How about you stop with the BS about empty planes flying into the WTC? Some of us actually knew people who died in those attacks on that date. Care to guess how sympathetic we are to nonsense like the stuff you’re spouting?
Exactly. Demolition charges are designed to cut supports via explosives, not blow pieces out at random directions.
Actually, there were reports of the things you describe such as explosions, puffs of somke at key points, and flashes of light.. at least in the case of 1&2, and these reports are on video. You can mabye write them off as eyewitnesses not knowing what they are talking about, but those reports line up very well with what you yourself say you would look for in a controlled demolition.
It’s also known that large sections of 1&2 were off limits due to construction in the month’s leading up to 9/11.
Like I said before, a perfect controlled demolition wasn’t really needed once the planes hit. In fact it would make more sense for it to be sloppy.
Who said anything about empty planes on that day? I said that the designers of the WTC probally didn’t think that a possible crash by a 707 would be an empty 707 in response to the post by Czarcasm.
I’m not wearing a tinfoil hat here, stop trying to confuse the issues.
The collapse of the towers and WTC7 were captured on many different cameras from many different angles. It was a heavily documented event. Notably, none of those videos show the specific pattern of explosions that is seen in a controlled demolition. Puffs of smoke and flashes of light are seen on some of these, but these are seen after the collapse has begun, rather than before as in the case of a controlled demolition. I have also yet to see anything that looks specifically like the explosives that are used in demolition work. The cutting charges used in actual controlled demolitions have a very specific look and sound: a very bright yet brief flash, a sharp, short crack, and a distinctive puff of black smoke. None of the videos of the tower collapses show this.
So no, the reports don’t line up very well with what you would see in a controlled demolition.
Please provide documentation for this. “It was known” is not a cite.
A few puffs of smoke and small flashes of light are nowhere near the level CD comes to. If you get reports of ‘half of lower Manhattan deafened’ you might have something, but the videos don’t show anything of the sort.
Not true.
Sloppy does not hide the sounds and effects of explosives.
You claimed that a 707 was approximately the same size as a 767, I showed that the 767 was quite a bit larger than the 707, then you claimed that you were right because they supposedly weighed the same! I think we all know who is “confusing the issues” here.
Yet the survivors from Stairwell B said nothing about hearing explosions, just the sounds of the building collapsing above them.
What doesn’t make sense is believing the conspirators had demolition equipment inside the building that would not go off prematurely or sustain any damage when a plane hit the building and started a big fire inside.
Ok, for the last time, I said looks like. As in resembles, looks close to, ect. Do you want to keep playing word games, or should I get my thesaurus?
As shown above by another poster, you did, in fact (please look up that word), say something about empty planes in connection to the incident under discussion.
I’m certainly not confused. You are confusing insane, ridiculous, and downright dishonest blather for actual science. That is a mistake.
There’s also a complete lack of evidence for demolition charges in the rubble. Beams cut by charges have a very distinct ‘look’ at the cut location. Very different from fire damage, bending damage, etc.
Every demolition site is also littered to hell and back with distinct detcord. Tons of the stuff, not mention the debris used in setting the charges in place (wood boxes, carpeting).
Listen to yourself. You’re saying it looks a lot like a controlled demolition but it blew stuff all over the place, which is exactly what a controlled demolition isn’t supposed to do and not how a controlled demolition looks. Doesn’t that mean it doesn’t look like a controlled demolition? Doesn’t it mean you’re actually looking at some other common point?
The point is, if you are saying thw WTC had material being thrown hundreds of feet out from the building, then it obviously looks nothing like a controlled demolition.
It looked just like a controlled demolition except for the fact that planes flew into each building and set several floors on fire, the collapse started from the point of impact and fire, rather than the ground, the buildings ejected pieces of debris rather than falling down, the buildings damaged surrounding structures (including one to the point of collapse itself), there were no visible or audio indications of explosions, the collapses didn’t happen simultaneously and, oh yeah, thousands of people died.
But other than that, they looked exactly like controlled demolitions.
There would be no reason for them to care once the planes hit.
It does not resemble a CD in any way beyond the building coming down.
You want to make comparison, you better support it. Saying it looks like one to you does not impress and experts in demolitions and structural engineers do not agree with you.
Can someone make up a list of the last 5 or so threads we’ve done on this subject, please?
What?!
They didn’t need to worry about the space laser either, once the planes and thermite worked.
Oops. Shouldn’t have mentioned that. Go on about your day, citizen.