but how could they have planted the explosives??

1…34689…20

Comments

  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    onelongsong wrote:
    if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.

    that doesn't apply to building 7 if it is indeed correct.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    onelongsong wrote:
    if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.

    that's one possibilty... but not the only theory one could reasonably come to.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    that's one possibilty... but not the only theory one could reasonably come to.

    What conclusion have you reasonably come to? Please describe causal evidence you use in your reasoning.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Isn't it obvious that the explosive planters parachuted down from Stealth fighters and then self-desctructed when they had finished their work?


    awww...the sound of reasoned debate :rolleyes:
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • The Illinoisemakers
    The Illinoisemakers Posts: 461
    El_Kabong wrote:
    but what of the 3rd building that a plane never hit?


    Yes the third building fell wasn't it building 7? Maybe the fact that two of the worlds largest buildings fell practically on top of this 3rd building, or maybe it was due to the fires that raged out of control for hours, or maybe it was because the foundation were possibly damaged when the trade centers fell and the slurry wall that protected the buildings from the river was severely damaged putting a lot of pressure on those foundations. It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    awww...the sound of reasoned debate :rolleyes:

    In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    The Illinoisemakers wrote:
    It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.

    how is it so easy to dismiss that idea considering how ridiculous our current administration acts now? and how can you dimiss the VIDEO FOOTAGE of mr. sylverstein himself saying they decided to 'pull it'.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    sonicreducer wrote:
    how is it so easy to dismiss that idea considering how ridiculous our current administration acts now? and how can you dimiss the VIDEO FOOTAGE of mr. sylverstein himself saying they decided to 'pull it'.

    How do you dismiss the statement of Mr. Silverstein saying that there was no controlled demolition?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok. And if two planes hit those buildings I should focus on the "power down" and just assume that the planes were part of a "power down" conspiracy?

    if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
    there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
    the facts just don't add up.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What conclusion have you reasonably come to? Please describe causal evidence you use in your reasoning.

    I haven't came to a conclusion just yet. But I will neither so easily dismiss unanswered questions nor will I buy into everything out there that doesn't have merit. I'm currently leaning a lot more towards it being an inside job. Building 7 and the pentagon just don't add up to me. If it doesn't add up or it seems fishy, there's usually a reason. So I compare all the information and debunking out there and weigh them against it other. It seems like someone is covering up something to me. Here was an interesting read...
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211335
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How do you dismiss the statement of Mr. Silverstein saying that there was no controlled demolition?

    His statement alone means nothing when his credibility is in question.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    onelongsong wrote:
    if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
    there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
    the facts just don't add up.

    a visual no one will ever forget...another pearl harbor
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I haven't came to a conclusion just yet. But I will neither so easily dismiss unanswered questions nor will I buy into everything out there that doesn't have merit. I'm currently leaning a lot more towards it being an inside job.

    Inside what? By whom?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    His statement alone means nothing when his credibility is in question.

    Ok. Then why do you use his other statement?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    a visual no one will ever forget...another pearl harbor

    But two exploding towers is also a "visual no one will ever forget". Again, why the planes?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sonicreducer wrote:
    that doesn't apply to building 7 if it is indeed correct.

    the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.

    You don't think that explosives could have been transported with out detection by elevators? by stairs? and then planted on the floors where the power was out?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But two exploding towers is also a "visual no one will ever forget". Again, why the planes?

    not even close to the same amount of awe.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How do you dismiss the statement of Mr. Silverstein saying that there was no controlled demolition?

    can you give me a link for that? im assuming that was after the first statement,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.

    That's not logic. That's an outlandish assumption. And an incorrect one.

Categories