$1million Prize for Proving WTC Was Not a Controlled Demolition

[Ladewig]

I'm not too current on WTC conspiracies. Can anyone here explain why "They" used a controlled demolition to bring the towers straight down instead of making them fall over onto other nearby buildings?

 

[Mycroft]

For starters, here is a thread over at the BAUT, with an old friend from this place you'll recognize. I think the folks over there can adequately answer the WTC7 questions.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35175&page=6

Start around post 159 and work downward...

Thanks for the resource. I'll look through it tonight.

 

[Beerina]

The 9-11 conspiracy theories (there are actually several, the explosives in the building is only one)

Yeah, but "explosives in the building" is so lame, they're not even trying.

Presumably they were there to help the building collapse after the planes flew into it since several billion people saw the planes, at least the second one, live. Evidently the people in the consipracy were kinda stupid, given how easy it is for investigators to detect all different kinds of burning and explosive residue.

Oh, and there were no big explosions when the buildings actually started falling, unlike a controlled demolition.

For god's sake, you paranoiacs, you're just phoning it in at this point, just going through the motions.

 

[Elind]

I'm not too current on WTC conspiracies. Can anyone here explain why "They" used a controlled demolition to bring the towers straight down instead of making them fall over onto other nearby buildings?

Because you can't make a building that large fall over. It's not built to stay together when tilted and would immediately start to fall apart, straight down, if it were; as it did.

 

[shuize]

I've been through something like this with the Pentagon.

True Believer: Dude, you've got to check out this web site that proves no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon!

Me: No thanks.

TB: Why not, Man?

Me: Because I'm not going to waste my time on conspiracy bullsh*t.

TB: How do you know it's bullsh*t? Did you see the plane crash yourself?

Me: No. But many others did and I saw the wreckage afterwards.

TB: That's what they want you to believe, Man!

Me: Let me get this straight. You think the government set off an explosion at the Pentagon to make it look like a plane crash on the very same day two different planes crashed into the World Trade Center?

TB: Yeah, they're pretty damn clever.

Me: Well what about the people?

TB: What?

Me: The people that friends and families saw get on the plane and then spoke to on their cell phones when they described their flight toward the Pentagon? What happened to them?

TB: Yeah, Man! That's what I want to know!

 

[Orphia Nay]

Nice work, freakshow.

I agree.

Still, this thread is educational in seeing how the Conspiracy Therory adherents works.

Start with the OP on an explosion causing the WTC to fall. Once that is debunked, you move on and say "well, maybe, but what about WTC 7?" and maybe someone like Mycroft is interested. If they debunk that (which is fairly easily done) then you move to the molten steel 'issue' (seen only in 1-2 reports, thermite does not make things molten, and to keep steel in a moilten state underground would take a continious heat source). In other words, keep changing the targets.

I am not accusing orphia nay of being a CT, mind you, just a curious person who is demonstating the way CTer's think and manuever to keep people interested in their story (because maybe they are right about 1 thing).

I can see how, at a pinch, I might look like a CT, because those guys can befuddle you if you forget to laugh to yourself at each claim they make before they change the subject again.

Wonder how soon the "hole in the Pentagon couldn't have been made by a jet plane" will surface...

Yep, I'm anticipating that, too, at the forum I mentioned.

For starters, here is a thread over at the BAUT, with an old friend from this place you'll recognize. I think the folks over there can adequately answer the WTC7 questions.

[link... I'll be glad when I've posted over 15 posts and the forum lets me link]

Start around post 159 and work downward...

I'll read that too. I found another thread there yesterday called "debunking 911 is killing me" in which page 5 was good for the molten steel issue. I haven't had time to read the rest of it either, but it seems a good resource. I didn't think earlier of looking at Bad Astronomy before posting this, but I should have. I used to read there quite a bit. I'm a member of a number of skeptic forums, but as a consequence I end up reading more than posting.


Oh, one more thing... from Whatdoesitmean dot com

"$50,000,000.00 Reward Offer for 9/11 Conspiracy Proof

December 7, 2005

WhatDoesItMean.Com today announces that we are offering a reward of $50,000,000.00 (fifty-million dollars) to any present or former United States Government Public or Military Official having direct knowledge and verifiable proof that the events of September 11, 2001 were not caused by Islamic Terrorists. "

Surely there's a law against this type of incitement?

 

[patchbunny]

What I’ve never been able to figure out with this whole “controlled demolition” nonsense is how these idiots think the buildings were wired for demolition without anyone noticing. You have to strip away construction material to expose the columns and girders in a great number of places. Primercord and control wiring are everywhere. From documentaries I’ve seen on TV, the process takes days, if not weeks, and you’ll have dozens of people involved. All this activity and no one notices? All those explosives lying about and no one notices?

I think people are of the Hollywood mindset that a little block of C4 is all that’s needed to take out an entire floor, a la Die Hard. It’s just not that simple.

 

[Elind]

What I’ve never been able to figure out with this whole “controlled demolition” nonsense is how these idiots think the buildings were wired for demolition without anyone noticing.

No one can figure out conspiracy nuts without joining them. It's like creationism. The facts are used, made up or ignored to suit the theory.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, I have to say that at least the "controlled demolition" bunch demonstrate tremendous confidence in engineering. Apearantly, they think that two buildings struck by planes far large than the largest planes that were around when the buildings were erected should stand indefinately while soaked in jet fuel and burning.

At the time, the collapse caught me by surprise, but only because I didn't expect it to happen to suddenly. Given hindsight, I'm impressed they stood up so long. Good engineering saved a lot of lives by keeping the building up so long.

If "they" deliberatly destroyed the buildings, why did they do it when there were still people inside, trying to evacuate? Wouldn't those people have had a chance to witness the controled explosives go off, and survive the collapse? There's no consistent modivation involved in this theory.

 

[Ohmer]

I watched an excellent documentary on how the towers fell (in fact, I think it was called "How the towers fell" or "Why the towers fell") that explored the issue in detail. Even showing a close-up, in slow motion, of the external steel structure cracking immediately before the top collapsed.
...
It was a great documentary. I recommend it.

Me too.

Why the Towers Fell

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for the link, Ohmer.

 

[Freakshow]

Me too.

Why the Towers Fell

Thanks for the confirmation. I'd like to find it and watch it again. That just sticks out in my head "You cannot bend steel like this without breaking it...unless you heat it first." It all clicks into place.

 

[RandFan]

What I’ve never been able to figure out with this whole “controlled demolition” nonsense is how these idiots think the buildings were wired for demolition without anyone noticing. You have to strip away construction material to expose the columns and girders in a great number of places. Primercord and control wiring are everywhere. From documentaries I’ve seen on TV, the process takes days, if not weeks, and you’ll have dozens of people involved. All this activity and no one notices? All those explosives lying about and no one notices?

I think people are of the Hollywood mindset that a little block of C4 is all that’s needed to take out an entire floor, a la Die Hard. It’s just not that simple.

Thank you. That didn't occur to me but you are correct. I have watched some documentaries also and it is very precise and very destructive work. Slapping some explosives on a wall isn't going to do it. And there are wires running everywhere and they wrap the explosives and it is very obtrusive.

 

[Orphia Nay]

No one can figure out conspiracy nuts without joining them. It's like creationism. The facts are used, made up or ignored to suit the theory.

Yep, you can debunk their claims with physical evidence, and then they turn around and post wild speculations on political motives as if that suddenly cancels your proof.

"They demolished the buildings to save lives" is what one of them keeps telling me. It's been hard to work out what on earth that means, because he speaks like he's on drugs. As far as I can make out, "they" needed "a new Pearl Harbour" to go to war on Iraq (so they went to war in Afghanistan, as a skeptic has pointed out), so they took out the WTC.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Has no one else noticed the TV ads this group has been airing. I think on Fox, but I'm not sure.

They obviously have money to pay for it, and as usual free speech takes precedence over rationality when TV stations vet ads. They won't air ads for pornography, but looney tunes is OK.

On January 7th 2006 at 10.30pm on Channel 10 Victoria, Australia, there was a show called "911: In Plane Site". It had all the usual woo stuff, and in the credits they thanked Jimmy Walter, the guy offering the $1million. The show offered no skepticism - it presented it's claims without even a trace of skepticism. I was horrified to think how many people would have bought into it. This theory is insidious.

 

[Elind]

On January 7th 2006 at 10.30pm on Channel 10 Victoria, Australia, there was a show called "911: In Plane Site". It had all the usual woo stuff, and in the credits they thanked Jimmy Walter, the guy offering the $1million. The show offered no skepticism - it presented it's claims without even a trace of skepticism. I was horrified to think how many people would have bought into it. This theory is insidious.

There are some Aussies, one anyway, on this forum who sometimes sound like they have bought it, or would be happy to. Glad to know you haven't

 

[richardm]

What I’ve never been able to figure out with this whole “controlled demolition” nonsense is how these idiots think the buildings were wired for demolition without anyone noticing.

They mixed explosives into the concrete when they were building the towers, obviously

 

[study-the-facts]

I agree that the million dollar offer is not clear and/or properly presented, However, the only "idiots" (per Elind) here are those who talk with authority about a subject they have little knowledge of.

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your empty drivel, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

 

[Bjorn]

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

From the site you linked to I caught this:

The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

Is there any connection between 9/11 and the assassination of JFK, or any connection between studying the JFK assassination and the study of 9/11? Does studying the JFK assassination make anyone an expert on 9/11?

On another line: "Idiots here", "ego-centered know-nothings", "your equally clueless comrades", are you a troll or just joking?

 

[Kiless]

On another line: "Idiots here", "ego-centered know-nothings", "your equally clueless comrades", are you a troll or just joking?

I say troll. They've posted the same thing on another thread, word for word....