Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

  1. #2201
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,443
    Explosives don't melt steel, they only vaporize it.

  2. #2202
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Not exactly someone who would make a casual mistake on such things, don't you think?
    If you look at the article you will see that the words are actually those of the author James Glanz. He is paraphrasing Barnett, not quoting.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Furthermore, if Dr. Barnett made a mistake after having had his statement on evaporated steel published in the New York Times, don't you think it'd make sense to have made a retraction? And yet, I have seen no such thing occur.
    Don’t be ridiculous.

    If you actually read the article it says they found the cause of the collapse. The cause had nothing to do with explosives. They later released their report stating that they found no evidence of temperatures anywhere near the 2700C needed to evaporate steel.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Surely you agree that there should be an investigation as to why his finding was not included in the report?
    Utter stupidity. As he was not even quoted saying it we can't be sure that even said those words.

  3. #2203
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Explosives don't melt steel, they only vaporize it.
    Hey spidergoat :-). Welcome to the discussion. I assume you're attempting some humour. In point of fact, however, there is much more evidence of melted steel then there is of evaporated steel. Here is an article on the melted steel evidence:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html

    And here is a video on the evidence:
    http://comics.magnify.net/video/WTC-...Destruction-De

  4. #2204
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I'm simply stating NIST's conclusion in its 2004 report titled
    Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Project #3: Analysis of Structural Steel Update:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanic...sisofSteel.pdf

    At present, I -personally- still believe that the steel became molten and some probably evaporated, as Dr. Barnett stated.
    You have a small problem of evidence….

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Since the aforementioned 2004 report, I agree that NIST has updated their assessment of how high the temperature of steel could have gotten, although they never state that the -steel- could have reached 1000C; only that the air temperature could have reached it for 15 to 20 minutes.
    NIST believe that the temperature did reach those numbers. As established, unprotected steel will reach temperatures marginally lower than that of the atmosphere.

    But you are still playing dumb. There is evidence that the steel reached a temperature that caused it to get very soft. Abolhassan Astaneh commented that he thought the steel reached temperatures over 1000C.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    It matters because if the jet fuel and/or office fires couldn't have done it,
    Why not? There is ample evidence that they can and did reach temperatures that high. The Cardington tests had temperatures reaching 1000C. This has been pointed out to you about a dozen times.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    it must have been caused by something else, such as explosives.
    Only if you wish to leave reality and ignore all the evidence you don’t like.

    Once again, explosives explode, they don’t just make the temperature higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Even Kenny thinks it would have taken 40 minutes for 1000C air temperature to translate into 900C steel.

    In terms of the official story, it gave up on such temperatures being induced by jet fuel fires a while back.
    The thousands of liters of jet fuel initiated a massive office fire over many floors. Eventually the fuel was burnt out but the fires were roaring by that stage. To then state that the jet fuel didn’t cause the high temperatures is a stupid attempt to misrepresent the truth. Only the very stupid or gullible would fall for that.

  5. #2205
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Where does the claim say that the steel core didn't survive a few moments after the collapse? The point is it was completely destroyed at amazing speed.
    No that was not the point. Re-read it. They are claiming that the steel was totally obliterated during the collapse. This is completely wrong.

    There was steel at the WTC site for about six months and thousands had access to it. To say that is was rapidly removed or destroyed is wrong. You will no doubt keep saying it though as facts are not important to your conspiracy fantasy.

  6. #2206
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Steven Jones puts it well in the following quote:
    ******************************************
    "At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
    ******************************************
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf
    Here is the quote from the more recent NCSTAR1-5F

    The simulations and the visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 oC at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 oC to 800 oC on floors with active fires.

    Steel is down to 50% of its strength at around 590C.
    Fine. The above quote from NCSTAR-1F seems to essentially be saying the same thing as before- that the maximum air temperature was 1000C for 15 to 20 minutes. The steel certainly wasn't mentioned.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?
    No evaporated steel was found.
    I'm not so sure of that, but you didn't answer my question.


    Though I'm not sure how you would even identify something that has been evaporated.
    You'd have to ask Dr. Barnett.


    All the credible evidence points to the temperatures being not much over 1000C.
    I definitely disagree with you there:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2203


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    There was, as I have already mentioned; the fact that NIST didn't include it in their report should be something you should consider deeply.
    The evidence you have presented so far doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. This is something you don’t want to see.
    I, on the other hand, would argue that you are the one who doesn't want to ponder anything that might disagree with the official story, such as Dr. Barnett's comment on evaporated steel.


