Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11

Well yes. Buildings are not built to resist half a building falling on them. What would you expect to see when a building collapses? You don't think concrete is pulverised when half a building falls on it?What would you expect to happen? No, chemical evidence shows that the ingredients of thermite were found at the site.Do you know what thermite is made of? What are you talking about?---You seem to have pick-and-mixed your conspiracy theories. If a collapsing building cannot collapse at "near free-fall speed", then how can thermite make it do so?Does thermite pulverise concrete? I think not.Is thermite used in controlled demolitions? No, they use explosives.Have you ever seen a video of a real controlled demolition?

Well, Mr President, I think I've come up with the causus belli you wanted. Let's trick the public into thinking that terrorists have flown planes into the Twin Towers.Great! That'll get the public on our side!No it won't.It won't?No, we did a poll. Apparently the public won't be willing to go to war unless the towers ... 'scuse me, I have this in my notes ... ah yes ... unless the towers "collapse symmetrically into their footprint at near free-fall speeds".What does that even mean?We don't know for sure, but we've got the guys at NIST working round the clock to find out.Okay, so let me get this straight. We hijack the planes, we crash them into the Twin Towers ...No we don't.We don't?We want the public to think that planes have hit the towers. I don't see how planes actually hitting the towers would give them that impression. No, we'll use holograms or missiles disguised as planes or something.OK, I'm getting the picture now. So, we hijack the planes, we hide them somewhere, we project holograms of planes hitting the towers, we do this "symmetrical collapse" thingy --- how do we do that, by the way?There are several options. Some people say that we should use some sort of death-ray, but me, I want to use good old-fashioned explosives.What's wrong with the death-ray?It doesn't exist. So, I suggest that we inconspicuously wire the buildings with high explosives ...Inconspicuously?Yeah. It's OK, I asked Silverstein's permission.You ... you asked his permission?I thought it was only polite. Actually, he was very enthusiastic. He says can he personally give the order to blow up WTC 7, he thinks it's ugly.Sure, why not? Heck, he can have the architect whacked too for all I care.And he wants to brag about his role in the conspiracy on television.No problem ... oh, hang on, remind me. The planes are meant to hit WTC 1 and 2, yeah? Why are we blowing up WTC 7?We did a survey asking people whether the total destruction of two world-famous skyscrapers 110 storeys tall would impress them any, and 57% replied "Not unless a 47-storey building I've never heard of collapses at about the same time".Fine, democracy is about giving the people what they want. So, to recap: we plant explosives in the Twin Towers, WTC 7, and any other structure that Larry Silverstein has a grudge against, we hijack some planes, we hide them, we project a hologram of the planes hitting the towers, Larry blows up the towers, he might need some firemen to help him, make a note of it ... and then we pin the blame on the Iraqis. Yes?No, we blame a bunch of Saudis.Geopolitics always gets me confused. Why do we blame the Saudis?Well you see ...[At this point, the tape becomes completely inaudible for about thirty seconds.]Oh I see! Well, if that don't beat all for cunning. So, we plant the explosives, we hijack the planes, we hide them, we make with the holograms, Larry Silverstein blows up the towers, we pin the blame on some Saudis ... and then we invade Iraq?No, then we invade Afghanistan. The reason is complex, so I wrote it down on this bit of paper.Now where are my glasses? ... OK, let's have a look.[Sound of pages turning.]Mmm ... mmm-hmm ... my word, I never knew that about camels, good grief, you live and learn ... yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. Afghanistan it is, then. And you're sure no-one will ever find out about this?With respect, Mr President, I'm sure that lots of people are going to find out about this.And what are we going to do about that?We're going to close our eyes and wish real hard that by some wild coincidence no-one who suspects the truth will have the expertise necessary to prove it.

Buz --- I didn't follow that at all. I can't even figure out which side of the argument you're taking.

Go right ahead. Hint: this will involve actual math. The word "obviously" is not actually a substitute for evidence.

