If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

Oh! Well there you have it! I forgot that all we were waiting on was a picture of a front end loader and Lyte Trizzle to declare the issue dead!

I'll u2u the author of this thread and see if he just wants to close it down now that you've got everything worked out.

...NOT.

feel free to run yourselves in circles with pure speculation all you want.

i just know that you will not find anything whatsoever on high tech covert military explosives which are clearly what would have been involved in a controlled demo at the wtc.

way to once again show the board yet another example of how the moderators around here prefer sarcasm as a literary tool in this forum though.

i will keep that in mind and promise to follow suit.

So they used Thermite and Explosives? Because that's what you're implying Lyte. The glowing metal pic is not evidence of explosives as they would not heat anything up to that extent, some attempt to use it as evidence of Thermite though.
The other pics are supposed to signify what? That material was blown out - so where's the thermite now?

It's make your mind up time, that's what I love about some of these alternative theories - the complete lack of structure.

How far away was some of it? 70 metres?

Video of the event shows that the towers did not collapse - they exploded in mid air, and one can see clear evidence of explosive charges running down the buildings, and neatly chopped storey length pieces of steel girder being ejected as far as 70 metres from the building.
911closeup.com...

From a conspiracy site too OK?

And how long did it take to collapse, North tower about 8 seconds

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
911review.com...

So that means for material at the top it would have to ejected at about 8.75 m/s I think which isn't much when you consider the forces involved.

Don't forget the material furthest away will have come from higher up, regardless of explosives being used or not. They hardly seem like the great velocities you would get from using explosives.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

well there were clearly multiple blasts that went off in the base BEFORE the collapse as recorded on audio and of course expressed by wtc maintenance worker/hero willie hernandez.

and there was clearly something similar to thermite reactions going off DURING the collapse so my answer would be yes.


one of the favorite tactics of you pseudoskeptics is to think that because there are different hypotheses in the truth movement that it reflects "lack of structure".

well sorry but the truth movement is nothing but independent researchers/concerned patriots that are trying to get down to the truth.

you see it's the official story that is not allowed to have deviation/anomalies/inaccuracies.

the truth movement can and will be wrong about a lot of things.

the truth movement is not a single entity so this says nothing as to the lack of accuracy of the official story.

the truth movement does not put forth a complete and exact theory of what happened.

we merely hypothesize about what happened but the consistent "structure" that we all share and assert is simply that they official story is a lie.


the burden of proof for their wild conspiracy theory of OBL and 19 hijackers is on them and they have not come close to meeting it.

I still have yet to hear on why there would be explosives in the basement and how they enabled part of the core to be left standing with survivors on ground level.

And I'm interested in your valuable comments on the velocity of he debris, do you tihnk 8.75 m/s is unreasonable? It's well within what one would expect for something like this, don't you think?

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

feel free to run yourselves in circles with pure speculation all you want.

i just know that you will not find anything whatsoever on high tech covert military explosives which are clearly what would have been involved in a controlled demo at the wtc.

way to once again show the board yet another example of how the moderators around here prefer sarcasm as a literary tool in this forum though.

i will keep that in mind and promise to follow suit.

No, what you'll do is take notice that you are on notice right now. I want to make myself perfectly clear, you are on notice right now.

Unlike 15 pages of arguing about a moved taxi, this particular thread's author asked specific questions which have been being discussed:

So I have a question for members who believe that the 1,2,7 were demoed. If the buildings were demoed, what do you think how the explosions were set up? You think that the explosions were only in the basement? From my amateur view I doubt if it is enough to put the explosions in the basement and expect such fine symmetrical implosion. OK, so you think on each floor? Doubt again, how they were able to put the explosives on each floor with all the people in the buildings? During the night? What about the massive amount of explosives which needed to be used, how they could actually hide them?

You have now posted two posts in this thread and neither have offered to discuss the questions, or the issues surrounding them. But instead have been aimed at the posters (including myself) who are, in fact, discussing them; and whether we have the right to discuss them.

You will not derail this discussion with your infantile, valueless tripe.

[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]

bottom line for any of you to call yourselves "skeptics" but NOT doubt the official story is laughable.

if you do doubt the official story then you are wasting your time arguing the various hypotheses of the truth movement.

if this is the case then you should be busy coming up with an alternative hypothesis of your own.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
if you do doubt the official story then you are wasting your time arguing the various hypotheses of the truth movement.

Thank You! Exactly what I expected - 'It doesn't matter how you get there as long as the outcome is what we want'.

Thank you for showing your true colours.

And you're better? *shakes better*

Do you see the irony in the name 'Truth Movement'?

That's why you won't ever find me taking the side of people like you your a hypocrite that can't even admit it (I admit I am). 'Animal Farm' mate, why should I take your side when your just as bad?

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
with unlimited access to the towers (not being hindered by marvin bush being on the board of directors of the company that controlled security at the wtc, securacom), unlimited time, and unlimited resources including covert military technology...........it's not a far stretch to imagine it as possible.

contractors were perpetually working in the towers doing something or other.

there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have had "contractors" wire the place with high tech explosives late at night over a period of weeks or months.

since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.

because obviously you must realize zer69; the only answers you can get to your question would have to be speculation.

my first post on the first page of this thread.

why am i on notice? for pointing out YOUR sarcasm???

are you asserting that i am incorrect in saying that answers to the question would have to be speculation?

is that really derailing the thread??



[edit on 29-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
truth movement.

And which "truth movement" would this be?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
if you do doubt the official story then you are wasting your time arguing the various hypotheses of the truth movement.

Thank You! Exactly what I expected - 'It doesn't matter how you get there as long as the outcome is what we want'.

taking that sentence out of context does not show anything.

go back and reread it.

i was only making the point that you cannot call yourself a skeptic if you are not skeptical to the official story.

and if you are............there is no reason to consistently attack other alternative hypotheses.

sorry that flew so far over your head.

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
truth movement.

And which "truth movement" would this be?

the one that questions the official story and attempts to put forth various alternative hypotheses.

No, but in order to even conceive of where to look for possible information that back or bounce (either way) a given scenario, people must be allowed to discuss, and that often includes speculation, certain problematic issues.

For instance, the original poster on this thread has very solid questions. I don't mind entertaining any possible scenario of when explosives could have been inserted in the building - as long as it is feasible.

So don't come into a thread and make a statement that we're wasting time discussing what would or couldn't make a plausible scenario for the placement of explosives. There's no value in that. If you have nothing to say one way or the other toward the issues presented by the original poster - go find another thread. Don't mock the conversation taking place here.

You - you've shown this in more than one thread now - seem to be of the opinion that if you think something is a certain way, this it is! That's not the case. The facts have to prove it out one way or the other. So we discuss to try to sort out those facts.

[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]

Must have been a Freudian slip then, you'd better re-read it yourself. We do question all angles, but you have demonstrated your attitude that basically it doesn't matter as long as you go in the 'right' direction.
It is just as important to question alternative theories as well as offical ones to get the true picture..

See there are three kinds of people in this world..

Di..... (No, OK I'm not going to do the Team America Speech - even though it's pretty accurate in other ways).

1. People in Power
2. People who want to overthrow 1 and take their place
3. People who just want equality and to know the truth

You are 2.. Sorry, but you are - you make it bltantly clear - if you don't realise it I suggest taking Psycology or at least reading about it.

Whether you have a high tech military covert explosive, or you have a regular old off the shelf explosive, there is one thing that to this day, and the best of my knowledge, which I have backed up with evidence, that remains the same. You can not set off an explosive without some form of ignition source/detonator. It's that simple. Just because they make it high tech doesn't mean they can suddenly snap their fingers and make it blow up. And when you have detonators, you have a chance of them going off early.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
>snip<
different hypotheses in the truth movement ...
>snip<
but the truth movement is ...
>snip<
the truth movement can ...
>snip<
the truth movement is ...
>snip<
the truth movement ...

You forgot to add, "the truth movement lies".

At the risk of the ire of Valhall, could you please provide some website URL's associated with your "truth movement" and the one in which you spend most of your time?


As for the topic of this thread. There are two possibilties that are within the realm of logic:

1> The building was constructed with the explosive charges in-place. There's no other way to place enough high-explosives to demolish the building without being discovered.

2> The buildings (1 and 2) were not demolished, and brought down by the impact and resulting fires of two passenger airlines.

Originally posted by Valhall
You - have you've shown this in more than one thread now - seem to be of the opinion that if you think something is a certain way, this it is! That's not the case. The facts have to prove it out one way or the other. So we discuss to try to sort out those facts.

ok so you agree that the answers could only be speculation.


when you believe something to be true.......don't you assert it as fact?

doesn't everyone do that?

what is wrong with that?

very few people in this board or anywhere talk about stuff they currently believe while being sure to add a disclaimer saying that it could be incorrect unless they are not sure they believe it.

do you really make your assertions with that qualification every time?

You along with certain other members Lyte appear to carry the valuable gift of derailing a thread so that it detracts away from the subject at hand and instead diverets to the psycology and eithics of the individuals involved. Is this an accident or design?

Well, it's not just that Zaphod, for pete's sake, Trizzle is so caught up in their "truth movement" that they've built some grand fantasy that there are extra-super-dooper-secrety-detonators out there that only Delta Force can get!



Which would require the super-dooper-forces to be the one to put these charges in the building, now wouldn't it? That brings in a whole new special realm of complication and hard-to-attain invisibility in the middle of downtown Manhattan, now doesn't it?

But they don't have super-dooper-secrety-detonators. Because the damned detonators they use are the same detonators used by companies who have the same designers who work in cooperation with Sandia Labs/DoD, et. al. to design the detonators that the military uses!

And some of those folks are the same folks I worked with for three years!



Oh my gosh! Some of us may actually know what we're talking about!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Must have been a Freudian slip then, you'd better re-read it yourself. We do question all angles, but you have demonstrated your attitude that basically it doesn't matter as long as you go in the 'right' direction.
It is just as important to question alternative theories as well as offical ones to get the true picture..

See there are three kinds of people in this world..

Di..... (No, OK I'm not going to do the Team America Speech - even though it's pretty accurate in other ways).

1. People in Power
2. People who want to overthrow 1 and take their place
3. People who just want equality and to know the truth

You are 2.. Sorry, but you are - you make it bltantly clear - if you don't realise it I suggest taking Psycology or at least reading about it.

i never said that alternative theories shouldn't be questioned.

in fact i do question them quite often and there are plenty i believe to be hogwash.

but people like you that rabidly question the alternative theories and tout the official story as the ultimate truth are just as guilty of what you are accusing me of.

yes i want truth.

and yes even if ALL of the theories are incorrect, including the official one, i'll admit i want said officials overthrown.

but no i don't want to take their place.