It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.'s rebuttal to demolition theories

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:32 AM
I was amazed that this apparently hasn't been discussed before. My apologies if it has and I simply missed it.


After several people posed some questions towards the demolition professionals represented at implosionworld's forum, which were categorically shrugged off with reference to an upcoming, all-encompassing statement, on August 8th, 2006, implosionworld finally released what they possibly hoped would answer all pertinent questions.

It's a good read, if only for its comical value.

Here are some particularly descriptive excerpts of their bulletproof, thoroughly scientific rebuttal:

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A [dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires] scientifically impossible

Exemplary application of the scientific method! Formulate a hypothesis and go on to say it's true. Very convincing stuff.

All of this [the preparation] would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse - working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction - or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.

This is impossible

Man, I'm so happy that we finally get to hear the qualified opinion of a true expert. Simply put, planting the charges beforehand would have been "impossible". "Why's that?" I hear you say? Are you an expert? No? Then shut up!

Well, I guess you see were this is going, and these were just examples taken from one of the nine assertions offered. In any case, I think this piece is very valuable in that it demonstrates the utter impossibility of sensibly refuting the demolition thesis, even by seasoned industry experts. If anyone feels I'm wrong on this count and would like to back this up, I'm all ears!

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:39 AM
It's been posted before. I think this makes the 5th time, not sure. Scroll down through the forum and you'll find another, and it'll be locked, and have links.

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:49 AM
Doh! Well, the darn ATS search engine doesn't work for me, and as I couldn't find it anywhere on page one, expecting it to be of enough interest to stay afloat for a while...

OK, found it, it was buried way back. Ah well, at least I took the chance to openly drown it in the sarcasm it deserves.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Lumos]

new topics

log in