Petr Buben makes much of the latest 9/11 conspiracy tidbit

Tuesday

Sep082009

20090908 at 01:36

UPDATE: Replaced embed with inline text, for search and archival purposes.

UPDATE: De-linked all of Buben’s sources here; click through if you must have them

9/11: Science and Conspiracy | National Geographic ~Good progress. At least they mention there is something else than official story. In fact, there is the truth - 9/11 is a controlled demolition. Who did what, and when? Polygraph questioning should tell us. We need independent investigation.

I’m frankly very very tired of the “9/11 Truth” “movement.” I’ve done my own research, and followed up in recent years. I guess I was just irritable and didn’t like seeing this pop up in my FriendFeed stream.

I’ve a long-standing ban on Alex Jones and his sites prisonplanet.net and infowars.com. Note that I refuse to link to them - you will have to type into your browser if you just can’t help yourself.

Here is the discussion that followed from Buben’s notion that particles of thermite (or something consistent with thermite) found recently somewhere proves it was a plot by our government. I’m familiar with the Building 7 side-conspiracy and I frankly don’t know if Petr is confusing the two. I also don’t know why a Czech truck driver would consider himself an expert in forensic science and demolition.

Buben is certainly tenacious — but I do manage to get in a few good ones:

“What? Did you make up any facts since I looked into it years ago? You should bring then to the WTC site this September, and tell the firemen. I’m sure they’ll be fascinated with what you have to say.”

NOPE: “Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers. Science: Some truthers claim dust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.”

Pity you don’t seem to have read the only citation you made worth reading. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode…

Most of the heavy lifting in this discussion was done by the patient alphaxion.

This is for the record. I hope this is the last 9/11 anniversary that I encounter such grandiose stupidity, all of which must be terribly offensive to the many thousands who lost someone, and the millions who have been affected by the fallout.

FriendFeed link: Petr Buben: 9/11: Science and Conspiracy

August 19 2009

9/11: Science and Conspiracy | National Geographic ~Good progress. At least they mention there is something else than official story. In fact, there is the truth - 9/11 is a controlled demolition. Who did what, and when? Polygraph questioning should tell us. We need independent investigation. -http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode…

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode… …..http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com —— Wed Aug 19, 2009, 9:39am - Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy? The Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test in New National Geographic Channel Program ==On Monday, August 31, 2009==, National Geographic Channel’s 9/11: Science and Conspiracy conducts a forensic investigation to test tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories…. Now we hear from a group of theorists, dubbed the “9/11 Truth Movement,” who believe the official version is inconsistent… More news about: National Geographic Channel - Petr Buben

People that believe that 911 was an inside job are cut from the same cloth as those that believe Obama wasn’t born in the US. Grade A Loons. - Mattb4rd

@Matt ..facts are facts ..it is a controlled demolition…. per irrefutable scientific evidence, and per common sense …. http://ae911truth.org …. http://911blogger.com … http://911truth.org …http://wacla.org - Petr Buben

I’m not biting. Have a good evening. - Mattb4rd

ok … we will get there …. we will be ok - Petr Buben

@Apostol ..Americans need to deal with this, and they will …. the country will emerge stronger - Petr Buben

bye now! nice not knowing you. - Richard Walker

@Richard ..bye. .. just get to know the facts - Petr Buben

it’l be interesting to see, which official propaganda media will first “break the news” .. i contacted Matt Drudge, and HuffingtonPost .. they wont touch it … http://drudgereport.com - http://huffpost.com …. :] …. too much truth at the moment :] - Petr Buben

What? Did you make up any facts since I looked into it years ago? You should bring then to the WTC site this September, and tell the firemen. I’m sure they’ll be fascinated with what you have to say. -Richard Walker

I do not make up facts. Nobody does ..ehm ……. But yes, this very important year of 2009, some new, irrefutable conclusive scientific evidence, of the presence of explosive nanothermite in the pyroclastic dust of imploded pulverized towers, was found …. just for the folks who it is not enough just to look at how towers fell into their footprints, with the speed close to free fall, 10 floors per second. …. that’s how they pulverized. ….. tell the firemen! - they are telling me, how they heard explosions .. bum bum bum … why would firemen not be interested in hearing the truth? http://firefightersfor911truth.org - Petr Buben

