Rumour has it that after the 1993 wtc bombing the building was then wired fot demolition incase it happened again the building wouldnt fall over 4 city blocks.

Would be shrewd, no?

Originally posted by SilverSmith
There is nothing to compare it to unless we construct an identical tower, take the same plane, same fuel, same amount of passengers, same type of weather, humidity, etc. and fly the darn thing into the building at the same speed and angle then sit back and watch it burn.

Funny how you use this as a gauge. Yet we saw 2....are you listening....2 different buldings (yes different because of WTC 1's antennae and also the height of both were different) being hit with different planes, different fuel, different passengers, different speed, and different angle but yet falling in practically the same way. No offense, but maybe you should rethink those statements.

Refuting CD?

Google Video Link

By Mark Roberts

This video is about how obviously wrong the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are that WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed ... all » by explosive demolition, about how they resort to lying to try to cling to their fantasies, and about how they posit the use of exotic sci-fi weapons while criticizing others who do the same.



Includes discussion of claims by conspiracists Steven Jones and members of his Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Richard Gage and members of his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Loose Change, Jim Hoffman, "9/11 Mysteries," Jim Fetzer, Kevin Ryan, and others.

Issues discussed include controlled demolition, blast effects, cutter charges, potential energy of towers, audio fakery and deception, severity of fires, the expected collapse of WTC 7, "pyroclastic flows," and the dust clouds produced by the collapses.

Comments are presented by expert structural engineers and WTC investigators Gene Corley, Matthys Levy, Leslie Robertson, Irwin Cantor, and by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro.

Work and calculations by Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, Ryan Mackey and others is cited.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SilverSmith
There is nothing to compare it to unless we construct an identical tower, take the same plane, same fuel, same amount of passengers, same type of weather, humidity, etc. and fly the darn thing into the building at the same speed and angle then sit back and watch it burn.

Funny how you use this as a gauge. Yet we saw 2....are you listening....2 different buldings (yes different because of WTC 1's antennae and also the height of both were different) being hit with different planes, different fuel, different passengers, different speed, and different angle but yet falling in practically the same way. No offense, but maybe you should rethink those statements.

No, I'm not "listening" but I am "reading", thank you.

You've also helped my point by pointing out that even when some items vary, which would mainly be where the buildings were hit by the planes, they fall in the same manner. Thus this makes a case for my earlier statements about the enormous efforts that must be put forth for just ONE building being imploded, now add one more building into the mix. How did they know exactly where the planes would hit in each building so as to plant the charges? As I said earlier, even in all that pulverizing there would be some remains of charges that did not get set off because they would be on floors above where ground zero was. Again, Bush is some genius to be able to pull this off, would you not agree? I mean all these years and not one person comes forth or provides some sort of Email, document or recorded conversation that even hints at our government being behind this all??

Think about the extreme difficulty in setting up just one building that large for a demo, the inner structures that would have to be weakened, beams cut with a torch, and at least 5000 pounds of explosives planted in strategic places. Now this would be a task for one building but two? And then possibly a third? Come on.

From the videos I have seen of implosions I see them blast from the bottom and then blasts in the middle sections. What I see in the WTC video is it falling from the point of impact and then crashing down.

There is no physical evidence that charges were placed in the towers and then set off which then brought them down. If there was then it would have been brought forth a long time ago.

That is because the highest probality is the twin towers were brought down by DEW. No wiring. No TNT. No C-4. That does not apply to WTC 7 where TNT was most defintely used.

To Reality Hurts. We need to discuse things on another formate.

weve all seen this footage but i still believe it was a controlled demolition, some footage is hard to find but at the base after the towers have collapsed the supprt beams were cut at 45 degree angles mean : controlled demolition, if it were only one beam it would pass but ALL OF THEM cmon its pretty obvious, and u can argue whether the widows were squibs or pressure, but in a controlled demo the point isnt to just demolish the building but control where it goes and the 45 degree lacerations in all situations is so the building will just slide off of its support and let the aftermath be where the demolitioner wants it to be

At the end of the day, you have to admit that the collapses look very strange. To me, it looks as if the building is being blown out at the *CORE* all the way through.

The building is exploding outward, and its turning to dust.

In the case of WTC-2 someone has to offer some kind of coherent way of looking at how the Top of the Building just came off and stopped rotating and just proceeded to dust, as well as what might of been happening at the CORE at that time.

I mentioned *COLLAPSE* at the beginning but really, it doesn't even look like a collapse, it looks more like an explosive ejection of the buildings all the way down.