You obviously don't know how a demolition works. Those who do however, don't agree that the WTC was brought down by planted explosives. Ever thought why that is? Well they have reason to suggest it:
1. Squibs are visible on every floor starting from the bottom and moving upwards before the collapse
2. Loud simultaneos bangs are heard, not just one or two, but a shitload, especially for a 110 story building.
3. There is not just one hole, there are many holes, which are visible
4. Controlled demolitions do not cause that amount of smoke
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
1)And, that's a problem why, and considering the unique design of the towers it was mostl likely used to destroy the outer wall.
2)How is that a problem, last I checked bombs are loud.
3)Holes whwere, please be specific?
4)It was not only smoke, it was cement and steel that were blasted into Microns
EDIT: The thing is XYZ, I can claim it was control Demoltions, Mini Nukes, or a Freakin' Death ray for all it matters. The bottom line is that those theories that are put forth are alternatives to the the official story.The official Story is so full of holes and the investigation of 911 was so terrible that an alternative is needed. Fema at one point didn't even display the core correctly, and till now there is no explaination for the Structural Behavior of the collapse.
__________________
Last edited by Classic NES on Mar 21st, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
Also, about the dark dust rolling off of those few core columns, steel Most likely was the source of it.
When something is broken up into dust and then it comes off, it'll just linger in the air, but this stuff is just rolling off in great quantities and expanding upwards as if heated. Also, all fireproofing I've ever seen is white/light gray.
well looks like I got to post this again since it was ignored earlier.AGAIN all you got to do to come to the conclusion that bombs were set off is just look at buildings were they DID set off bombs in buildings to bring them down such as when they destroyed the kingdome where the seatte seahawks used to play to build a new stadium.In instances like that,the place looked like a war zone afterwards.Look at pics of buildings in california that collapsed due to earthquakes and they toppled over sideways like the trade centers should have.Instead New York looked like a war zone afterwards the same way sites do when buildings are set off by bombs not to mention the towers fell in the same freefall manner buildings do when explosives are set off like the kingdome did .
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Mar 21st, 2007 at 05:07 PM
1.The designer of the building Leslie Robertson was on tape initially saying the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a jetliner.Later on months down the road he changed his story for Nova-obviously the government got to him.
2.likewise,I could care less what you think either so were even.
3.My point I brought up on point one still stands.Ple if you do any research you will find that that the experts have said the heat from the jet fuel was not intense enough to melt the structures.
4.thats dodging the issue that the buildings that normally collapse like those towers in san fran for instance dont look like a war zone.however again it IS normal for a place where bombs were set off to look like a war zone.there should not have been HUGE craters in the underground underneath the buildings for one thing if it was just a collapse due to the fires. thats just logic and common sense and they should have toppled over sideways if it was going to collapse,it should not have fallen in a freefall manner in seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are used. those arent my words,those are the words of the experts.
5.if you have looked at that video by alex jones 9-11 the road to tyranny and you are still defending the official version with these absurd points then your living in denial like many others are.
No thats you that doesnt.I am not the one that ignores sources that prove that Clinton is evil and corrupted and shows you where you can order those documentary tapes that prove this and then never even bother to do so and just repeat the same damn thing over and over again asking me where I get my sources. Nuclear Winter hit the nail right on the head about you,you never do any research when someone challenges you to check out their sources. I just didnt address his points because normally he engages in insults in his posts so I have had him on my ignore list for a long time.I chose to address them this time because for once he wasnt throwing insults at me when he couldnt counter my points.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:03 PM
1. It was designed to withstand a 707 crashing into the building due to loss of control or vision, not a 767 -- which is much bigger [mass and volume] -- used as a missle to crash directly into the building. Where is evidence of a story changing?
2. Not too be arsey, but isn't it "couldn't care less"?
3. For ****s sake, will you please listen to a credible source? NO ONE SAID IT MELTED!! THE STORY WAS IT SOFTENED AT UNEVEN TEMPERATURES CAUSING THE STEEL TO GIVE WAY.
The film "The truth and lies of 9/11" even admits that.
4. The key word here is collapse. The fact that the 2 towers are 110 stories and not like normal towers, kinda destroys any example you have.
5. You're the one living in denial. You won't even accept you heard the official story wrong!
__________________
Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.
Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM
Last edited by It's xyz! on Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:11 PM
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
And you are ignoring that many more experts have gone on record saying that it was never designed to take the impact of sucha large plane and that the freefall theory is bullsh*t.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
1. 767
2. What experts?
3. No, not B.S. and can you even prove it?
"No thats you that doesnt."?
When you say insults, do you mean those we say after we've debunked what you've said, or the ones that aren't addressed to anyone personally, but just humour?
KMC Community Forums
Mar 20th, 2007 07:39 PM
