On what grounds is it impossible? You have not convinced me it would be immpossible at all. You just don't want to believe it was done.

Is seems that there may be some confusion as to exactly what "it" entails.

Just so we're all on the same page ANOK, describe the process of what you think it entails. From step one....you walked into the building to rig it..the first thing you do is....?

No you don't know how they got there, no one does, there are only theories and none of them have been proved. Of course they were built, not the point I was trying to make.

Off topic.

No, I offered a plausable explanation, my guess. It's just like I already said I don't think it matters right now, pls learn to read so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Could you define 'plausable' for me?

Sorry, but simply claiming that "you don't think it matters" does not make the reality of the fact that it not only does matter, but it is the single most important point of the CD theory go away.

This thread is pointless...You don't have to prove how something was done to know it was.

??????. Wrong. You most definately have to prove how something was done in order to know it was.
What you're claiming is the very standard of 'proof' that has lynched many people in the past.

"I was out of the state when the crime was commited and have a hundred witnesses to prove it..HOW is it possible that could I have committed the crime?"

"It doesn't matter 'how'..I just know it was you."

Originally posted by Vushta
Knowing what is known about CDs and the process and steps that MUST be taken in order for a CD to take place,

There's you first major problem with finding this answer. We DON'T know the "process[es] and steps" that would have been involved. These were not conventional demolitions. There were not commissioned by your local demolition company, and to assume that any standard procedures for commercial, non-military psyop demolition still applied here is lacking in support.

For clarity and focus, I don't mean was there opportunity..

No, of course you don't want to hear the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for front teams to go in and place charges.

You only want to hear that, somehow, they still wouldn't have been able to do it.

Originally posted by Vushta
??????. Wrong. You most definately have to prove how something was done in order to know it was.

So, if you come home from work (assuming you're old enough to work), and someone has burned your house down, you won't believe that your house has been burned down until you know how one managed to burn the whole damned thing to the ground?

Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?



If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

There's you first major problem with finding this answer. We DON'T know the "process[es] and steps" that would have been involved. These were not conventional demolitions. There were not commissioned by your local demolition company, and to assume that any standard procedures for commercial, non-military psyop demolition still applied here is lacking in support.

Wrong. We most certainly do know the process and you're just making excuses for the fantasy.

It doesn't matter what explosives were used..i.e. what difference does it make if the explosive was "blue" or if it was "red"? The process is the same.

Claiming that there is some process of demo thats unknown to everyone and this "new process" allows for the cancellation of physics is simply not credible. It may be a handy short cut to escape on, but its just bull.

Do you have anything that exists in the real world that causes you to believe what you're saying is true?

These were not conventional demolitions. There were not commissioned by your local demolition company, and to assume that any standard procedures for commercial, non-military psyop demolition still applied here is lacking in support.

And your support for the above statement is....?

No, of course you don't want to hear the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for front teams to go in and place charges.

Wrong in your assumption. I don't care to here about the "guess" of opportunity because they are always using as a means of changing the subject and deflecting..like you're doing now.

You only want to hear that, somehow, they still wouldn't have been able to do it

Well..no.
What I want to hear is how it was done.

Any ideas?

So, if you come home from work (assuming you're old enough to work), and someone has burned your house down, you won't believe that your house has been burned down until you know how one managed to burn the whole damned thing to the ground?

Your anologies don't work.

The house WAS burned down.
You're attempting to confuse logic.

A better anology would be in comparing that logic to your assumption of demo.

Your house burned down.
What happened?
An investigation by trained fire investigators show the cause to be electrical.

You don't like your neighbor and try to blame it on him.
Your neighbor was in the hospital and all evidence points to electrical.
You claim..."I just KNOW it was him....you guys must be in on it somehow"

Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?

Again the logic is confused.

Your car is not occupied with people 24/7 and have security sitting in the drivers seat eating donuts while you use a torch to cut the fender off.

The car obviously WAS rigged with explosives....it blew up.
But again..a deflection to the abstract.

If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

uhh..wrong.

Originally posted by Vushta
Wrong. We most certainly do know the process and you're just making excuses for the fantasy.

Ok, then. You tell me how the explosives were planted, or would have been, and then prove that it had to have happened that way.

If "we" really do know how every single controlled demolition must be set up, and can determine such a thing so easily with any given case, then you should have absolutely no problem providing me with the information I'm requesting.

If you can't provide the information, then I'm going to assume that you don't know it, and therefore your assumption is wrong.

It doesn't matter what explosives were used..i.e. what difference does it make if the explosive was "blue" or if it was "red"? The process is the same.

So the differences between different types of explosives is superficial, and equivalent to the differences in what color they are?

Why do I even respond to you?

Claiming that there is some process of demo thats unknown to everyone and this "new process" allows for the cancellation of physics is simply not credible.

When did I claim physical laws were ever violated?

Nuclear weapons were tested before the public knew about them. So have most all other military explosives, I would imagine. Does that mean they violated the laws of physics?

These were not conventional demolitions. There were not commissioned by your local demolition company, and to assume that any standard procedures for commercial, non-military psyop demolition still applied here is lacking in support.

And your support for the above statement is....?

. . .

The fact that you have not supported one of your basic assumptions.

Dude, I was just pointing out that you have not supported something fairly important that you're also taking for granted. My support for that statement is the fact that you have not supported it. Where have you proven that these were conventional demolitions? Where have you proven that they were carried out with conventional explosives? You haven't. This is my point and your posts are my support for it.

No, of course you don't want to hear the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for front teams to go in and place charges.

Wrong in your assumption. I don't care to here about the "guess" of opportunity because they are always using as a means of changing the subject and deflecting..like you're doing now.

"Deflecting", to you, must mean "a reasonable answer that I refuse to accept for reasons of bias."

I'm not even completely clear on what in the hell you're asking for considering that all of the important information is already there for you. There were opportunities, there were resources, there were the means for infiltration. We could even theorize on where charges were planted to severe what structural elements. What else do you want? Video tapes of the explosives being planted? A detailed government report detailing every single physical movement of every single arm and leg of the guys doing it?

Originally posted by Vushta
Your anologies don't work.

The house WAS burned down.
You're attempting to confuse logic.

They do work.

The buildings WERE demolished (even if hypothetically: after all, you ARE asking how the explosives were planted ).
You're attempting to confuse logic.

[Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?]

If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

uhh..wrong.

I'll respond with your own words:

Originally posted by Vushta
Wrong. You most definately have to prove how something was done in order to know it was.

That's checkmate, buddy, since this is a game for you. You've just turned around to outright contradict yourself in about two posts. All in an effort to avoid ever being wrong about a damned thing.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by bsbray11]

No, of course you don't want to hear the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for front teams to go in and place charges.

Wrong in your assumption. I don't care to hear about the "guess" of opportunity because they are always used as a means of changing the subject and deflecting..like you're doing now.

Ok, then. You tell me how the explosives were planted, or would have been, and then prove that it had to have happened that way.

I know that shifting the burden of proof is a popular technique when one can't provide an answer..but sorry thats not how it works.

You made the claim that a very comlpex process has been reduced to a simple thing. The burden of proof is on you to, if not provide some evidence to support this claim at least give an idea as to how this could be possible.

I'm claiming it was not done.
There is no need for anyone to explain something that didn't happen.

If "we" really do know how every single controlled demolition must be set up, and can determine such a thing so easily with any given case, then you should have absolutely no problem providing me with the information I'm requesting.

Again, you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

You must already know the information and the conventional process of CDs in order to have arrived at the conclusion that a CD was feasible at the towers......or you're just running on blind faith.

If you can't provide the information, then I'm going to assume that you don't know it, and therefore your assumption is wrong.

Thats how you guys usually cop-out.

Tell me does that standard work both ways?
If you can't provide information as to how it was done...then you must conclude you're wrong?
I didn't think so because its obviously just a method of shifting the burden of proof.



