Who said those particular explosions are initiating a demolition?
There is countless eyewitness testimony of explosions and flashes just before the building collapsed:
A demolition expert says these reports are consistent with controlled demolition:
So the experts they wheeled out were an explosives loader (a guy who places explosives where he's told)
a fire fighter (from Seattle)
and a Maths teacher (with a grey beard to add credibility).
Of course there were loads of explosions from when the aircraft hit to the start of the collapse. Obviously nothing to do with aviation fuel gushing down liftshafts, electrical substations shorting out, steel beams snapping etc. etc. Clearly they were all part of a controlled demolition!
The start of the video says "experts speak out" and you referred to experts in your last post. Why would you post about someone who wasn't supposed to be an expert anyway? Although actually you did.How many explosives have YOU loaded?
Where is it claimed he's an "expert"? He's simply making a point about explosions. Is that so hard for you to comprehend without trying to twist the context?
See above.
And how does any of that disprove the possibility of explosives?
I've already previously posted why the likelihood of explosives being involved would be almost impossible due to the logistics of setting it up
as well as there being no plausible motive.
No-one with any real credibility has said anything that would suggest a controlled demolition.
How many explosives have YOU loaded?
Here's another expert for you to dismiss owing to your superior knowledge:
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/inde...=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:
- the WTC collapse goes from top to bottom: no controlled collapse ever has been done like that: explosives are always put at the bottom so the building collapses from its own inertia.
- Since both towers collapse from top to bottom this means there had to be explosives at all floors, top to bottom, that would have been detonated in order (starting at top working down to bottom). This is not possible because there was a fire on the floors hit; if there were any explosives in the building, they would have just burned. And, more important: every explosive uses a detonator. Those detonators would have exploded way before because they go off at a temperature of 320 degrees celsius; hence no explosives could have used.
I don't really need to. He changed his mind.
Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. He never changed his mind about Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition. Your quote is of him talking about the Twin Towers.
So we're in agreement that the collapse of the twin towers wasn't a controlled demolition?
So we're in agreement that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?
Of course not. You've put up a video of a single expert saying it visually looked like one whereas the experts who conducted the actual investigation said the opposite. I'll go with the majority who actually know all the details.So we're in agreement that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?