Well, in that case, all becomes clear. The Twin Towers were brought down by the volcano which suddenly errupted in Manhattan.Unless for some reason you have no idea what the word "lava" means. And yet a mere glance at videos of the collapse show that it collapsed from the top down. Gra-vi-ty. Which you don't quote. I'll ask again. Have you ever watched a video of a real controlled demolition? Ah, it must have been a special plane with non-flinching capacity. Normal plane flinch before hitting buildings ...... no, wait, what the heck are you talking about? And yet if you look at the videos, you can see where the planes made great big holes in the buildings. Now there's a question which answers itself.It had a twenty-storey hole in it, you don't think that might have weakened the structure somewhat? Professors, eh?Are we talking here about the theologian James Fetzer ... or Judy Wood and her "Keebler Elves Hypothesis"?

"In a perfect fashion"? You mean it fell downwards? Blimey, gravity must have been in on the conspiracy. I guess Sir Isaac Newton must have "pulled" the building. Because the report was meant to be a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks", rather then a dissertation on what happens to buildings if you knock a twenty-storey hole in them. Did any of them have twenty-storey holes in them?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Incidentally, if there are any creationists reading this --- hi there, nemesis_juggernaut! --- and if you've ever wondered what you look like to non-creationists ... you look like lost-apathy."I don't understand how this happened. Therefore I do understand how this happened. Bushdidit."

You know, when you lie to your opponents about what their opinions are, you do convince them of something. You convince them that you're a liar.But not much else.

Because I have already told you why I thought WTC7 collapsed.Then you lied about it.To reiterate: there was a 20 storey hole in it, there were fires raging through the building, and, as your own links prove, experienced firefighters knew that the building was so structurally weakened that collapse was inevitable.You will notice that the phrase "the government said so" did not appear anywhere in my explanation, because you are a liar and you made that up in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Bush moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform."

And this is another way in which CTs are like creationists.Creationists, despite all the evidence, insist that everyone who disagrees with them is driven by an atheist ideology. CTs, despite all the evidence, insist that everyone who disagrees with them is driven by a neoconservative ideology.The fact that many of their opponents are devout Christians doesn't stop the creationists from lying about it, and the fact that many of their opponents are liberals (a label that I'm happy to wear) doesn't faze the CTs in the slightest.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, it's called a straw man.Anyone with experience of the EvC debate will now be feeling an acute sensation of deja vu.---Do you know, the CTs even their own lie about "the second law of thermodynamics"?No, I'm not making it up. I wish I was.* bangs head repeatedly on desk *

For which you evidently have no counter-argument. And yet the thread title seems to be about the Twin Towers.Gosh golly, did someone more the goalposts? I wonder who that could have been. Everyone reading this thread can read post #66, you know. It's no point pretending that you haven't been presented with evidence, because we all know that you have.---Oh look, here's another one to add to the "why CTs are like creationists" list: BWAHAHAHAHA!Yup, it's the old "you wouldn't argue with me unless you thought I was right" dodge.I wonder why you're arguing with us? You seem, ah, "pretty passionate".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Golly, what a detailed and trenchant critique. No, I don't.Buildings fall down. You know, the direction that gravity works in? There was also the little matter of all the other structural damage. Like the big hole in the building. Strawman much? Except in cases where this is not true, e.g. the Madrid skyscraper fire, where the steel frame collapsed and only the concrete core remained standing. Er ... this rubbish has been available to the public for years.They're just not buying it.---And, congratulations, you've adapted yet another bit of creationist rubbish to your cause. Some day ... everyone will see that you're right ... and then we'll all be sorry ... someday.They're still saying it 150 years after Darwin, so I don't see why the Cult of 9/11 Troof shouldn't last that long too.

I thought I'd just post this:

quote:

---

Christianity, my faith, may or may not be true and I'm not even going to go there.

​

However, Evolution has had so many instances of manufactured evidence to "prove" it actually occurred just as the US government or whoever manufactured certain evidence that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden carried out 9/11.

​

Hitler was a strong believer in evolution. He saw the Jews and blacks as species of humans that had more in common with monkeys than people.

​

I have some absolutely fascinating lectures i will copy and give to anybody interested that tears down the evolution myth with fact just as we tear down the official story of 9.11 with our facts.

---

Here.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.