• 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.

OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

tempesta29 said:
What the hell are you talking about? You need to read and grasp context. I said "what risk" in response to being asked why they destroyed the entire buildings. I was not referring to risk involved in planting explosives TO DESTROY THE BUILDING
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya. How would the risks involved in destroying the building exclude the risks involved in planting the "explosives" you say were used to destroy the building? I mean seriously, you're playing with words AGAIN. :mad: It's ridiculous.
 
tempesta29 said:
What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.
Click to expand...

I can't make a grain of sense out of that.

Are you saying that it would have been suspicious if the Towers had started to fall (naturally, from impact+fire) but had then stopped falling (naturally, through the sheer strength of the buildings)? And so the perps (who hadn't initiated the collapses anyway) felt obliged to procure full collapse through CD in order to avert suspicion from something they hadn't started in the first place?

Or that the perps merely initiated collapse through CD, but felt it would look more 'natural' to ensure it progressed to the ground, even though 'natural' would - in fact - be collapse arrest?

Just what the hell are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
The real perplexing part is they "pulled it off with ease" because the only ones that think it's suspicious are people with the least training.

:boggled:
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.

I think it was a conspiracy for reasons I can't properly explain.
Hardly another soul in the world is suspicious.
Therefore, they pulled it off with ease.

I think there's a word for that kind of logic. Is it 'tautological'? Or maybe 'stupid'? Let me join you in boggledness :boggled:
 
tempesta29 said:
You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.
Click to expand...

Says the man who can't read the thread. Have you found out where I got the 1% reduction in acceleration from yet, or was that too hard a question?

Oh, and go back and check your own post, and remind yourself who you were replying to. Apparently you can't even keep track of your own posts.

Dave
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
Fixed that for ya. How would the risks involved in destroying the building exclude the risks involved in planting the "explosives" you say were used to destroy the building? I mean seriously, you're playing with words AGAIN. :mad: It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What's ridiculous is your constant editing of my posts and your subsequent responses.

The specific risks in creating a conspicuous collapse are independent of the risks in overcoming security and planting explosives. One deals with the design stage of the controlled demolition and the other the execution of installation. If you can directly tie them together then go for it.

I'm not playing with words. You just don't have a high intellectual capacity for comprehension.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Says the man who can't read the thread. Have you found out where I got the 1% reduction in acceleration from yet, or was that too hard a question?
Click to expand...

Do you want me to reverse engineer your claims? I'm not interested.

Oh, and go back and check your own post, and remind yourself who you were replying to. Apparently you can't even keep track of your own posts.
Click to expand...

Making it even more embarrassing for the poster. He can't even keep up with his own discussion. He spoke of a specific risk, and I responded accordingly. Then he took my response, broadened it, and applied it to a different topic.

The least that could take place here is honest discourse. Apparently that's too much to ask.
 
Now you are just being idiotic. The risk involved applies to both. Actually the risk beforehand is even more important. If the perps would have been discovered beforehand then they wouldn't have been able to pull off the plot. You obviously have never been involved in the planning of anything more complex than a surprise birthday party, if that.
 
JamesB said:
Now you are just being idiotic. The risk involved applies to both. Actually the risk beforehand is even more important. If the perps would have been discovered beforehand then they wouldn't have been able to pull off the plot. You obviously have never been involved in the planning of anything more complex than a surprise birthday party, if that.
Click to expand...

They are distinctly separate risks. Calling me idiotic does not change that. "The risk involved applies to both." Sorry but--what does that mean? Yes, I know both are risky. Both threaten to expose the conspiracy I'm alleging, but they are not directly linked. We were having a discussion about a specific risk. He was guilty of a straw man, now you are complicit in that very straw man.

For Christ's sake, use your mind.
 
What it means is that someone plotting a vast illegal act is not going to care whether he get caught before, or after the act. He wants to stay out of the electric chair either way. People trying to pull off some sort of plot want to do two things; A. Successfully complete their goals and B. Keep the risk of getting caught a low as possible. Truthers always have them completing these elaborately complicated nonsensical acts for no other reason than the fact you need them to have done that to make your theories have any chance of fitting the facts. That is the reason you avoid taking any stand on what you think actually did happen, because if you did it would sound even more moronic than what you do argue.

http://www.debunking911.com/meeting.htm

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of f***** nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of f***** nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
Click to expand...
 
JamesB said:
What it means is that someone plotting a vast illegal act is not going to care whether he get caught before, or after the act.
Click to expand...

Nope. That isn't what it means.

You asked me about a specific risk. Then you quoted me and applied my quote to a completely different risk, as if the fact that they tie in to the same topic means they are the same topic. It was dishonest rhetoric, and, as a result, I won't be dealing with you anymore. You don't care? Great. Then we can both feel good about this result.
 
CHENEY: Though it doesn't matter what crashes into the Pentagon because there are no videos of it, so who cares right? Yeah! Anyone want to shoot my good friend and not apologize for it? I did. It was awesome!

And really, you're implying that anyone believes that the original intention was to crash a plane in a field in Pennsylvania? Three planes hit high profile targets and you're insinuating that I and others believe the last plane was meant to hit the dirt in Nowheresville, PA?
 
tempesta29 said:
Making it even more embarrassing for the poster. He can't even keep up with his own discussion. He spoke of a specific risk, and I responded accordingly. Then he took my response, broadened it, and applied it to a different topic.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. You're getting confused over a discussion that's clearly available for scrutiny. I find it more than amusing that you can't even keep track of a discussion in which you can scroll back up and read what you wrote the previous day. This says a lot for your ability to deduce what happened nine years ago from incomplete evidence; clearly you can't even deduce what took place a day or two ago when you've got complete evidence.

Dave
 
tempesta29 said:
What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.
Click to expand...

Please state your engineering qualifications.
 
Telltale Tom said:
Sure, if the towers hadn't collapsed we would still be demolishing them, if the Deutsche BanK Building is anything to go by.

Can't see how that would have fired up congress and the Coalition of the Willing, to attack Iraq. It was essential that the towers were demolished so that Al Queda could prove to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... namely a fleet of passenger planes.!
Click to expand...

How odd that none of the supposed hijackers then were not Iraqi. One would think that if one were to go to the emmense trouble of ensuring immediate and complete destruction of the WTC towers in order to garner a war with Iraq that the supposed perpetrators would have some immediatly demonstrable connection with that regime. Odd also that the supposed mastermind and the supposed bankroller of this plot was said to be residing in Afghanistan and thus requiring a war there first before any war with Iraq is entered into. Rather a round-a-bout way of getting the war you really want.:rolleyes:

Now I understand though, why the 'coalition of the willing' against Iraq did not include a lot of nation participants. The way it played out the USA ad a great deal of support going into Afghanistan but relatively little for going into Iraq.
 
Wow, someone who refuses to provide a straight logical answer to anyone, is refusing to answer my question. I am so hurt.
 
tempesta29 said:
It's far more psychologically disturbing and more casualties are guaranteed. Why not completely destroy them? Also makes for easier clean up.
Click to expand...

So what? Despite TT's ridiculous senario above, the mere fact that 4 aircraft were hijacked and rammed into 3 major structures(killing a couple of hundred people outright) and one crashing into a field in Penn. would garner all the support from Congress one would care to have in order to attack those responsible.

We are now speaking to a senario in which those killed on the aircraft and at the Pentagon are joined only by those above the fire floors of the towers. This would be a total upwards of 1000 in there were only an average of 30-40 people on those floors.
Not enough to get Congressional support for a war? Pshaw!

You guys are really great at the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom