The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

HeyLeroy said:
Okay, lets pull the nail from our collective foot.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed due to structural damage caused by impacting pieces of the collapsing North Tower and the subsequent uncontrollable fires. There were no repeat no preplanted explosive devices.

Go!
Click to expand...

Souldn't you wait until the report is released?
 
nicepants said:
Somebody page me when he gets to his "explode = implode" theory.
Click to expand...
You mean his explosion=high explosives used in CD=implosion theory? Or is floor plan=well versed theory? Or maybe it's his high-explosives used in CD can only be heard if your close to them theory.
 
lapman has it correct. And as it appears that everyone here (except Ms. Hayek) is only running in circles (2000+ posts and no consensus between mjd1982 and, well, everyone else), I humbly suggest that we move on.
 
Unsecured Coins said:
And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.
Click to expand...

I can.

But when I get sick of this thread, I'll just leave. Although I don't mind Selma, I just don't believe in spamming. Of course, replacing words with pictures can be a good thing. But cats ? Nah.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Have you asked them all? There is Bachmann and Schneider too.
Click to expand...

Bachmann and Schneider both make claims along the lines of "it's possible that explosives were used", but neither one says for sure.

If it's only POSSIBLE that explosives were used, what's the other possibility? By only saying it's "possible" or "probable", they are admitting that the collapse we saw must have been possible without the aid of explosives.

So that's all you have? 3? 1 who says it was explosives, and 2 who think it "might have been"? And ZERO who were actually there during the collapse.
 
nicepants said:
Bachmann and Schneider both make claims along the lines of "it's possible that explosives were used", but neither one says for sure.

If it's only POSSIBLE that explosives were used, what's the other possibility? By only saying it's "possible" or "probable", they are admitting that the collapse we saw must have been possible without the aid of explosives.

So that's all you have? 3? 1 who says it was explosives, and 2 who think it "might have been"? And ZERO who were actually there during the collapse.
Click to expand...


Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability".
Click to expand...


The weatherman today said "with upmost probability" it will rain this afternoon, yet it was sunny and no rain.
"With upmost probability" means there was also the possibility that no explosives were involved.

Revolutionary91 said:
The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way.
Click to expand...

Why would a CD expert who believes the OT feel the need to make a public statement?


Revolutionary91 said:
It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: Only 3 CD experts in the world have made public claims that they believe a CD of WTC7 was either definite or likely. (And only 1 is 100% certain)

How many of those 3 were on the scene during the collapse?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.
Click to expand...

But, if it was so obvious a CD, as most truthers claim, that anybody can see it one would think that just about any demolitions expert one asked would agree. Heck, if it was so obvious a CD, you'd think that experts would be coming out of the woodwork to ask for some answers.

If we were to ask every CD expert on Earth who has actually studied the collapses if they thought they were CD, how many do you think would reply 'yes'? And, just how many would need to reply 'no' before you would start to at least suspect that it is not as obvious as you might think it is?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.
Click to expand...

Patently ridiculous, junior. A number of demolition experts (a group which does not include Bachmann and Schneider, btw) have given their opinion.

The idea that there are others out there who believe it was a controlled demolition but are keeping quiet is preposterous.

Your logic is not improving.
 
twinstead said:
But, if it was so obvious a CD, as most truthers claim, that anybody can see it one would think that just about any demolitions expert one asked would agree. Heck, if it was so obvious a CD, you'd think that experts would be coming out of the woodwork to ask for some answers.
Click to expand...

Caveat: Rosie O'Donnell is not a CD expert
 
nicepants said:
Why would a CD expert who believes the OT feel the need to make a public statement?
Click to expand...

99.9% wouldn't. But still, a few addressed it. The paper below has been up on the ImplosionWorld website for some time.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...B-mGLS4OM6lRft0_A&sig2=A5QZE4U1LBymdi8tlhaslg

Gee, who to trust. A kid with a propensity for inane, unanswerable questions, or a demolition industry source that, to my knowledge, hasn't been disputed by a single expert. :rolleyes:
 
nicepants said:
The weatherman today said "with upmost probability" it will rain this afternoon, yet it was sunny and no rain.
"With upmost probability" means there was also the possibility that no explosives were involved.
Click to expand...
Well, I can tell your with absolute certainty that it's 5 o'clock somewhere. So lets get a drink! :dc_tongue:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom