bodge wrote: The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."
The buildings were not destroyed faster than a free fall collapse other than by about 2 seconds.
What does "other than by about 2 seconds" mean?
Where are your calculations?
How long do you think it would take to bring down a 110-storey skyscraper in a controlled demolition?
How would you manage to turn the steel to dust in the process?
bodge wrote:They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
The towers did not undergo mid air pulverisation, that was the result of explosives.
So, there was no mid air pulverisation because "that" (the mid air pulverisation?) was the result of explosives?
What are you saying?
bodge wrote:The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
That bit proves nothing of significance.
It does actually, unless you assume that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel crashing down onto something would not damage it much. Obviously that is a ridiculous assumption with no basis in reality.
bodge wrote:The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
They where deep underground and the building was designed to behave that way.
Where is your proof that the buildings were designed to sustain only light damage to the rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars, in the event of a controlled demolition?
bodge wrote:The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.
Again a design feature.
Again, do you have anything other than your own opinion?
bodge wrote:The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
Thermate burns slow in comparison to C4 you get a more controlled demolition.
Do you understand what you are saying?
How would thermate, however slowly it burns - bearing in mind that according to you "the buildings were not destroyed faster than a free fall collapse other than by about 2 seconds" - how would that almost completely remove the seismic signal? Do you know what a seismic signal is?
bodge wrote:The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
Your directed energy theory doesnt behave that way if you watch the vids closely.
Your opinion again, which is observably incorrect.
bodge wrote: The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
Thermate doesnt explode in the conventional sense it burns much more slowly but with extreme temperatures to cut through the steel rather than tearing apart instantly.
Are you suggesting that the thermate got rid of the steel so that it didn't fall and hit the ground? Or are you saying that the thermate dramaticallt reduced the seismic signal in some other way, and if so, how exactly?
bodge wrote:9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
Totally wrong, only 80% percent of the soft parts of the building ie concrete, prefab walls etc.
To back up your ill-informed (but relentless) opinion, can you post some pictures of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of hypothetical solid steel at ground zero immediately after what you are suggesting was a controlled demolition?
If not, why not? Where did the steel go?
bodge wrote:11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
All very easily explainable and very consistent with a standard demolition job.
No it isn't. But if you want to explain how a standard demolition job would completely destroy all of the toilets or even recognizable portions of one, and create circular and other odd-shaped holes in the windows of nearby buildings, then explain it.
Just saying that you believe they are explainable is worthless.
bodge wrote:"Fuzzballs" Saying that ALL the world trade center wreckage went up into smoke and was vaporized AS SHE DOES
Actually the word is dustified, because vapourized implies heat, and there wasn't a significant amount of heat, certainly nowhere near enough to vapourize steel.
bodge wrote:is the mark of an idiot.
This coming from a man who believes that something becomes a fact when a large enough number of people believe it to be true?
bodge wrote:911 is up to its eyeballs in trolls from the government.
Yes, misrepresenting evidence and lying left, right and centre. You haven't spotted any around here have you?
bodge wrote:And to be honest, she is going to have to come off a little stronger in the realm of credibility, if she wants people to trust a single thing she says.
I bet she's devestated at this slight from such an intellectual giant.
bodge wrote:About that simple. Straight and forward. We are not in high School here, she needs to wake up and smell the coffee, or get the hell off the train. Seriously. She has two choices. Either stop with her Jibberish bullshit, or step up to the plate and offer rational ideas and concepts which cannot be ridiculed by 99.99999% of the people.
You do understand that you're not the moderator of the world, don't you?