NOPE: “Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers. - Richard Walker

Science: Some truthers claimdust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. - Richard Walker

EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.” - Richard Walker

Pity you don’t seem to have read the only citation you made worth reading.http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode… - Richard Walker

Richard, not that “some truthers claim..” - scientists found, conclusively, that high military explosive nano-thermite, non-existent in the nature, but manufactured, for example Lawrence Livermore Labs, was present in great quantities in the pyroclastic dust …1.can you accept this?http://friendfeed.com/rockcre… … http://stj911.org - http://ae911truth.org -http://journalof911studies.com …….2. nanothermite COULD NOT have come from “melting airplanes”, that is a scientific fact —- official “science” is way off .. in fact, those are flat lies - Petr Buben

the real scientists claim that nano-thermite, highly advanced manufactured explosive, wasn’t the only explosive to bring down towers in classic controlled demolition … have you seen the last video from China? - the controlled demolition? - http://911irrefutableevidence…. - Petr Buben

I have read all citations, propaganda, and facts i need … plus, do you realize that 1. both buildings fell in the same manner? on the same day? 2. they pulverized, exploding and imploding 3. they fell into their own footprints ..4.buildings remained standing after the planes impacts - because the were specifically designed to do so … 5. have you seen tv footage?? do you believe even for 1 minute, that is was not a controlled demolition ??….. 6. and please, comment on building WTC7 free fall ..another controlled demolition … yes ..ok but who, when and how set the charges? …we need investigation -Petr Buben

Here are the REAL facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch… - Mattb4rd

WTC was not a controlled demolition. It wasn’t a “classic controlled demolition” at all. Have you ever seen what goes into a controlled demo? It requires a hell of a lot of work, the stripping out of several ground floors, the drilling into support beams and wiring up of explosives so they can go off in a programmed sequence. Also, since when have you seen a controlled demolition that started two thirds up a building that allowed the top to angle and then fall? It takes months to plan and prep a building that’s only 10 or so stories. The prep work needed for the WTC would have taken years! - alphaxion

The WTC came down as a result of gallons of aviation fuel igniting fires across the whole building. Those fires weakened the support beams, allowing them to bend. The weight of the building above the initial impact area (the area with the greatest damage and hottest fires) caused the supports to break, creating a cascading collapse from the top down. Every controlled demolition I have seen starts at the bottom and works its way up. Do you think the only way an uncontrolled demolition can fall is akin to pushing over a standing pencil? - alphaxion

By the way, the “explosions” that were heard would have been compressive as the top of the building fell onto the floors below it. Not every boom is generated by an explosive charge ;) I recommend you do some research into controlled demolitions before you try to claim this was one - alphaxion

Doing some research myself and there have been top down demos… but they tend to be small buildings that have been completely gutted. Quite different to a 110 story building that hasn’t been prepped. I do have some questions for you - how could the work to plant the alleged explosives have been done un-noticed and how could they have even functioned after a plane slammed into them? considering the point of collapse is from the very area the plane went in, it would have damaged the wiring and detonators causing no charge to ever set off. You can’t use wireless cause they are too unreliable and too much lag, plus as I said the fire on those floors would have damaged them. So, how did your apparently there charges manage to detonate? - alphaxion

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics… - alphaxion

At quick glance, I thought Megan Fox was using Friendfeed. - beersage

THANK YOU alphaxion . And Matt.:-) - Richard Walker

Resisting the urge to LOL at something that isn’t really funny at all. - Derrick

No, beersage, BUT MRS KUTCHER IS!!!1!! yay. not. - Richard Walker

@ Matt .. yes, real facts - 9/11 controlled demolition - Petr Buben

@Alph .. it was a controlled demolition. 1. the buildings, both of them, at the same day, and at the same way, even though hit differently by planes, disappeared, pulverized, after imploding into pyroclastic clouds of dust. nothing remained of them. ——here is a video of controlled demolition - have you seen it? http://911irrefutableevidence…. - Petr Buben

2. they disappeared with the speed of close to free fall - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for 110 floors buildings to fall - pulverize unto themselves, into their footprints .. logically, physical laws ,common sense - ABSOLUTELY impossible - unless they were demolished ….. 10 floors per second pulverized .. CAN you image building just falling?? - Petr Buben

3. “heck of a load of work to set explosive devices” - yes. you are right .. plausible ways of explanation exist - Bush brother Marvin, hand of security firm for WTC, ..numerous building power-downs, repairs … it is completely possible to explain, how over 10 tons of explosives were installed . - have you seen a video?.. for more explanation, we need investigation ..3B TALK ABOUT building WTC-7 ..would you ??? .. nanothermite was probably applied on the walls/beams as paint .its the high tech darn stuff - Petr Buben

nano-thermite will not detonate on fire, or impact … see, it is very sophisticated, military secret top stuff ..we can hardly imagine what can be done … its has been found in the pyroclastic dust, and it is irrefutable scientific evidence …… did you even need it, after watching, how towers fell ??? … and yes, wireless it probably was …. VIDEO - compare controlled demolition - http://www.youtube.com/watch…- http://911unitedweinvestigate…. ….. VIDEO - how charges were probably set -http://www.youtube.com/watch… - http://911unitedweinvestigate…. - have you seen these? - Petr Buben

the nanothermite might not have been destroyed, but of the wiring and the detonators? not to mention how they could get it in with no-one noticing? You carefully skip over these questions. And you can’t use the weekend where 1 of the towers (not the other) was evac’d because there simply isn’t enough time for the setup. They didn’t fall at freefall as they took longer to fully fall. Seriously, to claim they were controlled demo’s is to be painfully ignorant of the reality surrounding how such a demolition occurs. - alphaxion

and I’d say you need to watch the video again. Pretty impressive that they managed to preplan where the planes were gonna slam into so that it actually falls on the level of impact! - alphaxion

WTC7… you mean the building that had a massive 10 story gouge out of it from the antenna of the WTC? the one that suffered fires and rubble collision? Sorry, *someone* would have noticed the work needed for such an operation, it’s a miracle that any of the equipment survived the impacts to even detonate. The video footage doesn’t support the supposition and the only evidence I have ever seen to the contrary have been carefully selected, out of context quotes and ignorant connect the dot hypothesis as to how they could retcon their conspiracy into it. When each and every one of their dots are scrubbed out, the story changes. The only thing that could be true is that the pilots had help from within. Beyond that, tell me why the most valuable bit of available real estate in manhatten is still a hole? surely the owners would like to be earning money from it rather than let it remain as it is. -alphaxion

Does anyone else notice these people are generally ONE TRICK PONIES… They remind me of Jehovah’s Proselytizers shoving a copy of The WaTCh tower at you. Especially with the names of the websites and their sad attempts at re-framing science and “objective reality.” I have a few Jehovah’s Proselytizers and 9/11 doubters amongst my family and work colleagues. - Richard Walker

it is entirely possible for a building to go down in the manner of the WTC when you have had a massive plane slam into it, slicing thru a number of support beams, spewing thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into it and keeping a sustained fire on multiple floors. They were never built to withstand such an event because they are impossible to protect against. The only thing that is impossible is for any preplanned event to go off with so many variables and so much destruction. The fires were raging for a *long* time before the towers came down and all it takes is a single break in the loop for there to be no detonation of explosive charges. If you think the uncontrolled demolition of the towers was impossible, then the odds on it being a controlled demolition are even more remote. The collapse devastated many buildings around it and it wasn’t pulverised to nothing but dust because you saw massive chunks of debris left over once the dust had settled. Why do you think the most unrealistic version of events happened, one that would have required hundreds to thousands of people to pull off given the short windows of opportunity you mention. It just doesn’t stand up to reasoning. - alphaxion

ok … i have gone through this before, so for me it is almost a loss of time … but i will go ahead and answer - refute every your claim as inexact, uninformed and/or absolutely impossible … it is very clear to anybody who watched the towers fall into pulverizing, that official version is PURE NONSENSE, flat impossible. per common sense, and per science .. well .. il be right back with it …. il be spending time explaining that things do not fall up … :/ - Petr Buben

you think it impossible that 2 planes could do that and instead think it possible that tonnes of explosives (that need to not be noticed by sniffer dogs, staff and maintenance guys for months at a time!) and the required wiring jobs and prep work could be done a couple of days at a time by a crew small enough to not get noticed? Never mind survive long enough in those conditions to actually be used. Really, dude. Just look at what you’re typing, research *real* controlled demolitions and specifically the work needed to go into them and you’ll notice that your version of events have such *massive* flaws in them. Also, can you please show me a controlled demolition that starts two thirds up a building. Better yet, ask a guy who works on controlled demolitions. - alphaxion

do you accept that nanothermite was found all over the place? then it was explosives what did it ..and it DOES look like it was explosives controlled demolition ..JUST look at it .. it explodes, implodes, pulverizes ….vanishes into a small pile of cut up metal, molten metal, burning for many weeks ! === yes it is possible to get over 10 tons of nanothermite into WTC. have you seen videos i linked here? Bush’s brother Marvin was head of security, there were many complete powerdowns, building maintenance … - Petr Buben

it was nanothermite, probably in the form of wall paint, and also other explosives … see http://911blogger.com, http://stj911.org, http://journalof911studies.com .. those are scientists, impartial .. plus http://ae911truth.org … what else should i tell you? :] …… yes, they started it from the middle ..so what? it’s the technology … WTC-7 - was not seriously damaged by antenna .. and IF it was, there was NO WAY it could have fallen free fall speed, 6.6 seconds, into its own footprint, 1000 of bolts failing uniformly … WHAT A NONSENSE ! :] - Petr Buben

YES. WTC was specifically designed to withstand the impact of airliners - and IT DID !! have you seen that towers remained standing?? …now, office fire, nor airplane fuel, DOESN’T burn as hot as to melt a steel!! it can weaken it, yes, but then you would have irregular collapse, fall over, of the whole building !! do you realize what massive fiction idiocy was created by official version, official explanation ? .. pancake progressive collapse was UTTERLY discredited ! - impossible ! .. what else ….. WTC7 - there wre explosions in the building even before the first plane hit … PLEASE, take a look at independent, facts science based websites … i listed them above :] - Petr Buben

.. and let me ask you, if it came out that republicans, as a matter of policy, decided to do Reichstag fire, to rally the nationalistic parts of a nation for war, by doing 9/11 controlled demolition - would you agree? do you know what Reichstag fire is? Hitler burned down his parliament, so that he could go to war … institute police state regime .. - Petr Buben

controlled demolition that starts 2/3 up?? well ..have you seen the video from China?? about 1 week ago? ..go from maybe http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com .. or ..wait ..il look for direct youtube links … == here - http://911unitedweinvestigate…. - Petr Buben

@ Richard - one trick pony is a dummy that looks at pictures and footage of WTC 9/11 and doesn’t understand that it is a controlled demolition .. a false flag operation … self inflicted wound … but maybe, many, being brainwashed into nationalistic war pride, do not want to believe … it will be a tough piece to swallow for obedient population ..that this is what never elected government did to them …. sorry .. please, face the truth - Petr Buben

if you talking to me, then keep your personal attacks to yourself ..i am not interested in stupid talk -Petr Buben

none of the buildings fell at freefall - watch the video yourself and count.. wtc7 takes 13 seconds at least. Also 10 story gash in the front and fires + falling debris is certainly enough http://debunk911myths.org/topics…. Plus you’re still ignoring my question, how could the wiring and detonators survive impact and 50+ minutes of uncontrolled fires? No, WTC was not designed for a fully laden 767 (~24,000 gallons of air fuel) to slam into it. It was designed to withstand a light aircraft because the designers themselves said they didn’t even consider a fully laden modern jetliner slamming into it at 500mph. At best, they thought it might survive a 707 (*much* smaller) travelling at about 200mph with very little fuel left. - alphaxion

you’re falling into the “melt steel” trap. You don’t have to turn steel to molten goop.. you need to heat it enough to weaken the molecular bonds - which investigators found! The fires were certainly hot enough to weaken the steel enough for the weight of the building to crumple them. Considering that you saw molten aluminium pouring out of the building. - alphaxion

did you not look at your own video? that was 3 charges at the bottom, middle and top. It started to fall from the bottom. Are you seriously comparing an unfinished, bare bones building with 3 bundles of charges that falls from the bottom to the WTC’s that begin to fall from the point of impact without any signiture explosion outwards? Those are TOTALLY different. I can see you’re never going to view this with a logical and critical mind, merely a paranoid one. - alphaxion

http://wacla.org/2009… … yes i have seen videos .. they look exactly the same - controlled demolition …there is NO other way, just to tell you privately ….. it doesn’t matter where it starts falling - it depends on where you set off charges ……. - Petr Buben

melted steel - the real trap is, that it was found at the bottom on ground after the pulverization implosion .. and there is no way office fire or kerosine /airplane fuel/ burn near by far as hot as to melt steel … ..yes, you are right, office fire is enough to weaken the steel, and it’l will give way - in this case we would have seen fallover, wildly irregular, folding, crumping, big chunks of buildings, both looking different way, wild haphazard fall .. we saw NONE of this .. BOTH fell EXACTLY the same way …… -Petr Buben

i have answered your question, not ignored it - nanothermite will not set off on fires, it has different properties, and it was rigged differently - so it survived the initial impacts, and office fires, after some fuel burned outside , the rest inside … yes WTC was designed to withstand the impact of airliners, and IF you noticed, both towers withstood - they haven’t moved 1 inch ….until charges were set off, dust from explosions started to come out - Petr Buben

WTC-7 fell in 6.6 sec, in a classic controlled demolition manner. speed of almost free fall … utterly impossible, other than controlled demolition - Petr Buben

Then I suggest you watch the videos quite a few times. They don’t look anything alike. There’s no explosions before the WTC’s collapsed, there’s just the dust the moment it starts to fall - and the dust does not react as if an explosive charge had set off. By the way, how about answering how the wiring and detonators could survive impact and the fires, they still require the same means.. especially if they were done with a wireless control panel (which is a bad thing to use if you want assured timing). Show me pictures of molten steel after collapse. Simple enough. WTC7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch…. Notice how part of the building falls off, then the rest goes down 10 seconds later? Wow, the US gov must be creating some amazing new controlled demo techniques that make it look as though no-one is in control! Your constant mentioning of “they both go down in the same manner”, let me say this - They were both attacked in the same manner! If there were explosive charges, you’d have seen the same ejecta in a set pattern from bottom to top. You don’t, you see rubble spewing out from the point of collapse 2 thirds up the building and a few, small, compressive squibs that look nothing like the ejecta from an explosive charge. Why is this so hard to see? The fact you expect them to topple like dominoes if struck suggests you have zero engineering knowledge and no capacity to follow causality. - alphaxion

Well, Petr, at least you’ve chosen the most recent, harmful, objectionable and outrageous conspiracy theory to adopt. Illuminati and Bilderberg are so old hat. And don’t try to make this a partisan issue, both left and right wings have 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Alex Jones is an equal opportunity conspiracy profiteer. - Richard Walker

@Richard.. the conspiracy is the official version of 9/11 attacks. 9/11 is a controlled demolition, inside job, Reichstag fire to rally nation for war, to pull a country into a never ending war. it is very profitable. /// Bilderberg? people have a right to associate, to discuss policies - it is up to American public to elect the best representatives /// partisan ? - it was Republican, twice never elected president and government who brought us $4.50 corrupted market gas prices, wars of conquest, 9/11 demolition ..it is them who want to control popularion by denying them medical care - medical fascism. …. maybe, hopefully, 9/11 will by catalyst, and we will finally learn who killed JFK. - the same people. republican secret services. ..etc - Petr Buben

Whatever dude. It’s a free country - until they kill you in a controlled demolition, that is. Were you a nut back in the Czech republic or did you develop it here? Forget it - I don’t care. I hope you find a more objective reality soon. - Richard Walker

@Alph.. no, they were not hit in the same manner - different angles, different height, different width of each building. BIG difference. but towers remained standing after impacts. … i DID answer your question about gears - it is nanothermite, new high tech, it does NOT get set off by fires …… do YOU now accept scientific evidence there is nanotermite in the dust of WTC ? …. EXACTLY - wow, yes, US government has the best wow military techniques nobody even dreams about. ..nano, cyber, remote controlled …robots … yes, we saw ejection after explosive charges. ….. TO SUM IT UP - i cannot accept ONE your argument that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition … molten steel pic - would you find it yourself? maybe that one backhoe, raising molted red hot metal? …. fires continued to burn, to “steam”, for “months” on the site , to quote for you … - Petr Buben

I’m not talking about the explosive, I’m talking about the equipment required to transmit the signal and detonate it. That stuff would have been damaged in the impact and fires causing no explosion. Never mind how much effort it would take to install that stuff and keep it secret (not to mention keeping the hundreds of people needed to do it quiet). Just look at the videos of them falling and you will see nothing that matches an actual controlled demo - nothing to match the signitures you always see. And as I said, of course they stayed up immediately after impact, but there is more to surviving than simply not toppling over the moment force is applied to a single face. What they’re not designed for is 24,000 gallons of aviation fuel igniting sustained, uncontrolled fires for such a length of time not to mention many of the support beams being sliced by the impact, weakening the structure further before the fires could weaken the molecular bonds of the steel, allowing them to bend under the immense weight of the building itself. Get yourself into a science course and learn before spouting off such a string of rediculous claims. And yes, there were smouldering embers that lasted for weeks, but nothing hot enough to keep steel molten for such a time period - have you ever read into how forging works? There is the famous picture of a bunch of firefighters crowding over a hole and light pouring out of it - but that couldn’t be caused by molten steel because the temp over that hole would have to be what, 2000 degrees? Have you ever been near something that is even 500 degrees? It would have seered the flesh of those peering over the hole! - alphaxion

1.yes, “the gear” - the detonation equipment. of course we all know “black boxes” of airplanes. they do survive crashes. you know what i mean? the electronic equipment CAN survive airplane crash. … HOW did they do this, how, who, what exactly did, is unknown, at least publicly, and we need an investigation to find out what happened. …before perhaps there will be another “attack” …..2. a good security operation, not too many people, agents would know, understand, etc …paint the walls with nanothermite, install electroequipment, some sensitive work to be done by foreign teams … it is PERFECTLY FEASIBLE, and what is more, it has been done - take a look at a footage. towers exploded, imploded, disappeared in front of everybody’s eyes ..WTC 7 , in 6.6 sec. that is the time i have seen on videos and in reports - Petr Buben

3. large part of fuel burned off in huge fireballs outside of buildings. no - no “extensive, sustained, uncontrolled” fires .. have you seen the buildings? yes ..there were smoldering more or less, office fires - black smoke a telltale it is not too hot a fire, on several floors, people standing around … from this temperature, partly cut support beams, steel, might have weakened and give way - we would have seen irregular, different falls, fall overs, with the rest, the stumps of buildings standings …. finally, NO steel building EVER collapsed from a fire - Madrid tower burned intensively for 20 hours, yet steel structure remained standing practically intact …. so. yes, SCIENCE - i invite you to take a read up on it … or, JUST LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE, AT PICTURES … a special controlled demolition. ….almost free fall speed pulverization, implosions - Petr Buben

did you not watch the vid of wtc 7 I showed you where the building took longer than 6 seconds and fell apart in 2 stages? No, the majority of the air fuel wasn’t burned off in the fireball as there were plenty of reports and footage that corroborates fires on many floors - there was a strong smell of kerosine in the basement! the fuel flooded the whole way down the building. I’m gonna stop posting because you ignore facts and issues and then fabricate what I can only call total bollocks as your thesis. Madrid building didn’t have an airplane slam into it, causing extensive damage before the fires took hold. Now we have the first steel buildings to collapse as a result of impact and then fire damage. You keep telling me to look at the footage, I keep telling you to look at it again and realise the crap you’re spouting doesn’t resemble what happened.There are NO signs of explosions (the small squibs are compressive as a result of the force above it, not from an explosive charge). Have you ever thought that the very engineering of the building might be the reason why they fell the way they did? Bearing in mind, the two did fall uniquely - there was a definate angling on the north tower as the top started to fall onto the floors below it which didn’t happen to the south tower. You are reading whatever you want into the events. The evidence does not support your case and you’re clutching at straws that any engineer could blow apart easily. Take care, cause I’m done with this - I see no point trying to point something out to the blind. - alphaxion