Actually what I’m looking for is a lead to the thread where the question of explosives in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were finally put to rest? I’ve used numerous search terms and can’t find it.
I’m no Engineer but the fact that all three buildings collapsed at or near free fall speeds into their basements seems pretty conclusive to me. But several folks on this forum seemed to think, in a recent post on another subject, that this question had already been resolved satisfactorily in favor of the plane strikes. Naturally I’d like to see the argument.
The buildings didn’t fall anywhere close to freefall. What’s worse, even if explosives were involved, the buildings wouldn’t have fallen at freefall velocity. I’m still trying to figure out the Truther angle in this. It doesn’t even make physical sense. When you use explosives and buildings fall straight down, they don’t go at freefall. There’s rubble in the way to slow the process.
Yes, explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center. The specific explosive used was jet fuel. The fact that the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds is evidence that the terrorists did not manage to turn off the law of gravity.
The question of explosives used to bring down the Twin Towers complex was never put to rest, because it was never a question to begin with. Any person with a brain who’s seen the footage can logically conclude there were NO explosives used, aside from hijacked airplanes being used as a weapon of war.
As for how this dumb idea got started, and why it continues to persist 13 years after the fact…got me there, I have no idea. Maybe some people are just dumb?
Why the hell, if the government was orchestrating this thing, wouldn’t they just harmonize the news and the reality? In other words, if they orchestrated some planes to crash into the building, they can still put that on the news and blame terrorists. If they used explosives, why couldn’t they just say “some terrorists rigged up explosives and blew up the WTC towers”? In either case, you blame the terrorists and nobody is suspicious.
CTers don’t make an awful lot of sense, but truthers make even less sense than normal. If I wanted to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, I wouldn’t say something was blown up one way when it was actually blown up some other way. What purpose would that serve? Just say it was blown up the way it was actually blown up, and blame whoever you want.
Well the question is nonsensical. It’s like asking “I’m not rocket scientist but it’s pretty obvious rockets are pushing against celestial spheres when they move in space”
They don’t (conservation of momentum as per the rocket equation), just like the towers didn’t come down by demolition explosives.
silenus, it’s against the rules to publicly accuse another poster of trolling outside the Pit, which you’ve been around long enough to know. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
You were given a link to the answer in the third post. The question of whether explosives were used (they were not) was “put to rest” in virtually every previous thread on the subject on this site. If you haven’t been able to find a single thread on the subject, or don’t regard the evidence as being definitive, then I don’t think any further information provided here is going to help you.
I’m closing this thread, since it has been adequately answered in General Questions terms. You may open another thread in Great Debates, if and only if you demonstrate that you have read the other threads on the subject and have some clear specific evidence on the subject that is not based on a misunderstanding of basic physical laws.