Originally posted by exponent
Oh and rich23, are you really going to use the "well why don't controlled demolition companies just fly a plane into the building" argument? It is perhaps the single poorest argument ever produced by the truth movement.
See, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're not getting the fact that I was taking the mickey.
Here is a small list why not
- Planes cost millions of dollars
- Flying a plane into a building will kill the pilot
- The location of the plane's impact cannot be sufficiently accurate
- The collapse of the building would be uncontrolled
Can you name a single reason that a controlled demolition company would use a plane over precisely placed explosives?
Because it worked perfectly twice in a row to bring two hugely tall buildings down into their own footprint.
This, by the way, is a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum. That's Latin for taking the ****.
You also didn't read the original post where I suggested this. It's a long way back in the thread, so, to recap:
I suggested using surplus KC-130s. They're relatively cheap. That deals with point one, above.
I said you'd have to fit Global Hawk remote control. That deals with point two.
Points three and four poke holes in the official conspiracy theory.
Thank you for an entertaining post.
[edit on 11-7-2009 by rich23]
[edit on 11-7-2009 by rich23]
