+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis (/thread-7287.html)
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 15-08-2011
And if you really believe that, I have a nice piece of swampland in West Texas to sell you. Sorry, but not all buildings are imploded from the bottom up. Most sports stadiums, for example. And if they weren't brought down by demolition, please explain in a logical way how else they could have come down.
If you really believe that mere fire caused this, I refer you to the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, which burned for over 24 hours and not only did the core of the building remain intact, but even a crane that was on top of the building remained standing. And the core of that building wasn't nearly as robust as those of the World Trade Center.
William Kelly Wrote:As far as I can tell, there was no controlled demolition of any building at the WTC site, and they were all brought down by flawed design, airplane cashes and fire. There was an earlier attempt to bring them down by a truck bomb that failed. Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos - such as the destruction of the Traymore Hotel on the Atlantic City Boardwalk in the early 1970s which clearly show the building being brought down from the bottom up while the WTC clearly went down from the top down.
I agree with Tony and Robbyn Summers in that these false conspiracy theories do nothing for our understanding of what really occurred on 9/11 other than to distract from the real issues that should be addressed.
Bill Kelly
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Charles Drago - 15-08-2011
William Kelly Wrote:I agree with Tony and Robbyn Summers in that these false conspiracy theories do nothing for our understanding of what really occurred on 9/11 other than to distract from the real issues that should be addressed.
Bill Kelly
"False conspiracy theories" and related flawed conclusions about 9-11 which should be recognized IMMEDIATELY as such by you, me, and every other seasoned, honorable researcher/scholar of deep political events include:
-- Bush knew -- FALSE Sponsor.
-- Bush was in on it -- FALSE Sponsor.
-- The Bush Administration ordered it -- FALSE Sponsor.
-- The U.S. Government ordered it -- FALSE Sponsor.
AND
-- OBL ordered it -- FALSE Sponsor.
-- 19 Arab hijackers armed with box cutters pulled it off -- FALSE Mechanics.
I would further submit that the absence of a discernable Facilitator level in the USG-approved 9-11 conspiracy theory is sufficient to falsify it:
Given that the 9-11 attacks were the planned-for end results of a deep political assassination* conspiracy ...
Deep political assassination conspiracies are constructed on the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model.
The USG-approved 9-11 conspiracy theory does not present a Facilitator level.
The USG-approved 9-11 conspiracy theory does not describe a deep political assassination conspiracy.
As for Summers and Swann, they are making straw man arguments specifically designed to sway their champions within the deep political research community. They argue -- quite properly -- that "Bush knew about it/did it" is patently absurd on its face, and then conclude that THEREFORE ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES BUT THE USG CONSPIRACY THEORY are equally absurd.
The conclusion is illogical and designed to disrupt and disinform. Summers and Swann know better.
_____________________________________
*I do indeed view the 9-11 conspiracy to be an assassination conspiracy -- an argument for another thread, I suspect.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Gary Severson - 15-08-2011
It is interesting that Mohammed Atta,the lead hijacker, was an architectural engineer and hated skyscrapers because they represented the antithesis of the Muslim mosque skyline. He would likely have known how vulnerable the WTC was.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Bill Kelly - 15-08-2011
James Lewis Wrote:And if you really believe that, I have a nice piece of swampland in West Texas to sell you. Sorry, but not all buildings are imploded from the bottom up. Most sports stadiums, for example. And if they weren't brought down by demolition, please explain in a logical way how else they could have come down.
If you really believe that mere fire caused this, I refer you to the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, which burned for over 24 hours and not only did the core of the building remain intact, but even a crane that was on top of the building remained standing. And the core of that building wasn't nearly as robust as those of the World Trade Center.
William Kelly Wrote:As far as I can tell, there was no controlled demolition of any building at the WTC site, and they were all brought down by flawed design, airplane cashes and fire. There was an earlier attempt to bring them down by a truck bomb that failed. Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos - such as the destruction of the Traymore Hotel on the Atlantic City Boardwalk in the early 1970s which clearly show the building being brought down from the bottom up while the WTC clearly went down from the top down.
I agree with Tony and Robbyn Summers in that these false conspiracy theories do nothing for our understanding of what really occurred on 9/11 other than to distract from the real issues that should be addressed.
Bill Kelly
Tony and Robbyn didn't sell me anything and you can't either. You evaluate everything you learn and I will do the same. You don't want to believe that those buildings came down because airplanes flew into them and caused the destruction, then don't. The government allows you to believe whatever you want and know nothing.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 15-08-2011
Like I said...if you actually believe that planes, and planes alone, caused those buildings to come down, there are nice pieces of swampland in West Texas for you. Period. No. Way. In. Hell.
William Kelly Wrote:[quote=James Lewis]And if you really believe that, I have a nice piece of swampland in West Texas to sell you. Sorry, but not all buildings are imploded from the bottom up. Most sports stadiums, for example. And if they weren't brought down by demolition, please explain in a logical way how else they could have come down.
If you really believe that mere fire caused this, I refer you to the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, which burned for over 24 hours and not only did the core of the building remain intact, but even a crane that was on top of the building remained standing. And the core of that building wasn't nearly as robust as those of the World Trade Center.
Tony and Robbyn didn't sell me anything and you can't either. You evaluate everything you learn and I will do the same. You don't want to believe that those buildings came down because airplanes flew into them and caused the destruction, then don't. The government allows you to believe whatever you want and know nothing.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 15-08-2011
And for more proof that fire alone could not have brought the Towers down:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_core.html
Those pictures are worth far more than a thousand words.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Kyle Burnett - 15-08-2011
William Kelly Wrote:Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos - such as the destruction of the Traymore Hotel on the Atlantic City Boardwalk in the early 1970s which clearly show the building being brought down from the bottom up while the WTC clearly went down from the top down.By that false logic, this isn't a controlled demolition:
In truth, that is a controlled demolition, albeit an atypical one. It's also basically what was done to much of the cores of the towers, though all the concrete flooring between the cores and the perimeter being blasted to dust in the towers obscures the view. Were it not for such explosive demolition, the towers couldn't have come down nearly so quickly and completely, as exemplified by the many buildings which have suffered far larger and longer lasting fires, such as the ones James noted. Beyond that, WTC 7 was taken down from the bottom up, much like a traditional controlled demolition.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Malcolm Pryce - 15-08-2011
William Kelly Wrote:Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos...
Bill Kelly
That's what I do. I show people a montage of controlled demolitions, among which I include WTC 7 without telling them what it is. Then I ask them which one isn't a controlled demolition. The usual reaction is, 'Huh? They all are!' Closely followed by bafflement when I explain. Try it and see what reaction you get.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 15-08-2011
Kyle, the problem is that people who want to believe things without subjecting them to hard logic have to scramble to come up with something that will fit their logic, and actual, real logic be damned. I have yet to find a single, logical way the towers could have come down except through the use of explosives. Anything else simply defies the laws of physics. Much like JFK's head going violently backwards, yet according to the Warren Commission, he was shot from the back. You get my drift...
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 15-08-2011
Oh yes...there was this, from the very day it happened, emphasis mine:
"Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures ... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ... "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said."
(Albuquerque Journal, September 11, 2001)