• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Post your evidence that WTC was destroyed by demolition

Bio, please read such materials as Gravy's compilations, R.Mackey's white papers, even the threads going back to about 2006.... Then come back and say that no one has provided any evidence.

Sheesh. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
 
bio said:
it seems, that (for most of you JREF-debunkers) it is enough to prove, that there may be another explanation for phenomenas (almost free fall speed, melted metal ...) than these explanations, offered by us truthers.
I am talking about probabilities and my impression is, that the cd-hypothesis is more likely than your theory. Or the other way round, what 100% prove do you have, that the Twins went down according to NIST?
Show me, what you have in your hands.
Click to expand...


It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that all demolition experts reject the fantasist moonshine about explosives in the towers. Absolutely no physical evidence for your fantasy was found--no detonator caps, no bits of wiring, no chemical signatures, no seismic data showing secondary explosions.

The collapses do not resemble controlled demolitions. The logistical difficulties of planting tons of charges were insurmountable.

Again I ask, what do you know that the demolition professionals don't?
 
I was going to suggest that instead of arguing here that the Truthers should bundle up all their evidence and send it to KSM's defence team for his upcoming trial, after all surely they should be interested in helping to free a man they believe is an innocent patsy and with all their evidence in front of a court they can prove their case and soon have Bush and Cheney on trial themselves, but since they don't appear to have any evidence I guess they won't be doing that in the near term.
 
Last edited:
bio said:
I am talking about probabilities and my impression is, that the cd-hypothesis is more likely than your theory.
Click to expand...

bio, the CD hypothesis requires explosives that make no sounds, leave no seismic signature, require no detcord, require no pre-cutting, and can be planted with extreme ease and stealth, and yet are still powerful enough to blow through steel columns thicker than those in any other demolition ever performed. It is no more plausible to believe that CD brought down the Towers than it is to believe in Judy's death rays.
 
Bio, what proof do we have that the world is round? If you can answer that question, then just apply the same method to the NIST report and a light bulb might go on.
 
1337m4n said:
bio, the CD hypothesis requires explosives that make no sounds, leave no seismic signature, require no detcord, require no pre-cutting, and can be planted with extreme ease and stealth, and yet are still powerful enough to blow through steel columns thicker than those in any other demolition ever performed.
Click to expand...

If it's that easy to CD buildings as large as the WTC why doesn't the demolition industry do it with all buildings it implodes? Would save a lot of time and money I'd think. Maybe it's a super-duper secret type of CD that only bad, bad people are allowed to learn.
 
Ragnarok said:
If the impact of the planes only caused "minimal shaking", why would small bombs within the building be expected to be noticeable?
Click to expand...

The fact that you're taking your "research" from a Truther site notwithstanding, a few things need to be considered.

1) "Minimal shaking" is a relative term. Minimal compared to what? An earthquake? Yes, perhaps compared to a violent and sudden shifting of the Earth's crust, the impact of a plane crash might be described as "minimal". But if you look at the seismic charts of the impacts (you'll find them in the link you provided), you'll see that even this "minimal shaking" is readily apparent.

2) In order to determine the seismic signature of the explosives that may have been used to topple the towers, you'll first need to do what no Truther to date as done: calculate the amount required. Barring that, your personal incredulity on the matter is wholly irrelevant.

3) At the end of the day, we don't need seismic charts to tell us if any detonation charges went off on 9/11. Why? Because none of the thousands of people who were in the vicinity of the WTC reported hearing them. Because not a single audio recording device in the area recorded them. Until someone invents an explosive that is both invisible to seismology and perfectly silent, and yet has the power to bring down a 110-story skyscraper, the controlled demolition theory fails this particular litmus test.
 
Last edited:
I was witness to the tornado that destoyed about 20% of Wichita Falls, Texas on April 10th, 1979. I saw the huge tornado just a hundred yards from the car I was driving (the worst place to be), ripping up the neighborhood I used to live in, including my house.

It sounded just like a freight train.

Should we be looking at Union Pacific as the real culprits?

I mean the tornado would have been a hologram, the sound was very, very similar to a train though, that's what's really important, isn't it?
 
So it's been what, 45 days since this thread was created? And with all the mouthy commentary various Truthers have been excreting into other threads, hundreds of postings no doubt, not a one of them has come in here and offered up a single solitary piece of evidence. Interesting.

Of course it's possible they've simply overlooked this thread. But we wouldn't want them to miss a perfect opportunity to present their incontrovertible evidence that some sort of controlled demolition caused the destruction of the WTC buildings, would we? Okay Truthers, you're on. Consider the thread duly bumped. Let's see your evidence.
 
Tweeter said:
Sorry you feel that way, Pardalis.
I`m here to discuss alternate views of 9/11 , not to make friends or be ethical.
Click to expand...
Yes, you bring the fake ideas of 9/11 truth. You lack evidence, you are bring views. Good for you. You have zero evidence, you just post lies about 9/11 to express alternate views. How anti-intelligent. So you post junk, fake stuff about 9/11. I was expecting evidence, you bring alternate views.
 
Hahaha...you people are pathetic, do you seriously think a building just falls, because it burned? Get a life!!!! :rolleyes:
 
Drs_Res said:
You obviously did not read the title of the thread, which is:
Post your evidence that WTC was destroyed by demolition

So where is your EVIDENCE?
Click to expand...

The whole point that you need evidence is enough for me to understand, that you people have absolutely no common sense. :rolleyes:
 
Inertia said:
Hahaha...you people are pathetic, do you seriously think a building just falls, because it burned? Get a life!!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
firewh8.jpg
 
Inertia said:
The whole point that you need evidence is enough for me to understand, that you people have absolutely no common sense. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There has got to be a way to get some better-quality trolls around this joint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom