payne1000

Another of your cover-up sites where the creator of the blog does not reveal his name.
He lists no names of engineers who support the official lies of 9/11.
The reason for that is that very few engineers support the official lies.
This is the type testimonials you need to post to show engineers and architects who support the official lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYMXwFK0C8
Can you find any testimonials that support the official lies which are similar to these?

emarine

And explain how the length of time the towers held the weight before the plane impact has anything to do with anything except a total lack of understanding & pure ignorance of the situation...putz... still haven't got a clue of potential energy & energy do you?... but it had to be a chemical explosive detonation....

payne1000

You haven't explained how small, random fires burning only a short time could cause any collapse of the steel structure.
Begin your explanation of how the massive center core could collapse straight down with enough momentum to crush the 90 undamaged floors below it.
Remember the basics:

boofhead

I admit only a quick look at this, but I have a copy of the NIST report and have read it all. I am not an engineer but have a lot of experience flying large jet airplanes so that I can see things in the report that simply are impossible but that is something only a pilot would know, because impossible things are plausible to someone who only knows aviation through simulation.

Anyway, just to choose one thing from the link you provided, a summary of the airplane moving through the building after it hit the first tower, says that a computer simulation shows how the airplane broke up, was shredded in fact, the titanium engine shafts went through the affected floors like bullets and exited out the other side (although I don't remember anything about finding them later) and this was closely followed by the HUGE amount of jet fuel which because of its mass passed right through and out the other side where it could clearly be seen burning in the sky alongside the building.

I could see that, too, on the videos.

So if it burnt mainly in the open, alongside the building, where was the energy for the supposedly massive fires that, along with paper and wooden files and furniture, softened the steel so much that the building fell down in less than 15 seconds? To be clear, if the fuel did not burn inside the building but was ejected due to its momentum, how could it also be the cause of the HUGE fires burning inside the building?

Would true engineers overlook something so basic? Or if called on it, would use sarcasm and contempt as an answer? Surely if you wanted someone to believe you, you would want to argue it logically and scientifically, not just call skeptics "Troofers".

Maybe you are right, but so far it comes down to those who want to believe and will do so no matter the evidence, and those who want to believe but need proof that makes sense. I see nothing wrong with being a skeptic. Millions of people around the world are skeptics on most matters, as they should be, so what is wrong with being a skeptic on this? Without the skeptics, science would have stopped thousands of years ago and we would still be using mud to make our walls and shoveling horse shit out of the roads.

payne1000

This topic has gone 55 pages so far and no one has yet to explain what caused those huge melted holes in the tower foundation. Before the towers came down, the hole shown below was filled with solid concrete and rock. Surely one of the explosive demolition deniers can explain what caused the huge crater, melting part of it?