    Once again, explosives explode. They shatter and break things with force. They don’t just heat up steel.
    Exactly:
    http://www.vt911.org/North%20Tower%20explosion.jpg
    [personal attack edited out]. We were discussing the cause of that collapse. That is a photo of the building after the collapse had started.
    1- Quit making personal attacks.
    2- Based on your previous statement, I believe my response made sense.


    That is what it looks like when one of the tallest buildings in the world collapses from the top down.
    With the help of some high powered explosives, I'd agree. Fire alone has never brought down a steel-frame high-rise before or since.

  7. #2207
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Yes, it's uncommon for demolitions to go from top to bottom. However, no one to my knowledge denies it can be done
    That is beside the point. The conspiracy theorists claim it is a controlled demolition because they say it looked like a controlled demolition. It didn't look like a controlled demolition at all.
    I have already listed a bunch of points from the A&E web site that make it clear that it was a controlled demolition. The fact that it also had some unusual characteristics for a controlled demolition doesn't change the fact that it's still the best theory to explain what happened. It only means that the CD was somewhat unusual.

    You are just altering the argument by then saying 'oh bit it's possible'.
    I'm saying that it was highly probable, not merely possible.

  8. #2208
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    If you take a look at the debris, you'll notice that a lot if not most of the upper debris had the texture of dust or at best sand...
    Are you serious? Look at the footage. That top part of the building held together for at least some of the collapse. Just because you can see concrete breaking up that doesn’t mean its just a bit of sand and doesn't weigh anything.
    All matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter. And breaking up is putting it mildly; I think exploding outwards covers it better. There's also the issue that much of the WTC towers' debris fell outside of their footprints; all that debris simply couldn't have aided in the hopelessly flawed pancake collapse theory, because it wasn't even falling down on the rest of the building.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    imagine dumping dust on a structure- would it demolish the structure beneath it or would it simply run off the sides of the structure?
    A bucket of sand will yes but the top thirty floors of WTC2 were not sand.
    True. However, a lot of the steel was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint and the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, much of which -also- was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint.

    If you want a technical argument as to why the pancake theory is hopelessly flawed, you may want to attempt to understand an article from Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:
    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html

    I personally don't understand it, but I've seen other arguments regarding the conservation of momentum that are certainly simpler, such as physicist Steven Jones' argument:
    **********************************
    The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

    How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
    **********************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    There is apparently one example in the collapses where the explosives weren't detonated quite fast enough to avoid a bit of angular momentum:
    Ah so when you have more behavior which shows that explosives weren’t involved you just know that they were there but they didn’t detonate.
    The above mentioned behaviour shows no such thing; it only shows that a part of the WTC tower didn't have sufficient explosives to get it to yield at a certain point quickly enough; thus, the partial toppling that was arrested by the top part of the structure simply disintegrating in mid air (yet more evidence of explosives being used).


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

    What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

    We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
    ***************************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
    So explosives soften steel, melt steel, cut steel, evaporate steel, keep it molten for weeks, explode in the basement causing a collapse at the top
    Who said that the explosions in the basement caused the collapse at the top?


    can knock over lamp posts
    Not sure if the lamp posts were cut using explosives, thermite, or simply something else.


    and they turn concrete to dust while it is collapsing.
    Yep...

    Is there anything explosives can’t do?
    Very funny, but if you're interested in finding out what -else- thermate/nano-thermite can do, you may want to ask NIST. You see, they know quite a bit about it:
    "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites"
    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/n...onnection.html

  9. #2209
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Fine. The above quote from NCSTAR-1F seems to essentially be saying the same thing as before- that the maximum air temperature was 1000C for 15 to 20 minutes. The steel certainly wasn't mentioned.
    As has been demonstrated to you, the temperature of the steel will be only marginally below that of the atmosphere.

    So the temperatures reached that high, just as seen in the tests and the simulations. This is corroborated by the other evidence such as the bowing, molten material, soft steel ect. All the different pieces of evidence point to the temperatures being near 1000C.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I'm not so sure of that, but you didn't answer my question.
    Your question was a pointless one.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    You'd have to ask Dr. Barnett.
    Why don’t you think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I definitely disagree with you there:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2203
    The problems with that molten metal page have been pointed out to you numerous times. Your faith in your conspiracy religion prevents you from seeing reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I, on the other hand, would argue that you are the one who doesn't want to ponder anything that might disagree with the official story, such as Dr. Barnett's comment on evaporated steel.
    Nope. I went looking for corroborating evidence and instead what I found was the report by his team that estimated temperatures near 1000C. The very article has the headline explaining that they found the cause of the collapse and it wasn’t bombs. Looking at the article you can see that he isn’t even being quoted saying those words, it is a paraphrase. I have done some work to asses the validity of the claim while you have just ignored the bits you don’t like and clung desperately to the conspiracy that you just know has to be real whatever the evidence illustrates.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    1- Quit making personal attacks.
    If you want to make a case of my comment I encourage you to do so. I have been very, very patient with you Scott and I think a moderator will see that if they read from the start. Meanwhile although you do not make personal attacks, your behavior borders on intellectual dishonesty and trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    2- Based on your previous statement, I believe my response made sense.
    No your response was a stupid one. You have posted a photo of a building halfway through a collapse, you think it looks like a building exploding so you think explosives caused the collapse. If you watch the video and not just look at a still photo it is clear that the building is not exploding it is collapsing.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    With the help of some high powered explosives, I'd agree.
    High powered explosives to not warm up and soften steel.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Fire alone has never brought down a steel-frame high-rise before or since.
    Pointless drivel. Others and myself have explained why that comment is meaningless numerous times.
    Last edited by shaman_; 11-09-08 at 03:53 PM. Reason: below not begin

