OK my 2c, for nothing better to do right now...
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
1: Why and/or how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this have been
accomplished so precisely?
That is a hard question to answer. If you look really closely at the collapses you can see the top section of each tower start collapsing from the
bottom up, before the bottom sections start to collapse, this is why tower 2 tilted so much. The buildings bellow the impact point started collapsing
independent of the top, the top did not cause the collapse of the bottom sections. How this was pulled off is impossible for me to fathom, but the OS
version is even more unfathomable. The only missing link in the CD hypothesis is the questions you ask, but those questions do not prove the CD
hypothesis wrong, they're questions we all know can't be answered. The OS has far more real serious unanswered physics questions, that have nothing
to do with what was used or how. The real questions lie in the absurd NIST hypothesis of collapse initiation, and their failure to even address the
collapse.
It's more important to ask, 'Can sagging trusses out a pulling force on the columns they were attached too?' Rather than just believe that and turn
it on the 'truthers' to back up and support every single miniscule detail.
If the government said it was red you say 'oh yeah it's red'. If a 'truther' says it's red, you ask them to show you the chemicals that makes it red,
then you'd want to see the can it came in, then you'd demand a demonstration that it really is red by comparing it to yellow, which you'd use as proof
it isn't red at all but brick red, which is different.
2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the extreme impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, subsequent explosion,
and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the
building? It seems like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error, especially
from potential prior damage to the rigging.
Again who knows? The OS does not make anymore sense just because no one can answer every question you can think of.
How about instead you answer the many unanswered question the OS didn't address? NIST were the ones tasked to explain the collapses not me, or
'truthers'. Ask them the questions. How do sagging trusses put pulling forces on columns? Or is that not a valid question to ask them?
3. Imploding either tower would have been the largest controlled demolition in history (as far as I know). The amount of explosive needed would
have been emormous, meaning a series of VERY LOUD explosions with each collapse. I know there were peripheral explosions heard and reported prior to
the collapses and some claim to see explosions in the collapse footage, but it seems like detonated charges from the amount of explosives necessary to
bring down such massive structures would have been salient, LOUD, and unmistakeable (see below). Why are no such explosives heard in any of the
footage of Twin Towers collapsing?
Neither tower was technically 'imploded', they were too tall and skinny for that. Loud explosives
were heard, period, go research. Why that
fact has to be continually ignored is beyond me, well wait no it isn't
WTC7 was the tallest building ever 'imploded', and yes it was 'imploded'.
4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers).
Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?
Where have you looked, youtube? There are no rules to say how you have to collapse a building, each one is different. It is not a 'technique'. It
is simply the order the explosives are rigged. You know, to make it appear that they collapsed from fire? The towers were not conventional
controlled demolitions by any method.
5. Why would the perpetrators have rested with assured minds that all would go perfectly as planned despite myriad unknown variables inherent
with such a violent inferno? Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional
767 impact subsequent to the preparation. Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for
error?
Everything is a risk. The first WTC bombing failed didn't it? But how do you know exactly that the plan went perfectly as planned? Did it?
edit on 12/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo
