|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2006 : 08:49:41
|
|
Since it appears that fire alone can bring down a building like WTC 7 in 7 or 8 hours, how do controlled demolition companies justify spending the time and money to bring down a building with explosives?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:01:35 [Permalink]
|
| Because it is more expensive to load a large jet with jet fuel and ram it into the building. Plus the shortage of suicidal pilots (probably a union issue.) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Because it is more expensive to load a large jet with jet fuel and ram it into the building. Plus the shortage of suicidal pilots (probably a union issue.)
But Building 7 was not hit by a plane. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:07:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Because it is more expensive to load a large jet with jet fuel and ram it into the building. Plus the shortage of suicidal pilots (probably a union issue.)
But Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
No, but the others were, which led to 7's collapse (if you ascribe to that theory, of course). |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:08:54 [Permalink]
|
WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint, but instead made a big mess, just like the Twin Towers.
Even if explosives were involved, the idea that these incidents represent acts of controlled demolition is ludicrous, unless the "control" was intended to make for huge clean-up costs with lots of other buildings damaged (including the destruction of a church). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Because it is more expensive to load a large jet with jet fuel and ram it into the building. Plus the shortage of suicidal pilots (probably a union issue.)
But Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
No, but the others were, which led to 7's collapse (if you ascribe to that theory, of course).
How did WTC 1 & 2 lead to WTC 7's collapse? Supply evidence for your accusations, please. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:56:06 [Permalink]
|
| It was not fire alone jackass, as we have stated repeatedly. The answer to your question was covered numerous times in the other threads. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:58:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint, but instead made a big mess, just like the Twin Towers.
Even if explosives were involved, the idea that these incidents represent acts of controlled demolition is ludicrous, unless the "control" was intended to make for huge clean-up costs with lots of other buildings damaged (including the destruction of a church).
Now you're beginning to see like a true skeptic, Dave.
Don't get hung up on the terminology. Think of the "control" in "controlled demolition" as conrtol over the event--not necessarily the debris.
It would be completely retarded to spend the time and effort to bring down the buildings in an apparent terrorist attack and do it in such a way as to have the debris fall without any collateral damage. It would be too obvious it was an inside job--as terrorists would be unlikely to want to limit additional damage to property or people. Why anyone would think that is what any CD theorist is trying to prove is beyond me.
So forget what you currently think of as a controlled demolition. Or if it is easier for you to wrap your head around another term, we could call it a (staged terrorist demolition--or STD for short ).
There are a number of pre-crash scenarios that could lead to an STD of WTC 1, 2 and 7. For sake of illustration, let's pick one. Please don't pick at it as I'm just making it up as an example for illustitive purposes...
Let's say you want to start a global war against terrorism, but the population isn't interested. Then one day, you hear of a plot to fly planes into the WTC twin towers. You realize that could be the catalyzing event you are looking for to garner support for your war against terrorism. But "your people" esimate that the planes will kill maybe 100 people and create a few million dollars worth of damage to the towers.
You want something more iconic--something like a pearl harbor event--a day that will go down in infamy; a day that will be seared into the memory of all americans and will galvanize their support behind your war on terrorism.
So someone comes up with the notion that the towers collapsing would provide just the kind of iconic event you are looking for. But, you retort, you just told me the buildings would survive the hit. They reply that you could "help" the buildings fall with explosives...like a controlled demolition. But we have to make it look like it was the planes and the fire that made the buildings collapse. So, they say, we just won't be as careful as the CD guys are. We'll give you a Hollywood-style event; one people will never forget.
But where will we run this operation? you ask. We can do it from the bunker in Building 7. Then, when we are done, we can just blow that building, too, and no evidence will be left of what we did--we'll even destroy a church in the process.
That's a pretty big job--what if people suspect an inside job?
That's the beauty of it all, they tell you. It's so big, no one--not even people who hate you--will believe you would go that far to get what you want. But what about the innocents that will get killed? you ask.
Hey, if you want to make an omlette you gotta break some eggs. Think of the people you will save throughout the remaining history of the planet if you wipe out terrorism. Besides, think of all the money you will make...
Money? you ask.
Oh yeah--we will need to build lots of weapons and pay contractors to help us in this "new kind of war." And while it will be your buddies getting rich, they know how to take care of you...
{and scene!}
So, scenario details aside, it is conceivable that explosives were used to help the buildings fall. And there is evidence that explosives were used--which I will provide in the near future, so please don't bother complaining that I haven't shown any yet.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 09:59:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
It was not fire alone jackass, as we have stated repeatedly. The answer to your question was covered numerous times in the other threads.
Did I miss when the plane hit Building 7, jackass? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And there is evidence that explosives were used--which I will provide in the near future, so please don't bother complaining that I haven't shown any yet.
So it took you 300+ posts to warm up before presenting any evidence. This ought to be good.
 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:53:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So, scenario details aside, it is conceivable that explosives were used to help the buildings fall.
No, you have only established a possible motive to use explosives by a few individuals. You haven't at all shown how it's conceivable that these few individuals were able to execute such a plan. Oh, but how they did it is only mere "details."
quote:
And there is evidence that explosives were used--which I will provide in the near future, so please don't bother complaining that I haven't shown any yet.
What are you waiting for?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/17/2006 10:55:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Now you're beginning to see like a true skeptic, Dave.
I always have been, your bias forced you to reject it and fabricate for yourself a yarn about how I'm not open to alternatives and/or that I believe the government's story.quote:
So someone comes up with the notion that the towers collapsing would provide just the kind of iconic event you are looking for. But, you retort, you just told me the buildings would survive the hit. They reply that you could "help" the buildings fall with explosives...like a controlled demolition. But we have to make it look like it was the planes and the fire that made the buildings collapse. So, they say, we just won't be as careful as the CD guys are. We'll give you a Hollywood-style event; one people will never forget.
Idiots, the lot of them. I know you don't want your wild speculation picked at, but crashing four planes into four different elementary schools on a Tuesday morning would have prompted even more bloodlust on the part of the American people, without having to actually destroy any buildings. They could have even had a fifth plane go off-course within a hundred miles of the elementary school the President was visiting! It would have all been faster, cheaper and more effective than going after the twin towers (which weren't iconic of America, after all, but only of New York City and world trade) and the Pentagon (just a bunch of warmongers anyway).quote:
That's a pretty big job--what if people suspect an inside job?
That's the beauty of it all, they tell you. It's so big, no one--not even people who hate you--will believe you would go that far to get what you want.
A flawlessly executed plan up to this point in your description, the point at which these geniuses failed miserably. The brilliance of my plan is that there would be no need for any additional damage, and so no need to even try to cover-up any explosives. Even if the kids in one or two schools got out before the planes hit, and even if one or two of the planes missed, the attempted murder of truly innocent children would have been enough to triple the defense budget for many years.quote:
But what about the innocents that will get killed? you ask.
No, nobody asked about that. And the beauty of my plan is that the economy (except for the airlines) would keep right on ticking, as well. No major financial centers would be wiped out, so the President's own investments wouldn't be substantially harmed. Just a few thousand non-voters and their underpaid teachers who mean nothing to my dreams of riches.quote:
So, scenario details aside, it is conceivable that explosives were used to help the buildings fall.
It is conceivable that elephants in the subway helped out, also, by pulling on some cables. It is plausible?quote:
And there is evidence that explosives were used--which I will provide in the near future, so please don't bother complaining that I haven't shown any yet.
Your promises haven't borne out anything yet, I have no reason to believe that your "in the near future" isn't relative to geologic processes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How did WTC 1 & 2 lead to WTC 7's collapse? Supply evidence for your accusations, please.
No. Sound familiar? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:05:27 [Permalink]
|
| Fortunately, what you believe does not impact what I do. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 12:10:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Because it is more expensive to load a large jet with jet fuel and ram it into the building. Plus the shortage of suicidal pilots (probably a union issue.)
But Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
No, but the others were, which led to 7's collapse (if you ascribe to that theory, of course).
How did WTC 1 & 2 lead to WTC 7's collapse? Supply evidence for your accusations, please.
Oh please, others have gone over this before. WTC 7 was damaged by debree from WTC 1 & 2 when they fell. NIST has found that there was damage on about a third of the south face to the center and to the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
Look at http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf at page L-20, and it shows the amount of damage to the building.
Another thing I found in this document is the pics on L-27 which shows the east penthouse colapsing first before the rest of the building and before any signs of explosions. If they where using explosives to bring the building down, why would they take out the east penthouse first? Funny how every consperacy movie I have seen on WTC 7 ignores that. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
| Edited by - Paulos23 on 10/17/2006 12:22:12 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 13:36:46 [Permalink]
|
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
A simple question
