Ok, you are right. I believe people conspired to put explosives in the WTC buildings, I’ve said that all along.
I’ve also given good reasons why I think that.
But you lack even a shred of scientific fact to explain how such explosives could withstand a raging fire, then go off without a hitch.
No. You gave what you thought was evidence of what you thought were holes in the theory. You were wrong, and you evidence fell flat - just like every creation science argument ever.
Then you outright declared that since you found holes (you hadn’t) that the whole theory should be discarded and your theory declared correct - just like creation scientists claim to find ‘holes’ in the theory of evolution and then declare that the literal interpertation of the bible must be true.
If examining the evidence, reading the reports of experts in the field (you know, the ones who actually make the buildings we live and work in), not taking the ramblings of CTers and their evidence without a massive grain of salt is ‘taking it all on faith’, then yes, I guess I am taking it ‘on faith’.
But you still haven’t come close to anything resembling evidence of CD.
How does molten metal which you seem to be making a big deal about count as evidence of explosives? Explosives don’t make much heat. Cutting charges cut with shock waves, not by melting. It seems to me that you’re looking at everything you think is an anomaly and counting it as evidence for explosives, even when it doesn’t make any sense.
What people conspired to put explosives in the WTC buildings? I mean besides the terrorists who, you know, *flew *explosives into the WTC buildings?
Yes, just found it myself. I can see that it is possible that it was the sheathing I saw melting in that video.
split p&j, I don’t believe I’ve seen you address the following, which has been brought up by a few people:
-
Do you think the conjectured explosives were put in the basement of the WTC? If so, why did the collapse clearly start at the point of airplane impact, and NOT in the lower levels?
-
Do you think the conjectured explosives were put in the upper levels of the WTC? If so, how did the folks who planted them know exactly what floor to put them on? And how did the explosives, cord and detonators manage to survive impact and serious fire?
I believe it’s already been established in this thread that it wasn’t just “a kerosene fire,” the huge amount of office supplies also contributed to the size and intensity of the blaze. And you still haven’t explained how countless pounds of explosives got into the building unnoticed or how those explosives could be counted on to work after the buildings were hit by a plane and caught fire. You said it “wouldn’t matter” if some of the explosive didn’t work, but you also said a coordinated series of explosions brought down the building the way a demolition does.
He is not bringing an open mind to this “debate”.
His mind is set.
You are all just wasting your time.
But, I hope these informed posts can enlighten some Googler looking for information before they become close minded by opinion-based “facts”.
Not to mention how the hijackers knew where to hit and didn’t deviate. Hitting South Tower off-center was intentional?
These are the kind of questions I was refering to. I don’t need to come with another group of people.
My point was that some of the evidence contradicts the offical story, so why not question that.
That is what would be done in any investagation, correct?
Except you have theories, hearsay, opinions, conjecture, and half-truths, which should never be confused with evidence.
The evidence doesn’t contradict the “official story.” Your misunderstandings and errors do.
[QUOTE=split p&j]
But, and I maybe mistaken, I thought the outside members of the WTC were stainless steel. No way that is melting from a kerosene fire.
[/QUOTE]
As with most of your replies, here again you are mistaken. The outer curtain wall was made of aluminum. Not that it matters, since the video section you think supports whatever the hell you think it supports is to grainy to determine what it might have been. There are a number of possibilities. And really, it’s ridiculous in any case. Do you really think that someone could plan something like this and fly an airplane into the exact spot where they meant to start their ‘controlled demolitions’?? 
Because, in the end, that’s what happened…the buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) started their collapse from the impact sites in both cases. And the collapse propagated from those impact sites in both cases as well. In real, actual controlled demolitions (as opposed to fantasy ones like this), the demolitions are fired at the bottom, and the collapse starts at the bottom.
Actually no, you haven’t really…you gave a link to a bunch of videos without offering any sort of summary as to why you think it’s convincing or worth anyone’s time to look at.
Could you summarize what you think are some of the key points in your link there? Because, we’ve kind of seen it all before, so I’m sure there is nothing either new or startling in there, so I doubt anyone is going to find it worthwhile to slog through yet another ‘you just HAVE to see this amazing video that has totally convinced me that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions’.
And I can look at the ridiculous conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 spewed forth by Truthers and conclude that they are baseless, appeal mostly to folks who don’t actually know much about anything concerning what it would really take to bring down buildings like WTC buildings, don’t have a good grasp of physics, and are generally either deluded, ignorant or have some sort of agenda…or some combination of all three. The lies I see are all on the Truther side, to be honest, though there is, as noted, a healthy measure of delusion and ignorance to go along with it.
Nope, you can do as you’ve done, which is put your fingers in your ears and say ‘nanananana…I can’t HEAR you!’ over and over again, because you are already convinced. You are a fundamentalist CTer, and nothing anyone can say or do in this thread is going to convince you of anything, since your mind is already made up. The various 'dopers in this thread arguing with you are wasting their time…on YOU. Thankfully, while you might be convinced based on your ridiculous ‘evidence’, most people can see through your evasions and drive by links with lame handwavings about melting aluminum and steel you sort of remember (wrongly). Those on the fence on this issue who might be lurking could look over the myriad threads we’ve had on this idiotic subject in the past, and see Truthers just like you come in, drop their load, get their asses handed to them (like you are thus far) and slink away. Sure, those Truthers, like you, won’t be convinced, but you can’t convince a fanatic of anything anyway, so there is no real point. 20 years down the pike you’ll still be wallowing in your CT, like those sad idiots who believe that the moon landings were hoaxes, or that Kennedy was assassinated by a cabal of government agencies, Cuba, the Mafia and the world wide Jewish League.
-XT
The collapse of both towers, AND WTC7 clearly and unquestionably correspond to the lack of structural strength of their supporting structures.
Again, their structures failed.
They collapsed due to that failure.
That failure was brought on by the weakening of structural steel by intense fires.
They did not melt.
They were not brought down by explosives. :rolleyes:
They were brought down because the structural strength of their supporting structure was compromised by heat.
Structural steel and intense heat do not do well together.
And again, I really don’t believe that you care about facts. You have a CT that you want to advocate to all you can.
If we were to apply to this the same logic you apply to what you call the “official story”, you are also mistaken that the collapses of three tall buildings were caused by anything other than impact and fire.
Good questions, and like I said I don’t really have an answer to all that. From what it looks like to me, part of the one tower was going to come down, but not a total collaspe.
Of course I think explosives were palced in the bottoms of the buildings, I believe that the buildings were rigged top to floor,and I think the links I posted explain why.
The point, as I see it, was not to have textbook contolled demolition, so it really did not matter where the planes hit, as long as they hit. If the planes don’t hit, thats when you have the problem.If the planes hit here, detonate the explosives from here down. If the plane hits there, same thing. All baseses are covered.
As I stated before, if some expolsives went off when the planes hit, how does that hurt when you’ve got most all the structural supports rigged to blow. Large sections of the WTC buildings were off limits due to construction in the weeks leading up to 9/11. It wouldn’t have been as hard as you make it out to be.
I really don’t find this any harder to believe than the offical story.
I thought he was calling it “your 9/11 religion.” 
Wouldn’t that mean there would be evidence of the explosive charges and wiring in the wreckage?
I am starting to think you are dodging this question because it’s inconvenient: how could the bombers be sure that all this wiring would survive the crashes and the fires? You’ve said they had the whole building wired and that the explosions were in sequence.
No, they were not. This was already dealt with upthread.
Bolding mine
Then you really are a simpleton idiot, and quite obviously a troll.