9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

King Mob · 12-10-2010 5:13pm

Bi6N wrote: »

Of course I don't believe everything I read online, really? Are you serious?

And yet you seem to think that either people will agree with your claims without sources or they are closed minded.

Bi6N wrote: »

You can try belittle my opinion as much as you like, there will always be for and against. You picked one point I made in my previous comment, dicided "this is what I'll attack."

I never belittled your opinion, unless you think asking you to back it up counts.

Bi6N wrote: »

What about the rest?? you agree?? you disagree? or do you enjoy being a smug git ? When you outway the pros and cons for America, what is 3000 deaths?? Think about it? How much that country has gained from 9/11
The ability to break laws, massive control of its population, an ideal big brother socity. The right to reserve, remove or disallow human rights.
Insane monertary gain.

1.2million deaths to 1.6million deaths in Iraq and Afganistan so far.

Its a bigger picture then, "Oh hey guy, that building was not a controlled demo"

Well seeing as your case for accusing America of these things (most of which are also bull) hinge on the towers coming down by a controlled demolition.....
Yea, in a 9/11 thread, I attack the one claim that keeps going around but I've yet to see being backed up.
Also I do enjoy being a smug git.

Bi6N wrote: »

How about the FACT that the twin towers are the first EVER steel framed buildings to fall from fire? Those fires where not burning long, if anything the buildings should have leaned or sagged majorly since the structure was damaged closer to the top. Not pancaked down.

Well for one that's not a fact, at all, on any level.
First: there are plenty of examples of steel framed buildings collapsing or partially collapsing, you're just not told about them on CTer sites.
Second: The twin towers didn't collapse solely due to fire. They were hit by planes.

But do you know what they would be the first EVER of?
The first totally stealth demolition.
The first demolition of a skyscraper hit by a plane.
The first demolition to have it's charges go off at random times well before the collapse.

And depending on what else you believe it would also be:
The first demolition to turn the building to dust.
The first demolition to cause the building to fall at free fall speed.
The first demolition to be caused by Thermite.
The first demolition to be caused by space lasers.
And so on....

But I think we'll just stick to this claim of free fall speed for now.

meglome · 12-10-2010 5:31pm

Bi6N wrote: »

The Military works on a need to know, don't ask system. So very easyly to be honest. In saying that there are hundreds of wistle blowers too, who clearly haven't stayed all hush.

But it's not just the military is it. It would need to be everyone involved from the military to the guys sweeping the streets after the clean-up. Funny I haven't heard of any so called whistle blowers, maybe you can list them?

Bi6N wrote: »

bahahaha, oh man should I even reply to this?? yes when I said "pull" I was clearly talking about them using big cables to pull the building down.:rolleyes:
These "rescue workers" have in fact reported explosions and other oddites.
Its a fact that number 7 was a controlled demo. Whats odd is that the BBC, reported 7 falling half an hour before it did. You even see building 7 behind the on scene reporter who quickly changes the subject.

So let's see now. Pull is a term sometimes used by demolition companies to take down a building using cables. It is not used ever to take down a building using explosives so why is pull relevant? Seems way more likely to mean to pull the fire crews, which is what actually happened.
In my dictionary the words explosion and explosives clearly mean different things. Lot's of things can explode, I've heard many things explode over the years but only twice in the flesh have I heard explosives.
Building 7 had been evacuated and was making noises that were understood to be signs of collapse. So someone jumped the gun and reported it beforehand. There is a video of that BBC reporter online saying how it was just a mistake, nothing more.

Brown Bomber · 12-10-2010 6:01pm

meglome wrote: »

But it's not just the military is it. It would need to be everyone involved from the military to the guys sweeping the streets after the clean-up. Funny I haven't heard of any so called whistle blowers, maybe you can list them?

So let's see now. Pull is a term sometimes used by demolition companies to take down a building using cables. It is not used ever to take down a building using explosives so why is pull relevant? Seems way more likely to mean to pull the fire crews, which is what actually happened.
In my dictionary the words explosion and explosives clearly mean different things. Lot's of things can explode, I've heard many things explode over the years but only twice in the flesh have I heard explosives.
Building 7 had been evacuated and was making noises that were understood to be signs of collapse. So someone jumped the gun and reported it beforehand. There is a video of that BBC reporter online saying how it was just a mistake, nothing more.

What sound do explosives make?

gizmo · 12-10-2010 7:06pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What sound do explosives make?

BOOOOOOOM usually, other times KABOOOOOM but they're the ones the US government plant there. :pac:

King Mob · 12-10-2010 7:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What sound do explosives make?

What sound does a exploding transformer or gas tank make?

Blank Czech · 12-10-2010 8:23pm

Here is my take on the controlled demolition theory and what i consider to be the evidence of such. Im not gonna link everything but ill put here to best of my recollection. If i am wrong please correct me.

From what i have i seen the towers were brought down by controlled explosions and building 7 was brought down by implosion. The case of building 7 is probably the most suspicious collapse because it only suffered a few localised fires yet it fell symetrically, straight down, at free fall speed, through the path of most resistence. For this to happen, all the support collumns and some of the floors in the building would have to be knocked out at the same time, removing the resistence it should have encountered as each floor fell on the one beneath. The building took about 6 seconds to fall. This is said to be free fall speed, if u dropped a stone from the roof of the building it should take the same time to hit the ground.

The video of this collapse has been put side by side with other known controlled demolitions and they fall pretty much the same way and take the same amount of time to hit the ground. As the building collapses there is a visible crimp in the roof of the building, instead of the build being horizontal across at the roof there is a visible V shaped crimp as it comes down, also the penthouse falls into the building first then it comes down. Demolition people from what i have seen say this crimp is from knocking out the central support collumns first so the building falls in on itself and not outwards. This V shaped crimp is visible in a lot of controlled implosion videos.

In my opinion this building should not have fallen at all, considering the damage sustained to WTC 3,4,5 and 6 which were right under the towers as they fell. These buildings were pulled down afterwards in the clean up, they were severly damaged but more to the point, they remained standing. There is also a video of what i think is a fire fighter saying something along the lines of "watch that building, its gonna come down soon". Which suggests prior knowledge, and of course the infamous video of Silverstein saying he told them to "Pull it".

As for the towers collapsing, they were brought down by explosions rather than implosions. Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air. And if you watch the towers collapse, they dont really collapse, they are obliterated systematically from the top down. They turn to dust, they dont just fall over. There are huge clouds of dust and debris which travel outwards and engulf the surrounding area, similar to pyroclastic flows from volcanoes. These debris clouds can only be formed from a sudden release of massive heat and pressure, according to what we'll call the experts. There are also videos of what looks like molten steel pouring from one of the towers prior to collapse. There are pictures of the support collumns at the bottom of the towers which have been cut at 45 degree angles with solidified molten steel on their edges. There are videos and reports of molten metal still flowing weeks after the collapse. The temperatures at ground zero defy logic and science from what i can see if we are to believe that they simply collapsed. Take not that these building were designed with plane crashes in mind.

These are some of the most important issues, i feel, that are touched on by the controlled demolition people, and all of this can be seen on 9/11- Blueprint For Truth, which i linked earlier. These are not wild accusations in my opinion, but genuine suspicions being raised from video footage of the event.
Here it is again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs

King Mob · 12-10-2010 9:51pm

Blank Czech wrote: »

The building took about 6 seconds to fall. This is said to be free fall speed, if u dropped a stone from the roof of the building it should take the same time to hit the ground.

But it didn't take 6 seconds to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
At about 1:26 seconds into this video they show the collapse (the whole collapse, not just the last half the toofer videos show) as taking upwards of 13 seconds.

We can't tell for sure because the actual bottom of the building is obscured.
But it's clearly well over 6 seconds, and therefore not a free fall.

Blank Czech wrote: »

There is also a video of what i think is a fire fighter saying something along the lines of "watch that building, its gonna come down soon". Which suggests prior knowledge, and of course the infamous video of Silverstein saying he told them to "Pull it".

That's not what it suggests at all.
But that aside, why do you think Silverstien admitted to being involved in the greatest crime ever on tape?
I honestly don't understand how some one can seriously believe this little factoid.

Blank Czech wrote: »

As for the towers collapsing, they were brought down by explosions rather than implosions. Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air. And if you watch the towers collapse, they dont really collapse, they are obliterated systematically from the top down. They turn to dust, they dont just fall over. There are huge clouds of dust and debris which travel outwards and engulf the surrounding area, similar to pyroclastic flows from volcanoes. These debris clouds can only be formed from a sudden release of massive heat and pressure, according to what we'll call the experts. There are also videos of what looks like molten steel pouring from one of the towers prior to collapse. There are pictures of the support collumns at the bottom of the towers which have been cut at 45 degree angles with solidified molten steel on their edges. There are videos and reports of molten metal still flowing weeks after the collapse. The temperatures at ground zero defy logic and science from what i can see if we are to believe that they simply collapsed. Take not that these building were designed with plane crashes in mind.

And leaving aside everything you just said is total debunked crap, none of these things are features of controlled demolitions.

meglome · 13-10-2010 12:24am

Blank Czech wrote: »

Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air.

I don't suppose these girders were ejected by the large section of building falling on the rest of the building?
It's one thing to say the buildings were brought down by explosives but unless they were magic explosives that don't make any sound then it didn't happen. Find any controlled demolition video you like on the internet, there are loads of them. You'll find in all those videos the very clear and distinctive sound of explosives going off but this is completely lacking at the WTC. Of course as King Mob points out the way the buildings collapsed isn't actually like a controlled demolition anyhow, other than superficially.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 10:49am

meglome wrote: »

You'll find in all those videos the very clear and distinctive sound of explosives going off but this is completely lacking at the WTC..

You mean sounds like these?

meglome · 13-10-2010 12:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean sounds like these?

That's what you call a loud rumble, as you'd expect with a building collapsing.

This is a controlled demolition... obviously feel free to watch the large number of other videos on the internet for the exact same type of distinct sounds. The same distinct sounds that are not present at the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 12:51pm

meglome wrote: »

That's what you call a loud rumble,

"A loud rumble"

:D;)

Is that a scientific term? Or are you some kind of authority on applying meaningless vague terms to sounds?

meglome wrote: »

as you'd expect with a building collapsing.

I was actually pointing out the sounds prior to the building collapse.

meglome wrote: »

This is a controlled demolition...

'

And this is a building collapse

Yitzhak Rabin · 13-10-2010 12:55pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this is a building collapse

A building nothing like the WTC, and also seemed to give way from the bottom. The WTC didn't happen like that, it 'pancaked' from the upper sections downwards.

meglome · 13-10-2010 1:13pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"A loud rumble" :D;)

Is that a scientific term? Or are you some kind of authority on applying meaningless vague terms to sounds?

Okay BB let's look at it this way. The sounds in the video you linked and the sounds in all of the controlled demolition videos are very different. The sounds of the controlled demotions are quite interesting in that they are all very similar but these sounds are not found at the WTC. I'm no expert in sounds or controlled demolition or buildings but I have ears and I can very easily tell there is an unambiguous difference.

So I see two options... A. it was a controlled demolition using methods not known to be used in any other controlled demolition ever or using explosives that don't make a sound. OR. B. It was a plane hit and fires.
To accept A. we need to also accept a way of taking down a building that has never ever been used in controlled demolition or has been shown to work at all in experiments (thermite). Or we need to accept that someone has broken the laws of physics and made explosives quiet. So you'll forgive me for choosing B.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this is a building collapse
... video snipped...

And there are many more of these types of collapses from areas around the world that have earthquakes. I fail to see the connection though.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 1:48pm

yekahs wrote: »

A building nothing like the WTC, and also seemed to give way from the bottom. The WTC didn't happen like that, it 'pancaked' from the upper sections downwards.

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

King Mob · 13-10-2010 2:04pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

And yet in the same breath we hear about the building falling at free fall speed and instantly vaporising into dust....

meglome · 13-10-2010 2:04pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

Gravity does ultimately take down a building during controlled demolition. But of course that's after the weeks to months of preparation and a crap load of explosives.

(And before you ask 'crap load' is the scientific term).

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 3:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

And yet in the same breath we hear about the building falling at free fall speed and instantly vaporising into dust....

So by your changing of the subject can I assume you agree with what I said?

Anyway, control demoliton does not = free fall speed does it? That would imply that there is zero resistance.

King Mob · 13-10-2010 3:32pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So by your changing of the subject can I assume you agree with what I said?

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyway, control demoliton does not = free fall speed does it?
That would imply that there is zero resistance.

Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.
But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

TMoreno · 13-10-2010 3:44pm

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.

Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.
But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

The NIST report SAID that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. Did you read this report that you believe like the gospels?

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 3:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.

ok but why? It's not the topic and has zero relevance. Do you agree that the towers fell in a manner consitent with a controlled demolition? Yes or No?

King Mob wrote: »

Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.

aww

King Mob wrote: »

But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

OK. Can you accept that the towers fell with an acceleration comparable to controlled demolition?

King Mob wrote: »

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

And neither to buildings from controlled demolitions as we've just established.

King Mob · 13-10-2010 3:49pm

TMoreno wrote: »

The NIST report SAID that Building 7 fell at free fall speed.
Did you read this report that you believe like the gospels?

Yes I did read that bit.
However it says that it fell at free fall speeds for only a small portion of the total collapse, not all of the collapse like you think.
And still the report actually says the collapse took longer than 6 seconds.
Please, post up the section if you think that's not what it says.

So did you actually read that section or are you just parroting CTer sites that you believe like the gospels?

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2010 3:55pm

meglome wrote: »

Gravity does ultimately take down a building during controlled demolition. But of course that's after the weeks to months of preparation and a crap load of explosives.

(And before you ask 'crap load' is the scientific term).

The fact that we can't imagine how something was done is not proof that it wasn't in fact done. King Mob could probably show you a few magic tricks that you can't figure out: doesn't mean he has some special powers. If it was a plot it's safe to assume that the plotters are substansially smarter and more cunning than you or I.

King Mob · 13-10-2010 3:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ok but why?

Because neither of those things are consistent with a controlled demolition.
So if you are to believe those claims, then you cannot claim that the collapse is part of a controlled demolition.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not the topic and has zero relevance. Do you agree that the towers fell in a manner consitent with a controlled demolition? Yes or No?

No, because it lacks the multiple loud and visible explosions on multiple floors going off in sequence immediately followed by the collapse of the building.
Also coupled with the features not consistent with a controlled demolition.

But if you're just counting the fact that buildings fell down...?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. Can you accept that the towers fell with an acceleration comparable to controlled demolition? And neither to buildings from controlled demolitions as we've just established.

Yes. But that and the fact that buildings fell down are pretty much the only common features.

Are you going to accept that all the CTers claiming that they fell at free fall speeds are either wrong or dishonest?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact that we can't imagine how something was done is not proof that it wasn't in fact done. King Mob could probably show you a few magic tricks that you can't figure out: doesn't mean he has some special powers. If it was a plot it's safe to assume that the plotters are substansially smarter and more cunning than you or I.

So then why where you able to see past the rest of their cunning ruse?
Why do CTers keep pointing out stuff that they believe show there was a plot?
Why do they then claim stuff like Silverstien admitting to being involved in the plot on camera?

It's almost as if your position is inherently self contradictory.....

TMoreno · 13-10-2010 4:02pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I did read that bit.
However it says that it fell at free fall speeds for only a small portion of the total collapse, not all of the collapse like you think.
And still the report actually says the collapse took longer than 6 seconds.
Please, post up the section if you think that's not what it says.

So did you actually read that section or are you just parroting CTer sites that you believe like the gospels?

"freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s ?NCSTAR 1-9,vol 2 p607"

First you denied that it fell at free fall speed and now you admit and you say that I did no read the report. Is it a honest way to argue?

If they say that there was a free fall for 2.25 seconds it's enough to investigate if explosives were used. They even did not bother. Everybody can see that the parrots are those who repeat the lies of the official version. why? The chairmen of the 9/11 commission said themselves that: On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#cite_note-15

King Mob · 13-10-2010 4:11pm

TMoreno wrote: »

"freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s ?NCSTAR 1-9,vol 2 p607"

So 2.25 seconds? Of a collapse that happened over upwards of 14 seconds?
And not a free fall for the entirety of the mythical 6 seconds collapse that CTers are claiming?

TMoreno wrote: »

First you denied that it fell at free fall speed

Nope, I denied that the tower fell totally in 6 seconds, which is what all the CTer's think is free fall collapse.

TMoreno wrote: »

and now you admit and you say that I did no read the report. Is it a honest way to argue?

Is saying someone admits something they don't an honest way to argue?

TMoreno wrote: »

If they say that there was a free fall for 2.25 seconds it's enough to investigate if explosives were used. They even did not bother.

No it's not, because it doesn't indicate explosives.
What do you think happened for the other 12-15 seconds of the collapse exactly?

And why exactly would they admit this free fall in the official report if it really did in fact suggest explosives where used?
Wouldn't they just omit it then?

meglome · 13-10-2010 4:23pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact that we can't imagine how something was done is not proof that it wasn't in fact done. King Mob could probably show you a few magic tricks that you can't figure out: doesn't mean he has some special powers. If it was a plot it's safe to assume that the plotters are substansially smarter and more cunning than you or I.

I'm not saying anything is impossible, some things are very very unlikely though.

In the experiments I've seen they couldn't get thermite to cut steel beams. No one has shown that to be possible on a large steel beam. And even if it was possible you are talking literally truck loads of the stuff. But 20 thousand people worked between WTC1 and 2 and not one of them saw anything.

I can understand if people think the US had some involvement in 911. But I believe anyone who spends a few hours looking at controlled demolition videos on the internet will see that the WTC collapses lack the same characteristics other than very superficially, i.e. the buildings did collapse.

We know other steel framed buildings have collapsed just from fire, these are documented facts no matter how many times the CT sites say otherwise. Structural steel in buildings is always fire proofed exactly because it's well known to be vulnerable to direct fire. But the WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes and left to burn, plus given their cone in a cone design the only surprising thing is they stood as long as they did.

At the end of the day we can speculate that it was space lasers or the Martians did it but what is the most likely reason... planes hits and fires.

Spacedog · 13-10-2010 4:31pm

I'm not an structural engineer but worked IT in a large engineering company for some years.

This is what I would like to see.

A simulation of the structure a the twin tower being impacted by the aeroplane and the structure collapsing, as shown in the discovery channel 'pancaking' glossy rendered documentory, and in other acidemic simulations with pre rendered animations shown on youtube.

I want the file of the simulation and the name of the professional grade engineering simulation tool used to run it.

That way I can varify that the sturcture matches the blueprints of the tower. and that the force of the impact and temperature of the fire is consistent with real life conditions and the phisical evedence available.

Then using this simulation we can submit it for peer review to other engineers to varify the validity of the claim that no explosives were used.

__________________________________________

for me, igroring building 7, it seemed strange at the time that both buildings should fall so perfectly. demolition experts are paid huge salaries to carefully place explosives in buildings in just the right way for them to collapse in this exact way. Either there were explosives in the WTC, or the expertese of the demolition profession are complete hosresh1t. Why pay an expert to demolish a building when you can fire a ball of metal and fuel canesters into it with a crane and have the exact same effect?

--Kaiser-- · 13-10-2010 4:37pm

Spacedog wrote: »

I'm not an structural engineer but worked IT in a large engineering company for some years.

This is what I would like to see.

A simulation of the structure a the twin tower being impacted by the aeroplane and the structure collapsing, as shown in the discovery channel 'pancaking' glossy rendered documentory, and in other acidemic simulations with pre rendered animations shown on youtube.

I want the file of the simulation and the name of the professional grade engineering simulation tool used to run it.

That way I can varify that the sturcture matches the blueprints of the tower. and that the force of the impact and temperature of the fire is consistent with real life conditions and the phisical evedence available.

Then using this simulation we can submit it for peer review to other engineers to varify the validity of the claim that no explosives were used.

__________________________________________

for me, igroring building 7, it seemed strange at the time that both buildings should fall so perfectly. demolition experts are paid huge salaries to carefully place explosives in buildings in just the right way for them to collapse in this exact way. Either there were explosives in the WTC, or the expertese of the demolition profession are complete hosresh1t. Why pay an expert to demolish a building when you can fire a ball of metal and fuel canesters into it with a crane and have the exact same effect?

Read this site, it explains why the towers collapsed.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

fontanalis · 13-10-2010 4:43pm

Spacedog wrote: »

I'm not an structural engineer but worked IT in a large engineering company for some years.

This is what I would like to see.

A simulation of the structure a the twin tower being impacted by the aeroplane and the structure collapsing, as shown in the discovery channel 'pancaking' glossy rendered documentory, and in other acidemic simulations with pre rendered animations shown on youtube.

I want the file of the simulation and the name of the professional grade engineering simulation tool used to run it.

That way I can varify that the sturcture matches the blueprints of the tower. and that the force of the impact and temperature of the fire is consistent with real life conditions and the phisical evedence available.

Then using this simulation we can submit it for peer review to other engineers to varify the validity of the claim that no explosives were used.

__________________________________________

for me, igroring building 7, it seemed strange at the time that both buildings should fall so perfectly. demolition experts are paid huge salaries to carefully place explosives in buildings in just the right way for them to collapse in this exact way. Either there were explosives in the WTC, or the expertese of the demolition profession are complete hosresh1t. Why pay an expert to demolish a building when you can fire a ball of metal and fuel canesters into it with a crane and have the exact same effect?

A process which takes weeks if not months.

TMoreno · 13-10-2010 4:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

So 2.25 seconds? Of a collapse that happened over upwards of 14 seconds?
And not a free fall for the entirety of the mythical 6 seconds collapse that CTers are claiming?

Nope, I denied that the tower fell totally in 6 seconds, which is what all the CTer's think is free fall collapse.

Is saying someone admits something they don't an honest way to argue?

No it's not, because it doesn't indicate explosives.
What do you think happened for the other 12-15 seconds of the collapse exactly?

And why exactly would they admit this free fall in the official report if it really did in fact suggest explosives where used?
Wouldn't they just omit it then?

14 seconds? Your chronometer is made in Israel? The report did not look for explosives. That's a fact. The official report ignored the witnesses who heard explosions. That's a fact and yet you believe it like the Gospels. The 9/11 commission says that the official report is not credible and yet you defend it. There is nothing I can do.
There is no point of discussing anymore if people can't get the facts right.
I am done with this.

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Comments