trying to make skittles out of what are already essentially nothing but skittles anyway?
You insult peoples' basic intelligence.
There is one big anaomly in the 'demolition theory - the total lack of debris. - dustification occurred, which is not a result of demolition explosive - and metallic heat damage with more combustible products (newpapers,), next to charred metal parts, left untouched..There are many inconsistencies.
Have you ever seen the dr judy woods presentation ?, re- high energy weapons, and effects?
She is a prof in engineering, I believe
I've heard about some of her stuff and as far as I remember her theory of high energy weapons doesn't make any sense in regard to known laws of physics. Nano-thermite were use or a even more powerful chemical reaction was use to meltdown those steel beams at strategic places all over the building.
Energy weapons whatever that mean doesn't make any sense in term of the energy necessary to accomplish what we have witnessed.
why???
Because air is not a good conductor of energy and it has taken tremendous amount of energy to achieve the collapse we have seen which would never be possible with energy weapons (whatever that mean again). It would defy basics laws of physics.
Even the local fire fighters reported seeing MOLTEN METAL. How the hell is that possible if the official story is true? It isn't.
Don't dismiss what Dr Woods says.
The truth is she was once a temporary insider on some deep state government research projects, though is legally prevented from saying so or admitting this if asked.
You mention traditional physics, which indeed needs to be demarcated as the departure point for likely relevant points to the controlled destruction of the Twin Towers.
The point is, the US governent has literally so much secret technology which is radically departed from traditional physics, a hundred years and more advanced from the latest civilian recognised technology.
But there were also nuclear bombs built underneath the Twin Towers, WTC7 and other WTC towers when they were erected originally. This information was once part of an old, public interest documentary about the WTC (early to mid 70s film?), which has disappeared since 9/11. The nuclear bombs were set up deep underground there most of a half century before 9/11, and maintained over the years since. They had their own secret, off-limits access and maintenace underground railway between the nuclear bombs under a number of the towers.
The purpose of deep undergound nuclear was to make really susbtantial nuclear bombs, whose initial effect (noise, vibration) would be very much hidden when detonated with dense, inbuilt containing material above them. Yet within some time period after detonation, the energy has to escape and it does this into what is connected physically above. A kind of unstoppable conduction of energy. It turns the concrete into dust and quickly eliminates the strength of the steel, making it like a completely inferior material. So we see concrete dustified and steel able to be pulverised mostly also, into small and tiny bits. I believe even steel dust also - a brand new earthly phenomenon. While paper, telephones, computer keyboards are not touched by the kind of energy shockwave.
I do also think there is very likely to be something to Dr Woods' directed energy theories. This was a case of everything being used. The nuclear solution may have been the most major part, I suggest, but possibly too crude to rely on alone, in the most part. There had to be so much more going on.
9/11 saw the very most perfect pre-planned controlled demolitions which have ever taken place on this planet. So perfect were these demolitions that you can even suppose that no more perfectly effected controlled demolitions may probably ever occur again on the face of this earth throughout all time (until technology increasing gravitational pull is let loose)! That's actually not quite hyperbole, I think, but a simple, reasonably obvious statement to me at this point in the 21st Century.
The thermate also was probably scores of years more advanced than anything civilian technicians know of. (No doubt from the evidence thermate was used.) Again - it needed to be a case of using everything relevant available.