Who Saw This?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
I guess you’ve done a lot more demolition shots than me. I talked to some other demo guys with much more knowlege than me and they thought it was stupid also. Please though, don’t let our real world demolition experience get in the way of your delusional theories.
[/quote]

It’s not MY theory at all.

You distinctly said it would take TONS of timed explosives and a tremendous amount of set-up time for a controlled demolition, which is likely true. You just admitted that the whole building HAD TO BE wired for that kind of precision and said it didn’t pass the “common sense test” that it couldn’t be a controlled demolition.

I hope your following along so far - I’m typing slow because I know you don’t read too fast.

It’s obvious you have no “real world experience” because you just explained the EFFORT and PRECISION it would take to bring down a building like that – yet you rationalize as the perfectly acceptable explanation, that a fuel laden jet crashed randomly into ONE of the sides causing ASYMMETRICAL, LOCALIZED damage yet caused a COMPLETE, SYMMETRICAL collapse as if it were a controlled demolition - TWICE! And a third building never hit by a plane AT ALL.

The simplified, OFFICIAL version says the impact knocked off the fire insulation and that the heat from the fuel caused the floor joists to buckle and pull away from the walls causing the damaged floor to fall on top of the next floor, which started a chain reaction. The impact didn’t bring down the building it was the fire and heat afterward.

So HYPOTHETICALLY what I’M saying (and you too apparently) is that if the official story is true and (absent a dramatic plane crash), all you would have to do is collapse one or two upper floors and the WHOLE BUILDING will collapse straight down into a pile of dust. That’s what everyone considers the “logical”, non tin foil hat explanation…

What you just said in your post is that you and your “demolition expert” buddies conceded that the whole buildings needed to be rigged in order to bring them down in exactly the way they came down – but even though they weren’t apparently, they STILL fell down as if they were – in which case your contradicting your own “expert” opinion because the towers didn’t need to be rigged anything AT ALL like you just described. Just blow out two upper floors and let gravity do the rest.

That type of thing happens a lot in cartoons – like they saw off a tree branch and the tree falls down.

Of all the theories about how the towers collapsed, controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation that answers every single question. Every other theory or conclusion has unexplainable gaps. On top of all else it looked exactly like a controlled demolition – not to mention many people who worked in the building have come forward and said sections of the building were periodically shut down for “maintenance” in the weeks and months prior to 9/11.

22

[quote]nephorm wrote:

JustTheFacts wrote:

You would think so – as it turns out all they ever needed was some kerosene.

Can you imagine the guy with the huge drum of kerosene whistling to himself as the elevator took him to the top floor?

“Don’t mind me, I’m just going to leave this entirely non-flammable drum of mysterious fluid on your floor. Thanks!”[/quote]

Who ordered the 6000 gallons of “copier toner”?

23

Is JTF trying to say that 6000 gallons of kerosene were used to bring down the twin towers, but it would be impossible to bring them down by crashing two large airplane loaded with jet fuel into them?

24

Yes, that is what I’m saying. You do realize that a 767 weighs about 387,000 pounds at max takeoff weight. That includes about 44,800 pound of Jet A fuel. The aircraft was flying close to 500 miles per hour. To get enough C-4 in that building to do anything compared to what the aircraft would have done is insane. What you need is less conspiracy theory time and more basic physics time.

I will restate my main points.

  1. No one could have suck enough C-4 or symtec into TWO trade centers and rigged it on every support beam without getting caught.

  2. It is highly unlikely that any initiation system could have survived the aircraft impact.

  3. The risk to reward ratio for staging this kind of attack is so huge that I can’t imagine anyone would try. If you got caught it would mean the end of your entire political party and your entire family all to attack afghanistan.

  4. There would have been explosive residue everywhere, including unexploded C-4, blasting caps, det cord, initiators, etc. Was every FBI agent, every NYPD cop, and every NYFD fireman in on the conspiracy too?

If beliving this crap makes you feel better, more important, or smarter than go ahead and belive. But to belive it you have to be a retard.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

It’s not MY theory at all.

You distinctly said it would take TONS of timed explosives and a tremendous amount of set-up time for a controlled demolition, which is likely true. You just admitted that the whole building HAD TO BE wired for that kind of precision and said it didn’t pass the “common sense test” that it couldn’t be a controlled demolition.

I hope your following along so far - I’m typing slow because I know you don’t read too fast.

It’s obvious you have no “real world experience” because you just explained the EFFORT and PRECISION it would take to bring down a building like that – yet you rationalize as the perfectly acceptable explanation, that a fuel laden jet crashed randomly into ONE of the sides causing ASYMMETRICAL, LOCALIZED damage yet caused a COMPLETE, SYMMETRICAL collapse as if it were a controlled demolition - TWICE! And a third building never hit by a plane AT ALL.

The simplified, OFFICIAL version says the impact knocked off the fire insulation and that the heat from the fuel caused the floor joists to buckle and pull away from the walls causing the damaged floor to fall on top of the next floor, which started a chain reaction. The impact didn’t bring down the building it was the fire and heat afterward.

So HYPOTHETICALLY what I’M saying (and you too apparently) is that if the official story is true and (absent a dramatic plane crash), all you would have to do is collapse one or two upper floors and the WHOLE BUILDING will collapse straight down into a pile of dust. That’s what everyone considers the “logical”, non tin foil hat explanation…

What you just said in your post is that you and your “demolition expert” buddies conceded that the whole buildings needed to be rigged in order to bring them down in exactly the way they came down – but even though they weren’t apparently, they STILL fell down as if they were – in which case your contradicting your own “expert” opinion because the towers didn’t need to be rigged anything AT ALL like you just described. Just blow out two upper floors and let gravity do the rest.

That type of thing happens a lot in cartoons – like they saw off a tree branch and the tree falls down.

Of all the theories about how the towers collapsed, controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation that answers every single question. Every other theory or conclusion has unexplainable gaps. On top of all else it looked exactly like a controlled demolition – not to mention many people who worked in the building have come forward and said sections of the building were periodically shut down for “maintenance” in the weeks and months prior to 9/11.

[/quote]

25

also here is a site where popular mechanics debunks a lot of this garbage:

26

For a minute, forget the explosives and timers and blasting caps and all that Discovery Channel bullshit.

What do all the wackadoos who believe this nonsense have to say about the whole ‘keeping a secret’ thing?

As in, people aren’t very good at it.

Hundreds of people wired THREE buildings to collapse, but not one of them has spilled the beans?

Impossible.