TL;DR - The article shows a clear view of the towers collapsing and claims that this confirms that it was not not brought down by explosives.

Strawman:

In fact, in ordinary controlled demolitions, engineers identify the primary supports, often on multiple floors, to assure that the building collapses inward.

Disproving the Strawman:

The video in question shows in close-up where the building buckles, not at the base, but at the point of impact around the 77th floor.

Conclusion:

Since the strawman (ordinary controlled demolitions place the explosives at the base of the building) and the video showed the initial explosion at the point of impact, it cannot be because of explosives.

Problems with the argument:

1. Even if we were to accept that in ordinary controlled demolitions the explosives are placed at the base, it is possible in this particular case the explosions were start at the top for obvious reasons, and hence cannot be used to rule out the theory of explosives altogether.

2. When the first collapse happens the camera is zoomed so we cannot see what happened beyond that area. However during the second collapse the camera is zoomed out and we can see that while the explosion starts at the point of impact, it sequentially keeps exploding incrementally downwards (start at 5:30) which, to me, further confirms the fact that explosives were used.

And final point: The camera zooms in exactly at the site of the impact point of the first collapse. Start at 00:30 - you see both the towers in sight. Then at around 00:38 the viewpoint suddenly jumps exactly where the first collapse starts, just 5 seconds before the tower collapses.

After that you can see someone setting up the camera for zooming out and they capture the second collapse with the full building in view. I can safely take a bet that these were no accidental tourists.

Until I saw the thermite sliced beams, I was skeptical. Then many other points reinforced the conspiracy.

Building #7.

Direct link to video. The crucial part starts about 40 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-o67TzLmU

Because it is the same as every other film I have ever seen of it.

Not new, seen the same angle a million times. Nothing will ever convinve me that this wasnt a false flag.

The author claimed that failure could occur from the fire if the steel was heated to 1000C.

Back of the envelope math:

• 200K tons of steel in WTC tower
• heating that from 20 to 1000C requires 96 TJ of energy
• heating one floor worth of steel (of 116 floors) is 0.8 TJ
• a 757 carries 50K L of fuel, each liter has 34 MJ energy when burned
• so the total energy in the jet fuel is 1.7 TJ.

so if all the energy in the fuel went into heating the steel it could heat the steel in 2 floors to 1000C.

However - Most of the fuel would be likely to drain down to lower floors or fly out of the building in the initial explosion, the amount remaining on the burning floor would probably be less than 1/10 of the original amount. In addition,

• the uncontrolled fire would be inefficient
• it would not be concentrated on heating the steel
• steel is a good conductor of heat and thus would tend to sink heat away from the point of heating
• the jet fuel cannot produce a source temperature higher than 2200 degrees C
• much of the heat would be radiated outside of the building.

Based on an uncontrolled fire and the loss of fuel to draining away, it seems unlikely that more than 1/100 of the hypothetical maximum amount would be available to heat the beams. Even then it might not be very likely to produce a high enough temperature, focused on a beam, and producing a large enough flux of heat to overcome the heat sinking of the steel and get above 1000C.

While it is possible that a beam could be heated enough to cause a failure, it's by no means obvious that this outcome is very likely.

Strange commentary. Looked like most other vids to me.

Unless it can highlight the blasts of a controlled demolition, they’re the same as all other video taken from different angles.