Why put up a link with so many flaws in its contents?
Lets start with some basics:
Wrong. WTC7 also had structural damage, as was seen in photos. I should add that it wasn't the only building to collapse on that day due to the two towers collapsing.
So structural damage by large airliners doesn't matter?
And how many of those have suffered major structural damage due to airliner impact as well as major fire? When a building collapses, whether its because of fire or explosives, it is going to fall quickly, as gravity does the same job.
Controlled demolition using explosives only take out specific supports (other explsoives are sometimes used to control the direction during collapse) and let gravity do the rest, so a building collapsing due to fire will look similar as it collapses, as it will only give way when enough structural integrety has been removed. BTW, the tallest building demolished with explosves was 439 feet and 25-story.
This is laughable. Not only do you have multiple floors intact falling onto the building below (enough to destroy just about any building), but the bracing at the top of the twin towers added even more weight to them. Countless experts have stated that once the collapse started, it could not have stopped.
The shock loading would have been far too much, as any demolition expert would tell you. Which is why they tend to use gravity to do most of the work in many demolitions.
More nonesense.
"Elaborate mechanisms"? Even on the day, many of us knew that the steel would not have melted, as all the fires had to do was weaken the steel on an already weakened structure.
There was molten aluminium pouring from the fire areas onto the sidewalk, but there was also UPS systems in those areas, which could have created all sorts of fire/explosions/sparks/misc effects.
I could go on but you get the idea.
These people use half truths, strawman arguments, misrepresentation, and when all else fails... lies, to peddle their theories. Much of it is driven by ego of course. To find something that the mainstream has not. But they fail the most basic scientific methods as they cherry pick evidence to fit the theories they wish to present.
They also fail to explain how not a single person who got out (this includes people who were near the impact zone), never mentioned a single incidence of people working on cutting beams or planting explosives in any way either in the months prior to the attack, or on the day. Given that any consiracy theory can be exposed with one loose tongue, this seems erm, strange. And shows a complete lack of understanding how the world works.
In the end they show huge disrespect to the victims and their families, by continuing with such dishonesty.
