WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!
Thomas Eager (professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT) says the steel had to be heated to the point where it lost 80% of its strength -- about 1300 degrees fahrenheit.Dave wrote:I watched the official theory unfold live on televion in full color and from multiple camera angles and saw all the "evidence" that's reliable. Now do I choose to believe testimony from Joe Expert on Indymedia or Professor BigBrain of MIT?
This is what any expert would say if they had already dismissed the idea that controlled demolition was possible -- because without controlled demolition, this really is the only way anyone could possibly explain it. But that doesn't mean it's a tenable position, because hydrocarbon fire is not physically capable of doing that in a matter of 20 or 30 minutes -- especially when doing it to a 3-foot thick piece of solid steel by licking it with flames in the open air, while being deprived of oxygen.
Last edited by R00k on Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:55 am
R00k wrote:
haha, and u r a fat nerd!
:icon27:
What I said was true though. The frame of mind you're in is to turn down or explain away anything that is thrown your way. What everyone here has given you so far is comen sence and good evidence with refrece to where they got it from, but you choose to turn it away. That is your decision and yours alone, and I can see you arent about to change your mind anytime soon. So what I said holds water. No one here is going to be able to change your mind.
I've wondered the same thing myself. Only I wonder if it will be thought of like Pearl Harbor.Dave wrote:I wonder in thirty or forty years how many people will remember the WTC collapse in the same way that many today view the Tonkin Gulf fiasco as an effort by the US government to invoke a war. My guess is not many.
So in other words, anytime I walk into a skyscraper I might be walking past CIA planted C4 meant for "just in case"? Makes sense. I always wondered why those janitors looked fucking hard, it's because they're special ops guys who spend their overnights packing kaboom in the walls. The building I work at has all these random wires in the ceiling. I thought they were phone wires, but I know now it was detonation cord
No, what you just said is not true.Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:R00k wrote:
haha, and u r a fat nerd!
:icon27:
What I said was true though. The frame of mind you're in is to turn down or explain away anything that is thrown your way. What everyone here has given you so far is comen sence and good evidence with refrece to where they got it from, but you choose to turn it away. That is your decision and yours alone, and I can see you arent about to change your mind anytime soon. So what I said holds water. No one here is going to be able to change your mind.
There is no evidence. The only evidence that exists is the exact same thing that we are all looking at.
The difference in opinion here comes from two differing groups of thought.
I admit that my suppositions are just as hard to believe as the official ones are; I make no bones about that. They are both hard to believe, but the difference here is in the reasons they are hard to believe.
The demolition story is hard to believe because it is very hard to believe that anyone would or could plant explosives and intentionally destroy the twin towers and so many people's lives -- basically it goes against the very grain of common sense in every decent person in the world.
The official story is hard to believe because nearly all the reasons stated in order to allow it to happen that way are nearly physically impossible -- at the very least they have no precedent in the history of modern science.
If the observer dismisses the idea that demolition is possible from the beginning, then this is the only explanation that is available to him, and thus is the only possible explanation there can be.
I did not dismiss either idea -- I stood watching the towers fall that morning on the news just like everyone else, and the thought of demolition never crossed my mind.
I never would have even thought of it until I began hearing official explanations of the even that simply did not make sense and didn't answer important questions that they should be able to answer.
And I'm still not holding it up as the de facto script of the way things occurred. But right now it seems to me to be the explanation that most closely resembles what we know of the events.
Last edited by R00k on Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If you're addressing that towards me, I never implied anything like that. :icon27:Dave wrote:So in other words, anytime I walk into a skyscraper I might be walking past CIA planted C4 meant for "just in case"? Makes sense. I always wondered why those janitors looked fucking hard, it's because they're special ops guys who spend their overnights packing kaboom in the walls. The building I work at has all these random wires in the ceiling. I thought they were phone wires, but I know now it was detonation cord
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:55 am
R00k wrote:Oh. lol
But didn't you see my post on the 'power down' when the power and security cameras were out all weekend of the 8-9th, so technicians could come do a 'cabling upgrade?'
See right fucking there! Are you really telling me that you think that 2 entire building could be rigged for destruction in that small of a time frame? It would take weeks with a huge crew of people on the scale of 100's if not 1000s of men and man hours.
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