So just to recap.
So far....zero explainations as to how it was done.

So the differences between different types of explosives is superficial, and equivalent to the differences in what color they are?

No. That wasn't the point I was trying to make...in fact the opposite.

The different types of explosives, which I'd like to point out so far only exist in the fantasy, could indeed have different qualities..more explosive power, requiring less explosive to be planted. But this is beside the point and in itself raises problems.( more explosive force should lead to much more visual and auditor evidence of explosions and more appearent physical evidence of blast patterns etc.) But still the process of planting those explosives in the proper places would remain the same. That part would not be made eaiser just because the "red" ones have more power.

Why do I even respond to you?

You're not.

When did I claim physical laws were ever violated?

You're idea that there are 'new ways' to set a CD implies that. Unless you or anyone else can explain how it was done...which is all I'm asking for.

Nuclear weapons were tested before the public knew about them. So have most all other military explosives, I would imagine. Does that mean they violated the laws of physics?

No. But you're violating the laws of discussion by deflecting and changing the subject with abstract points.

Like this:

The fact that you have not supported one of your basic assumptions.

Dude, I was just pointing out that you have not supported something fairly important that you're also taking for granted. My support for that statement is the fact that you have not supported it. Where have you proven that these were conventional demolitions? Where have you proven that they were carried out with conventional explosives? You haven't. This is my point and your posts are my support for it.

Again..there is no need for someone to explain something that didn't happen.

I'm not even completely clear on what in the hell you're asking for considering that all of the important information is already there for you. There were opportunities, there were resources, there were the means for infiltration. We could even theorize on where charges were planted to severe what structural elements. What else do you want?

What important information?

For clarity as to what I'm asking please read the first post again. 'opportunities,resources,infiltration,,where they were planted ..etc, is exactly what I pointed out is not what I mean. Pretending to not know the meaning of the word "how" isn't going to cut it.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
Your anologies don't work.

The house WAS burned down.
You're attempting to confuse logic.

They do work.

The buildings WERE demolished (even if hypothetically: after all, you ARE asking how the explosives were planted ).
You're attempting to confuse logic.

[Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?]

If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

uhh..wrong.

I'll respond with your own words:

Originally posted by Vushta
Wrong. You most definately have to prove how something was done in order to know it was.

That's checkmate, buddy, since this is a game for you. You've just turned around to outright contradict yourself in about two posts. All in an effort to avoid ever being wrong about a damned thing.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Aww now..you're just being desperately silly here.

Originally posted by goose
I recall reading online somewhere that an employee (it gave his name) of the WTC reported that for several months prior to 911 sections of the building were closed off and no one was allowed to go on them, they were told it was for maintenance.

There was a major renovation project on the mall that was between the towers. I know because I designed the lighting for the project. I was supposed to be there for the opening on September 18th 2001.

The only feasible was that the towers could have been imploded would be by using detonators operated by radio signals. Whith the number of cell phones, computers and radios being used placing the explosives in advance would be very risky and improbable.

Originally posted by Vushta

Ok, then. You tell me how the explosives were planted, or would have been, and then prove that it had to have happened that way.

I know that shifting the burden of proof is a popular technique when one can't provide an answer..but sorry thats not how it works.

God, Vushta. You said that "we" know how these things are set up. I ask you, then, for evidence of what happened, since "we" apparently know how these things work in each and every case, and you claim that I'm shifting the burden of proof. I'm not. You're confused on what I was getting at. I don't even care anymore. What I really want to communicate to you now is inappropriate for ATS so I'll just refrain.

But you can't hold a single damned line of thought for more than two posts before becoming confused and responding with something totally off from the original quotes. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post here, but from what little more I did read, I noticed you also put words in my mouth and further derailed from original points. And your one-liner response to you contradicting yourself is disrespectful to anyone trying to have a serious discussion.

Once more just because it's so much fun to respond to you with your own words, and because it wraps up this whole thread:

[Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?]

If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

uhh..wrong.

Originally posted by Vushta
Wrong. You most definately have to prove how something was done in order to know it was.

Does our knowledge of how the charges were placed affect whether or not the Towers were actually demolitions? No. Would there be any way to tell whether or not the collapses involved explosives without knowledge of the placement of the explosives? Yes, especially when it would have been impossible to have collapsed the way they did without explosives. Ever heard of figure and ground?

i dunno- how does a computer display the letter i press on a keyboard on my screen?

God, Vushta. You said that "we" know how these things are set up. I ask you, then, for evidence of what happened, since "we" apparently know how these things work in each and every case, and you claim that I'm shifting the burden of proof. I'm not. You're confused on what I was getting at. I don't even care anymore. What I really want to communicate to you now is inappropriate for ATS so I'll just refrain.

The process involved in a CD is well known.

The reason I don't buy into the method of deflection is that its been repeatedly shown that when someone wants to avoid answering simple questions its common to change the subject by ASKING questions that would contain numerous individual points in them in order to answer the question. Each of these points can then be used to spin off topic.

The whole point of this thread is to avoid those type of things and I stated that in the first post.

Sorry..you are attempting to change the focus. This thread has 1 point and 1 point only. "How was the rigging done?"

But you can't hold a single damned line of thought for more than two posts before becoming confused and responding with something totally off from the original quotes. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post here, but from what little more I did read, I noticed you also put words in my mouth and further derailed from original points. And your one-liner response to you contradicting yourself is disrespectful to anyone trying to have a serious discussion.

Really?

Disrespectful to someone trying to have a serious discussion?

O.K...I'll bite.
What is this discussion about?


Was it this?

[Or say someone rigs a car with explosives. The car's turned on, and it explodes. Can you tell me off the top of your head how this is managed?]

or this??

If not, then by your logic, the car was simply not rigged with explosives. Must have been something else.

Does our knowledge of how the charges were placed affect whether or not the Towers were actually demolitions?

Of course. If the charges could not have been placed the buildings were not imploded.

. Would there be any way to tell whether or not the collapses involved explosives without knowledge of the placement of the explosives? Yes

Yes..I agree. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't exist that points to CD.
Without physical evidence thats shows CD, we must start at the very begining and at least test the possibility of the hypothesis and the fist step is..how was it done?

Even this is giving CD too much leeway. If there is no evidence of demo, looking for it is bad practice.

Yes, especially when it would have been impossible to have collapsed the way they did without explosives.

Lets stay on topic and veer into 'freefalls'

Originally posted by Vushta
Of course. If the charges could not have been placed the buildings were not imploded.

Let's see if you get it this time: You won't be able to find out whether or not charges could have been placed by asking us how they were placed.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Let's see if you get it this time: You won't be able to find out whether or not charges could have been placed by asking us how they were placed.

Thats called denial.

Lets see if this works and then hopefully we can get back on topic.

If you or anyone else can not give a possible method of how the explosives were planted without anyone noticing, then you must accept the fact that the most important part of the theory you believe in is based in unrealistic fantasy. 'New methods'..'new explosives' etc is just rationalizing.

Well, I'm not 100% sure on how the towers were brought done, but I know I don't believe the official story for one minute.

"How were the explosives rigged?"

As a Voice and Data Engineer, I spend day in day out in buildings such as WTC1 and 2. I turn up each morning with a couple of kilometres of CAT 5e (normally orange sheathed stuff) and proceed to run it up and down risers, around offices through suspended ceilings, and often stand on desks and filing cabinets in the process without anyone paying a blind bit of attention to me. I also spent quite a bit of time cable tying my work in place above ceilings, where nobody can see what I'm doing.

For a crew of explosives riggers to enter buildings such as the twin towers and rig a network of trigger wires wouldn't be hard work - especially when you look confident people pay little attention, it's surprising how lacks security can be when they get to know your face.

From memory, isn't it true that quite a large number of floors were "to let" and therefore empty - surely you wouldn't need to rig every floor - say one in ten - or one in five?

Just a few thoughts.... J