  10. #2210
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I have already listed a bunch of points from the A&E web site that make it clear that it was a controlled demolition.
    Those points have all been debunked and are complete and utter idiocy.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The fact that it also had some unusual characteristics for a controlled demolition
    No they were characteristics unlike a controlled demolition. This is the problem with your religion and trying to fit evidence to the conclusion already reached. Can you not see what you are saying here? They are trying to point to characteristics like a CD. The characteristics that are very much unlike a CD you just say “well they are evidence as well… evidence of an unusual CD! ” .

    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    doesn't change the fact that it's still the best theory to explain what happened.
    Its an absurd theory with no credible evidence to support it.

  11. #2211
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    All matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter.
    The top thirty floors of WTC2 were not mostly dust and did weigh quite a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    And breaking up is putting it mildly; I think exploding outwards covers it better.
    Complete nonsense. The top thirty floors are falling downwards. It is clear that they are falling, not exploding.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    There's also the issue that much of the WTC towers' debris fell outside of their footprints;
    I thought you and your ae911 buddies said it collapsed into it’s own footprint? Make your mind up.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    all that debris simply couldn't have aided in the hopelessly flawed pancake collapse theory, because it wasn't even falling down on the rest of the building.
    So because there was some ejected debris you therefore claim that the top thirty floors exerted no downward force at all. Right? You want to think about that one? Are you capable of recognizing how stupid that is?

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    True. However, a lot of the steel was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint and the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, much of which -also- was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint.
    Of course there was dust outside the footprint. Watch the video. The dust was spread out during the collapse and then fell several hundred meters to the ground. It’s not going to be sucked back into the square footprint. ?


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post

    If you want a technical argument as to why the pancake theory is hopelessly flawed, you may want to attempt to understand an article from Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:
    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
    I personally don't understand it,but I've seen other arguments regarding the conservation of momentum that are certainly simpler, such as physicist Steven Jones' argument:
    **********************************
    The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

    How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
    **********************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones


    The above mentioned behaviour shows no such thing; it only shows that a part of the WTC tower didn't have sufficient explosives to get it to yield at a certain point quickly enough; thus, the partial toppling that was arrested by the top part of the structure simply disintegrating in mid air (yet more evidence of explosives being used).
    All you have done is apply the same flawed reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Who said that the explosions in the basement caused the collapse at the top?
    That seemed to what you were saying. Perhaps you were saying there were explosions in the basement that had no effect at all. Either way it is a stupid theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Not sure if the lamp posts were cut using explosives, thermite, or simply something else.
    Or a plane knocking them over…. like the many witnesses confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Yep...
    Last edited by shaman_; 11-09-08 at 02:30 AM.

  12. #2212
    Search and Rescue teams often use Cutting torches to remove beams that the "Jaws of Life" weren't designed to cut through. It would explain "Melting".

  13. #2213
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Stryder View Post
    Search and Rescue teams often use Cutting torches to remove beams that the "Jaws of Life" weren't designed to cut through. It would explain "Melting".
    And the iron alumino spheres found on the roofs of neighbouring skyscrapers? And the alumino-iron spheres found within ONE HOUR of the collapses? And the molten material seen pouring out of the tower seconds before the collapse?
    Besides all this is the fact that UNREACTED nano-thermite has been found! that is not part of any cleanup cutting!
    Pictures of unreacted thermite 1 minute 25 seconds into this clip:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/18459

    You are only able to dismiss evidence of molten metal as being from cutting torches because the very first person whose job it was to inspect the steel only arrived on site 10 days after 911! so any molten material seen after that can be assumed to be from cutting torches by people who wish to believe the official story.

  14. #2214
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Explosives don't melt steel, they only vaporize it.
    Nanothermite is both explosive and a chemical incendary.

