OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

If we establish that there were to be 4 aircraft hijacked and used against 4 targets that in and of itself is the most important thrust of the operation. Support operations MUST be such that their individual discovery can in no way cause damage to the main battle plan, the hijacking and ramming of aircraft.
If that support operation is the installation of thousands of explosives and detonators in the specific main targets of the main battle plan the discovery of this support operation would indeed put in jeopardy of discovery, or counter operations against, the main battle plan. This support operation is also to take place over weeks, perhaps months, in and among the civilian population that will be most impacted by it and involve , by your own estimate, 100 technicians.
What is most disturbing is the complete inability to see the fallacy of purposing such an operation as posing an insignificant increase in risk of discovery.

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

 

[jaydeehess]

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I am refering to explosives technicians, not the cable guys. the mere fact that you seemingly misunderstood that might be indicative of your admitted lack of education in any science or technology,,,
or
it might just be you trying to be sarcastic.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

Yes, I disagree.
As I said these techs would have to be installing these thousands of devices in a building populated by thousands of civilians who work in the offices and dozens (or hundreds) of maintenance personel

You find Marvin Bush's involvement suspicious based on NO other evidence other than his last name.

By that measure you should be suspicious that I am a Nazi based upon the last four letters in my username here.

 

[adkinsjr]

Quote where I've ever said planting the explosives posed no risk. I'll be waiting.

JamesB said:
"That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?"

You replied:
“What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.”

Oh let me guess, those are different risks right? You're just talking about the other risks involved in demolishing the building right? Surely the risks involved in demolishing a building in secret have nothing to do with the risks involved in planting explosives (or thermite in the minds of the deluded) required to demolish that building. LOL, you are almost too funny to be true tempesta.

Now in your next post to me, go ahead and play your laughable word games to try to desperately explain how these risks don't include the risks involved in planting explosives. I could use a good laugh, and you always come through.

 

[GlennB]

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC.

Oh dear oh dear. You're quite new to this aren't you?
Even hard-core truthers abandoned this canard a few years ago, in the face of even harder-core facts.

(prediction: tempesta29 will now quibble over the grammatical significance of "was" vs. "had been")

While you're here, you never did explain what you meant by -

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

 

[Thunder]

I responded to the silliness of thinking that crashing a plane in Shanksville was part of any plan.

please quote the post where someone suggested that crashing into a field in rural PA was part of the 9-11 plot....and not the action of last resort when the passengers were bashing into the cockpit door.

 

[Thunder]

I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

what Department of the Federal government?

what agency?

what division?

do you have any idea who you are actually accusing of mass murder and treason?

....thought not.

 

[tempesta29]

Yes, I disagree.
As I said these techs would have to be installing these thousands of devices in a building populated by thousands of civilians who work in the offices and dozens (or hundreds) of maintenance personel

And what the hell do civilian office workers know about maintenance? Do you really think in their 9 to 5 grind they're thinking about whether or not a guy with equipment might be planting bombs in the building?

You find Marvin Bush's involvement suspicious based on NO other evidence other than his last name.

LOL. Yes, actually. Since I know explosives were used based on the descents of the upper sections, I know that security must have either failed on a massive scale or have been complicit.

By that measure you should be suspicious that I am a Nazi based upon the last four letters in my username here.

No. That measure does not apply in this case.

 

[tempesta29]

what Department of the Federal government?

what agency?

what division?

do you have any idea who you are actually accusing of mass murder and treason?

....thought not.

You don't know what black ops are, do you?

 

[Thunder]

LOL. Yes, actually. Since I know explosives were used based on the descents of the upper sections, I know that security must have either failed on a massive scale or have been complicit.

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

so...what DO you have to contribute?

 

[tempesta29]

please quote the post where someone suggested that crashing into a field in rural PA was part of the 9-11 plot....and not the action of last resort when the passengers were bashing into the cockpit door.

It's pretty easy to spot, assuming you've been keeping up with this conversation for, say, the last page.

And I'm still waiting for someone to quote where I claimed thermite was an explosive and where I claimed there are no risks in planting demolitions materials in the Twin Towers.

 

[Thunder]

You don't know what black ops are, do you?

when did they plant the explosives?

how much did they use?

what floors did they plant them on?

exactly what type did they use?

what was the origin of these explosives?

who was their most immediate commanding officer?

who picked the date 9-11?

how have they kept all involved from blowing any whistles?

got any answers?




......thought not. 9-11 Truth has no theory, evidence, or clue.

 

[tempesta29]

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

Step 1: Search "9/11 explosions" in YouTube. Step 2: Watch.

so...what DO you have to contribute?

An ironic question considering your "contributions" thus far.

 

[A W Smith]

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

So your claim is that "black ops" had an opportunity to plant over fifty thousand cutting charges in three buildings during a 48 hour power down of a few floors that only occurred in one of the towers? Please continue to post your dumbassery. Even though you are not unique you certainly are entertaining.

 

[Thunder]

Step 1: Search "9/11 explosions" in YouTube. Step 2: Watch.

none of the videos have any audio or video showing typical CD explosions.

unless you consider 4 "squibs" to be enough to take down 110 story buildings.

FAIL....massive one.

 

[A W Smith]

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

so...what DO you have to contribute?

entertaining dumbassery

 

[tempesta29]

when did they plant the explosives?

how much did they use?

what floors did they plant them on?

exactly what type did they use?

what was the origin of these explosives?

who was their most immediate commanding officer?

who picked the date 9-11?

how have they kept all involved from blowing any whistles?

got any answers?



......thought not. 9-11 Truth has no theory, evidence, or clue.

Wow. You got me. You're right. I just realized that my inability to answer any or all of these questions means that the official story of 9/11 is true.

Good logic.

 

[tempesta29]

So your claim is that "black ops" had an opportunity to plant over fifty thousand cutting charges in three buildings during a 48 hour power down of a few floors that only occurred in one of the towers? Please continue to post your dumbassery. Even though you are not unique you certainly are entertaining.

I never cited a specific number of charges.

The collapses of these buildings preclude their having been caused by fire.

 

[tsig]

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.

By the bowels of Jesus I beseech thee, get an education.

 

[Thunder]

Wow. You got me. You're right. I just realized that my inability to answer any or all of these questions means that the official story of 9/11 is true.

you can't claim that "black ops" loaded the WTC with explosives, and yet have ZERO details to back it up.

do you even know what skepticism is?

once you provide your OWN idea, you must back it up.

that's how things work here at JREF. you make a claim, you must back it up.....or get laughed at all the way home.

ball's in your court. back up your claims with facts, details, figures....or you are in the wrong forum.

 

[A W Smith]

I never cited a specific number of charges.

The collapses of these buildings preclude their having been caused by fire.

I was being conservative. please cite how many "levels" at a minimum would need to be rigged with cutting charges to avoid collapse arrest.