Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: 9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense" [View all]gyroscope
(1,443 posts)14. Explosives, hydraulics, whatever
the building in your video did not collapse because of fire. the point is devices were used in key locations to weaken the supports and initiate a symmetrical collapse, just as with any other controlled demolition.
give an example where fire has caused a building to collapse on itself (without any kind of CD) completely and symmetrically and you would have an argument.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"I'm about to give some of these 9/11 truther dumb-asses a little bit of a lesson"
William Seger
Nov 2014
#4
" because walls are not built strong enough to bear the buildings above them at a crazy wrong angle"
wildbilln864
Jan 2015
#42
Exactly: the idea that WTC should topple over in one piece like a 2x4 is silly but ....
rewinn
Jan 2015
#52
No, as that paper explains repeatedly, calculations of the real life physical process were not done.
eomer
Nov 2014
#21