  15. #2215
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Stryder View Post
    Search and Rescue teams often use Cutting torches to remove beams that the "Jaws of Life" weren't designed to cut through. It would explain "Melting".
    Welcome Stryder!!

    Scott, HS, Psi...meet Stryder...he's a super mod here...and the mod of my computer forum. Sooo...have a little respect

    So..Stryder...you must be feeling the need to for massive frustration, to be posting here....now if I can only get Ben the Man in here.

  16. #2216
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Nanothermite is both explosive and a chemical incendary.

    But does not reach temperatures high enough to vaporize steel. Nanothermite, and regular thermite are chemically identical. The only difference between the two is nanothermite is ground into microscopic size particles, massively increasing the surface area for burning. It only makes the reaction happen much much faster. (not the best thing for cutting through stuff..see the video where they had to use a flower pot to slow the thermite reaction down, so it could cut through the car). The explosive force created by superheating of the air around the nanothermite would do nothing to the support columns.

  17. #2217
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    I'd like to make another common sense argument on why I don't think thermite, nanothermite, or thermate was used. I'll tell a little story to illustrate my point.

    Scott, HS, Psi...You're wife has been bugging you for months to build her a garden shed in the backyard to store her gardening stuff in. You have been putting it off for months. You poured the slab foundation this summer, but that's about as far as you got. It is now time to frame out the shed...so you've gone down to Home Depot and bought 50 or so 8 foot long 2x4's to build the frame....but this is really a two man job...and you know ole Mac is quite handy, and has a set of tools that rivals Bob Villa's...so you give me a call and ask me to come over to help.

    The first job that we need to do is cut the 2x4's to length. I go to the back of my truck and offer you 3 choices of tools to cut the boards:

    A. A laser guided miter saw:

    http://www.makita.com/en-us/Assets/I.../ls1214l_l.jpg

    B. A hack saw:

    http://www.rollybrook.com/Images/hacksaw.jpg

    C. A steak knife:

    http://images.coldsteel-knives.com/M...teak_Knife.jpg

    Please select which tool you would use to cut the boards. We'll continue in the next post...as you can only post 3 picture per post...

  18. #2218
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Continued....

    After we have cut the boards to their proper length, we will have to attach them together with large framing nails. Again..I give you 3 choices for tools to drive the large framing nails into the boards.

    A. A compressed air driven framing nail gun:

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...0L._AA280_.jpg

    B. An 8oz. ball pin hammer:

    http://grizzly.com/images/pics/jpeg288/h/h0564.jpg

    C. A wing-tipped loafer:

    http://www.blacktieformalwear.info/SHOES/007631.jpg

    Please choose your tool.

    If you chose "A", then you chose correctly, Why? because these are the tools that professionals use. After years of doing the job everyday, they have determined these tools to be the best.

    If you chose "B", then you're kinda right. These tools are really made to do other jobs, but could possibly be used to do this job. They would take much longer to do the job and not give as precise as results...not the best chose, but at least feasable.

    If you chose "C", then you're an idiot, or your a contestant on "Survivor", because the only time you would use "C" class tools, is if you were stranded on a desert island, and had nothing else.

    To me thermite, nanothermite, and thermate are all "B" class tools. They really aren't designed to do the task at hand. It doesn't make sense to choose a "B" class tool, when "A" class tools are readily available. Professionals use high explosives to cut through structural steel, that's the "A" class tool for the job. It's specifically designed for it.

    It would be so much easier to get a hold of commercial-grade demolition charges, tools made for the job, than it would be to design a system that would allow thermite or the likes to cut horizontally.

    People do things the easiest way possible. Just as you would have chosen the mitre saw over the hack saw....the insiders would have made then same choice.

  19. #2219
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    It would be so much easier to get a hold of commercial-grade demolition charges, tools made for the job, than it would be to design a system that would allow thermite or the likes to cut horizontally.
    Heck why stop there, if the conspiracy had weight and the government planned it all and had planted such charges, why use Commercial Grade when you can go to town with Military Grade hardware?

    In honesty the only way that any conspiracy like this could bare any weight is if the building did have charges fitted in case the building couldn't be saved so as to create a kind of controlled collapse so as to save the surrounding area, but even then that would pushing it.

    After all for people to plant such charges that would just sit there in the event of such an occurrence is bound to allow someone to have a slip of a confidentiality agreement and a statement made to someone that would have fear mongered about such explosives existing prior to 9/11.

    All I can see with this conspiracy is a dead horse being flogged repeatedly, there is no way it's going to get up and pull a cart.

    Btw MacG, Great Anology.

  20. #2220
    I'll take the ball pin hammer Mac..

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •