No, but I did transpose the 8 & 5:
I’m saying it’s impossible because Danny Jowenko, the only demolition expert that the “Truth” movement could get to say any 9/11 collapses were demolitions, said the fires would have made it impossible for WTC1 & 2. He was not told about 7 also being on fire until after saying it was a demolition, at which point he said he had no explanation.
But then us Dopers need to be crazier (or smarter) than the truthers.
With respect, we must keep in mind that OP insists this was not a typical controlled explosion.
As for the identifiable evidence of a blast, don’t forget this a conspiracy theory; the basic dogma of a conspiracy theory is that evidence is hidden. [Please, sir, calm down; if we can fake a moon landing, we can hide a few steel beams.]
But the remote detonation, that is a good point. Everyone is familiar with remotely detonated IEDs, so I imagine most think that it is a fairly simple and reliable technique.
Frankly, not much better than I had from television documentaries, other than the point about remote detonation.
I am not an idiot or uneducated; I just don’t know much about blowing stuff up.
I do know a bit about people in general, nuts in particular, and conspiracy theorists.
People are not alway rational. Nuts are often hyper-rational; wrong, but rational.
Conspiracy theorists are both hyper-rational and irrational; they dissect every detail looking for internal inconsistencies, but attribute any evidence against the theory as evidence of the theory. Fascinating, really, as long as they’re not between you and the buffet.
And some are not unintelligent; they become ct’ers because they are just smart and educated enough to know that the water-down half-truths they get as explanations for most complicated phenomena in the common media is lacking something, but they just don’t know enough to know how to research the issue. They need something between news at eleven and a PhD. And you really never know what piece of evidence will sway them.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence for their basic premise; people of influence will lie and hide evidence. The basic rebuttal, but such acts are always found out, does really beg the question.
The most important technique in countering a conspiracy theory is, possibly counter-intuitively, to acknowledge the conspiracy is possible.
Of course, most of that doesn’t apply here; the facts and physics and evidence has been discussed ad nauseum. Still, I would love those few little facts - such as, there is no explosive of the necessary power and density that could be hidden in the unexposed areas.
But as you’ve seen in this thread, that won’t dissuade the CT’ers. They’ve already said the black ops folks have special explosives that we don’t know about, that leave no trace, and are more powerful than C4. What’s the point in arguing with that?
As it is, demolitions expert after demolitions expert have stated that there would be obvious evidence of explosives used. There wasn’t any. Read the 911 commission report, it’s all in there.
Sir, do not malign the OP in that manner! He said nothing about supporting the “‘truth’ movement”, and in fact thought [the video] would help kill said movement.
Well, to be fair, we don’t hear about the IEDs that don’t go off. It’s conceivable that many if not most of these devices don’t detonate at all and go unnoticed by their intended targets. In any case, they do leave physical traces and to bring down a building in the manner the CTers describe, you’d need a lot of them and the explosions themselves would be hard to conceal.
Of course, we’re back to powerful yet silent explosives that leave no traces and the expectation that, yeah, sure, the top-secret special-forces black-ops guys have had stuff like that for years, man.
Well, sorry if this has already come up, I haven’t seen this thread in a few weeks and I don’t have time to catch up right now but…
I just saw a special on 9/11 that was a lot of little seen video, a lot of it looks like private webcam kind of stuff but the point is, it wasn’t CNN or anything like that. One segment of the show was a few minutes of someone going into the lobby of WTC 7 after it was evacuated but before it collapsed obviously. This is something I had not realized and had never seen anyone mention it, but the lobby of that building was rubble. They guy went up an escalator and was met by a security guard who turned him back, but it was obvious that the place had major damage that happened as a result of the towers being hit, or falling (not sure what time it was, so I don’t know if the towers had come down yet, although I would think not, surely the whole area was closed off after that).
Anyway, to me, it was just more proof the truffers are wrong, that place didn’t come down from some preparation, it just got whacked by peripheral damage from a few airplanes hitting the place next door.
Is that online anywhere?
It was on History Channel, forget the name, may have been 102 minutes thing.
There was a perfectly round hole, but too small for the size of the plane that allegedly hit it. No parts from a 757 were found either.
You mean that hole that was 75-90 feet wide, and about 20 feet high? That perfectly round hole?
Do you mean the entry hole, the entry hole (cropped), or the exit hole?
What are these, then?
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Truther Trifecta.
I think he’s talking about the exit hole in the C-Ring (that was caused by the fact that the plane had, essentially, turned into a liquid after smashing through the interior of the Pentagon). It’s really not all that mysterious and has been explained extensively using computer models, but the word hasn’t gotten out the the CT crowd (who don’t believe it anyway).
As to no parts of the plane found, that is complete fabrication…there was plenty of debris. For some reason, CTers feel that if you can’t see an essentially intact air plane sitting there that means no debris was found…even though anyone with even half a brain is going to realize that if you smash an aluminum framed air craft into a reinforced brick wall at high speed (not to mention full of jet fuel), that there isn’t going to be anything resembling an air craft that comes out on the other side…
-XT
Parts from a 767, obviously. 
Another thing truffers don’t ever act like they know is that aluminum IGNITES AND BURNS and a relatively low temp. Don’t believe it? Next time you are around a campfire or even your home fireplace, toss a soda can under the logs into the charcoal like stuff under it, in a few seconds, instead of melting like a lot of people would think, it’ll burst into flames and in just a few seconds it’s gone. So a lot of airplane that is in a crash like at the Pentagon literally vaporizes and leaves no evidence. But there are plenty of pieces of airplane in photos of the Pentagon, hell, the whole vertical stabilizer is is one pic I have seen. Another thing that shoots down the “it was a cruise missile” crowd is something I personally saw (I was in DC on 9/11, was actually in Alexandria when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon) was the light poles in the area in front of the building. There were a lot of parking lot type lights taken out by the wings as the plane came in, and if you saw them one thing was pretty obvious, the ones cut off were too far apart to be anything smaller than a commercial airliner.
Would you provide a link to the picture of the vertical stabilizer?
How thin is the metal of a pop can? An entire can will fit in a campfire and will not be able to conduct heat out of the fire.
psik
So provide a link to a picture of the Pentagon with elongated holes for the wings. Cut out the talk like people are supposed to believe mere talk.
psik
We could - if the Pentagon were made out of cardboard.
