Which is pretty funny because most of these conspiracy theories usually tend to contradict one another.
It doesn't make any sense to espouse any theory without first disproving the "official theory" with scientific argument. Thousands of Architects and Engineers have banded together to call BS on the "official version". Their scientific arguments cannot be overcome by those clinging to the "official theory".
What we get in lieu of debate and discussion are emotionally charged outbursts that have nothing to do with discussing the subject or debating the science.
The "official theory" is completely unsupported by science. A small portion of any structure cannot destroy the over 80,000 tons of steel and concrete that is supporting it. To say it can, especially to say it can with constant acceleration, violates 2 of Newton's Laws.
What does it say about people who cannot either accept or process simple physics??
Look at Quag's responses... he provides no argument, it is nothing but emotional outburst; and he is just like Mike, Mark, Tiger, et al... their game is to try and derail discussion and debate and turn everything into a food fight. No point in playing that game - it's like a Republican and a Democrat spending endless hours shouting at each other - what's the point to that??
False the building did not collapse at freefall. You cannot get accurate information from truther sites they all lie.
They didnt collapse at freefall
Stop getting your information from truther sites, they all lie.
I am not the one spreading truther lies about WT7 collapsing freefall. The intellectual dishonesty is a trademark of truthers.
I explained why what NIST did with Bldg 7 was dishonest, and that is easily demonstrated. They "assumed the descent speed to be constant" (their verbage), started the clock at the first sign of movement, and then came up with an average which they said was the speed of the collapse.
But what is easily demonstrated, is that they are deliberately trying to mask the fact that for approx. 2.5 seconds, the building is accelerating at freefall speed, i.e. roughly 9.8 m/s^2. In order for this to happen, all, as in ALL, of the supporting structure would necessarily have to be removed. The only logical way that can happen is controlled demolition.
As for the Towers, Chandler graphs the collapse of the roofline with velocity as a function of time. This is not complicated stuff.
It cannot be denied that the roof line comes down with constant acceleration. Again, as in the case of Bldg 7, this could not happen unless all of the supporting structure beneath it has been removed, and the only way that can happen is controlled demolition. Again, not a complicated or controversial argument.
Quag, instead of running around shouting that your hair is on fire - how about addressing the scientific arguments??