Originally posted by CaptainObvious
1. The story from hundreds of Engineers that have exhausted many hypothisis's, looked at many possibilities...(and continue to do so) including blast
hypothisis. Who ALSO will not release a report until they have looked at EVERY possible scenario.
or
2. The hypothisis from paranoid Google and Youtube jockeys who claim that because the building "looked like a controlled demolition," it was in fact
one. This conclusion was made even though:
So, which category do you lump pootie, Valhall and I in? We are engineers who have exhausted many hypothesis's, looked at many possibilities (and
continue to do so) including blast hypothesis.
I bet you still lump us into number 2 just because we don't agree with your agenda though.
a. No reports of explosions just prior to collapse.
Not paying attention again I see. LaBTop just posted a quote right above yours.
b. No seismic data to support the theory.
Again. Prove LaBTop wrong. Bring any siesmologist you want to the table. Prove him wrong before you start spouting this crap as fact.
c. Hundreds of firemen were standing around for hours (after the copllaspe zone was initiated)and not one claimed to have heard
explosions.
WHAT? Where the hell have you been? Again, not paying attention? There a plenty videos with the actual explosions in them.
d. Ct'ers refusal to believe the MANY eyewitness accounts to those that WERE on the scene and saw the building leaning, heard it groaning, and
were witness to the many fires and severe damage that was done to the building.
Debunkers refusal to believe MANY eyewitness accounts that WERE on the scene and heard explosions and felt them before the buildings collapsed. Or
even the many videos with explosions in them.
e. Although holding strong to their CD theory, have yet to provide ANY proof at all to support the claim.
Although holding strong to the official reports, have yet to provide ANY proof at all to support their claim. And NIST's own experimental data
contradicts ALL official reports. Yet, you still say they have been peer reviewed when no one but them have access to the construction documents.
Typical.
f. With the CD theory, not one resonable explanation as to how this building was configured to have a controlled demolition.
Again. Not paying attention? It is mine and every engineer's on this forum opinion that the core was taken out first. Even NIST and FEMA agree.
One, two or three bombs could have done that. Since you believe plane impact damage and fires alone could have done it...i.e. no explosives at all,
how can you think that just ONE additional explosive couldn't do it?
Please answer that last question because I'm really getting sick of hearing this from you.
How can you believe that 0 explosives could bring it down and then turn around and say it would take thousands of pounds of TNT to do the same
thing?
Seriously think about that. Please.
