but how could they have planted the explosives??

El_Kabong

Fortunate Son1 wrote:

Nope I never said it didn't happen, I just find the theory hard to believe since in your article the writer seems to make a point out of the fact that only Tower 2 was shut down for this maintenance. I just want an explanation for Tower 1 using this theory.

As for Tower 7, wasn't it already said here that it was an admitted controlled demolition?

that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...

also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.

also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...

Yawn...

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Article from http://www.implosionworld.com

"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyways."

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

Yawn...

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Article from http://www.implosionworld.com

"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyways."

yawn is right as i've posted links where ppl involved in demolition used the phrase pull it and pre-9/11...

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

yawn is right as i've posted links where ppl involved in demolition used the phrase pull it and pre-9/11...

Yeah, we know.

"The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement."

Like I said before...

Yawn...

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

Yeah, we know.

"The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement."

Like I said before...

Yawn...

no, i was refering to the ones stating it meant to bring down w/ explosives

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

no, i was refering to the ones stating it meant to bring down w/ explosives

Oh, yeah those ones...

Which ones were those again?

BTW did you read that document I posted? The people responsible for that report work with every major implosion crew in the US. I'd think this makes thier credibility fairly bullet-proof.

I really don't want to get into this shit with you again. It's like playing handball against curtains.

Fortunate Son1

El_Kabong wrote:

that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...

also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.

also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm

That's all wonderful, but I'm still waiting on an answer for how Tower 1 supposedly came down from explosives, since it seems clear to me from the article that only Tower 2 had this "maintenance" done to it.

El_Kabong

Fortunate Son1 wrote:

That's all wonderful, but I'm still waiting on an answer for how Tower 1 supposedly came down from explosives, since it seems clear to me from the article that only Tower 2 had this "maintenance" done to it.

you might want to rephrase that as 'that's all wonderful' didn't really answer any of my questions to you...

the article didn't mention building 7, either, and yet when i asked you about how that fell you replied controlled demolition.

i don't know, perhaps the charges were set at a different time or under a different cover in the other tower

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...

also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.

also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm

WHY THE FUCK WERE MY REPLIES TO THIS DELETED?!?!

Not cool, Kat.

Ahnimus

69charger wrote:

WHY THE FUCK WERE MY REPLIES TO THIS DELETED?!?!

Not cool, Kat.

Cool Kat looking for a Kitty, back of my neck gettin' dirt and gritty!