Question for those who believe in controlled demolition

OPECOILER

New Blood
O
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
23
I have a question for those who believe that the twin towers were destroyed by explosives-where'd the remnants of the charges go?

To take down a building that big you would need A LOT of charges. I admit I'm not an expert in regards to demolition, but I can safely that to take out both towers and building 7 you would need at a bare minimum 12,000 charges*.

Now after just about every bombing and demolition in history, there have been fragments of the explosives left over. Yet no one saw these in the rubble at GZ. Where'd they go?

Or is it that the controlled demolition argument is utterly ill-thought out and has no basis in reality?

*I'm going by the demolition of the Hudson building in Michigan which took 4,000 charges to bring down. It remains the largest building in the US brought down by CD.
 
I'm no demolitions expert either, but don't demolitions typically require so many charges because they want to make sure the surrounding buildings aren't damaged and that no one is hurt? If your goal were just to bring down a building without concern for the people and other buildings in the area, couldn't you get by with far fewer charges? After all, if you get just one floor of WTC 1 or 2 to give out, the whole thing would come down. Wasn't there a demolition guy in here awhile back who said something to this effect?


Please note that I do not believe that explosives were used on any of the buildings, as there is no evidence for that theory, and if explosives were used there would surely be evidence of it. I also don't subscribe to any of the other 9/11 CTs. I'm just not sure that this particular argument is a good one. Luckily, there are plenty of other arguments that are quite good.
 
After all, if you get just one floor of WTC 1 or 2 to give out, the whole thing would come down.
Click to expand...
yes, thats true, but 99% of the CD conspiracy theorists dont think thats the case (after all, if one floor can bring down the towers, a plane could probably take out one floor)

the CTers tend to paint themselves into a corner, saying the towers couldnt possibly have fallen from that little damage, but then claim it wouldnt take much damage to bring them down in a CD
 
Freddy, what you say is true, but presents serious problems for the conspiracists. Most of them posit that the collapses could not have progressed to the ground without the aid of explosives in the lower sections.

A few conspiracists believe that the tops could have crushed the bottoms, but posit that the collapses were initiated by explosives in the impact areas. This would require fewer explosives – except that the conspirators wouldn't know at what the floors the buildings were "supposed" to collapse. So in reality it would require explosives on many floors. These people are then faced with the problems of explaining how the explosives could have been installed invisibly and then survived the impact, blast, and raging fires. They also would have to explain the visible gradual inward bowing of the exterior columns and the lack of seismic and audiovisual evidence of explosions when the buildings begin to collapse.

How do the conspiracists approach all these problems? They don't.
 
Thanks for the replies. I agree that the point I made does not help the CTer's cause at all.
 
We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.

Having said that, there are certainly problems with the notion that conventional explosives were the main source of destruction. One being the near total pulverization of the entire towers into dust. Almost 100% of the non-metallic contents were dustified. Conventional demolitions do not aim to pulverize anything. They sever the support columns, effectively chopping the building into manageable pieces, and it falls to the ground.

Unfavorable as this observation is to the conventional explosives theory, it is devastating to the gravity collapse theory. This is why OCTs must claim that the building contents survived, and went hiding in the basement.

So for different reasons, I agree with Freddy. Conventional explosives do not explain 9/11.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.
Click to expand...

repeating this lie over and over again will never make it true.
 
We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.
Click to expand...
but since all the cleanup workers are part of the coverup theyd never tell us what they found
 
Truthseeker doesn't even think they found rubble. He is unwell.
 
Gravy said:
Just bomb scares and confusion. That particular incident was reported on in the press at the time, as an example of the confusion, suspicion, and fear that prevailed. False alarm, like the others.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Those men reported seeing a van with a mural of planes crashing into new york painted on it. They arrested the men.
 
In February of 2006, the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) published their report entitled: Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks.

There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
(source: MTI Report 02/06)
Click to expand...


How can a truck with that painted on it be a simple bomb scare?

Edit: Why did they describe the mural as showing remote controlled planes?
 
Last edited:
tonicblue said:
I don't think so. Those men reported seeing a van with a mural of planes crashing into new york painted on it. They arrested the men.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was a false alarm. The men were released. There was no mural of planes crashing into New York. U-Haul used to have some trucks painted with the New York skyline and jets flying over.

As I said, you can read about that incident in the contemporary press. I did. Fair enough?
 
tonicblue said:
The NYPD transmission says the truck exploded.
Click to expand...
Good lord, tonicblue, the passage you just quoted refutes that. The truck didn't explode, which is why, as I will remind you for the third time, the press used this as an example of the confusion of that day.

You keep doing this. Remember your "no fighters scrambled" claim? Please think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom