There is no physical evidence to suggest anything happened other than two planes crashed into the two towers, compromised their structural integrity, and even some experts realized immediately the towers were going to collapse.
The fact that you simply cannot emotionally deal with the evidence presented here, or provide a coherent alternative explanation for it, does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
You haven’t shown that there is any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, which characterizes the red/gray chips from the WTC dust and concludes that they are unreacted nanothermitic material that, when heated to 400°C in a DSC, exhibits an exotherm slightly narrower and more energetic than reference nanothermite and produces iron-rich microspheres exactly as thermite reactions are known to produce and such as have been found in abundance in the WTC dust by the US Geological Survey, RJ Lee Group and Jones et al.
You haven’t accounted for either these red/gray chips or the iron-rich microspheres that indicate temperatures significantly higher than temperatures produced by burning office contents or jet fuel.
You haven’t shown that it is possible for any stable high-rise building that is structurally damaged asymmetrically to collapse symmetrically. No one has ever demonstrated any such event because it is physically impossible.
You haven’t shown that it is possible for the Twin Towers to have violated Newton’s Third Law such that the damaged smaller upper block of each tower somehow supposedly suddenly fell upon the larger, undamaged lower portion and crushed the larger portion then crushed itself. Again, no one has ever demonstrated any such phenomenon because it physically impossible.
What you have demonstrated here is that you have a religious belief about the destruction of the WTC buildings, a belief that is impervious the evidence.
The first sign of a biased sourced is in the title. If you notice, none of my sources were directly related to 911
I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean. You need to read past the titles and speak to the evidence that has been presented here.
And it's basic logic that models of controlled demolitions cannot be attached to the Trade Towers, because nothing that big has ever been brought down before.
Utter nonsense. You need to inform yourself of Newton's Third Law. You haven't shown that it is possible for the small upper portion of a building, even if it had suddenly fallen on the larger portion below it, to crush the larger portion, then to crush itself. NIST wasn't able show that any such thing is possible. NIST (et al.) only counted on Americans being too dumb to figure it out.
And clearly the top parts of the towers coming down was enough to cause the rest to give out
Prove it.
Or are you only trying to make a circular argument?
Massive chunks of flying debris causing a fire, which caused the building to collapse.
So you disagree with NIST.
Again, I asked you to show that a building that suffers asymmetrical damage collapses into its footprint (at near-free-fall speed no less).
Evidently all you can do is just make assertions that you cannot show to be true.
If you read them, yes, they did deduce they would collapse.
"In the FDNY oral histories, there are about 60 FDNY members who report hearing warnings of Seven’s collapse. [. . .] In five cases it is unknown who ascertained that the building was headed for possible or certain collapse. Of the remaining cases, seven FDNY members personally ascertained or affirmed the possible or definite collapse, while in 50 cases this judgment was made by others, typically official superiors."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf
In any case, it’s irrelevant how many firefighters might have feared WTC 7 would collapse or why they feared it. None of them could have possibly predicted the building’s collapse based of the factors that NIST proposed as the cause of its collapse, which was an unprecedented, unique and unobservable sequence of events that resulted in the exterior columns inexplicably buckling simultaneously, which NIST could not even produce a black-box model of.
The destruction of WTC 7 is not even the best example of foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. The unequivocal and indisputable evidence of foreknowledge is found in the extraordinary amount of informed trades in put options on United and American airlines stock in the days prior to 9/11. “[T]here is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 which is consistent with investors trading on advanced knowledge of the attacks.”
http://voluntarysociety.org/conditioning/conspiracy/911/insidertrading/unusualoptionactivity.pdf
