Top-Down Demolition

[R.Mackey]

Fixed

Clearly, since you're getting your information from experts, you can give us more details.

How much explosives were used, according to your theory, rebel? Give me a number.

In my theory, the number is zero, in case you couldn't guess.

 

[Quad4_72]

Please direct me to a paper on the WTC written by any of them.

I'm assuming they've written something for peer review...

Yes please show us their work and their credentials as well.

 

[Coritani]

Jowenko, Bachmann, Schneider

Again.

Jowenko says the towers were not a CD. How is this not supporting the official Hypothesis?

 

[rebel]

Clearly, since you're getting your information from experts, you can give us more details.

How much explosives were used, according to your theory, rebel? Give me a number.

In my theory, the number is zero, in case you couldn't guess.

No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

If you think none were used then it isn't a great stretch to imagine some being used is it?

 

[Quad4_72]

No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

If you think none were used then it isn't a great stretch to imagine some being used is it?

Yes, it is actually a HUGE stretch. Because if some were used, that would mean inside job, which 9/11 was not. The number is zero, sorry.

Still waiting for a link the the works of your experts and their credentials.

 

[R.Mackey]

No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

If you think none were used then it isn't a great stretch to imagine some being used is it?

Wrong answer.

The less explosives were used, the more the collapse would look like a completely explosive-less one, correct?

What you are saying is, in effect, the WTC collapses were indistinguishable from the official theory, at least in terms of video and gross observable effects. We then throw that out as evidence of a CD.

So what evidence do you have, now that you've eliminated your greatest argument?

 

[CHF]

No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

You're quoting a guy who doesn't agree with the demolition theory? Oh dear.

Still waiting for a paper written by your experts....

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Jowenko, Bachmann, Schneider

Neither Jowenko nor Bachmann have studied 9/11. Both were merely shown a few videos and then asked for their thoughts.

 

[The Demon's Head]

If there ever was any evidence of a controlled demolition, why post the evidence on a interent forum? When the evidence should be given to the proper authorities for an investigation.

 

[Quad4_72]

If there ever was any evidence of a controlled demolition, why post the evidence on a interent forum? When the evidence should be given to the proper authorities for an investigation.

The problem with submitting evidence to the proper authorities is you have to actually HAVE evidence first. CTs are still trying to figure out how to work around that problem.

 

[rebel]

You're quoting a guy who doesn't agree with the demolition theory? Oh dear.

Still waiting for a paper written by your experts....

Van Romero said a small amount of explosives could be used in strategic points, and he is an expert.

He also said they fell too methodically to be collapses but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.

 

[CHF]

If there ever was any evidence of a controlled demolition, why post the evidence on a interent forum? When the evidence should be given to the proper authorities for an investigation.

Apparently twoofers don't mind sitting on evidence proving an inside job. They have this "proof" but won't pass it on to those who matter.

Hey, doesn't that make them complicit in the crime?

 

[CHF]

but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.

So Romero thought it over and retracted. Sucks for you, dunnit?

So you've got no paper from Romero. Strike one.

What about the others?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

If you think none were used then it isn't a great stretch to imagine some being used is it?

But on the previous page you posted a picture and claimed it to be of the tower "exploding", "blown to kingdom ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ come".

You can't possibly believe that there were enough explosives in the building to create the alleged effect you claim is shown in that image and yet not enough to be noticed by anyone.

 

[Quad4_72]

Van Romero said a small amount of explosives could be used in strategic points, and he is an expert.

He also said they fell too methodically to be collapses but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.

He came to the change of heart when he consulted structural engineers and realized that he was wrong. Everyone had a lot of different ideas with regards to initial speculation, none of it is evidence of an inside job.

Oh and where are those papers written by your experts? What are their credentials?

 

[Coritani]

Van Romero said a small amount of explosives could be used in strategic points, and he is an expert.

He also said they fell too methodically to be collapses but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.

Jowenko says the towers were not a CD. How is this not supporting the official Hypothesis?

An answer to my question, please?

 

[rebel]

So Romero thought it over and retracted. Sucks for you, dunnit?

So you've got no paper from Romero. Strike one.

What about the others?

Why you cut my quote in half? Please address the first part of what I said.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why you cut my quote in half? Please address the first part of what I said.

It was his initial speculation. He changed his mind when he consulted structural engineers. Now please answer my questions...

 

[R.Mackey]

Van Romero said a small amount of explosives could be used in strategic points, and he is an expert.

He also said they fell too methodically to be collapses but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.

Since you're incapable of answering my simple question, I'll give you the answer. The WTC towers could have been brought down -- assuming one had no regard for safety or collateral damage -- with approximately 1.5 tons of high explosive each. However, this clearly did not happen:

1. The explosives would have been seen by building occupants prior to detonation
2. The explosives would have shattered windows instantaneously all over both towers, and this did not happen
3. The sound and seismic signatures would have been unmistakable, and there are neither
4. They never would have survived the fire
5. They would have left chemical and structural evidence in the debris pile, of which neither was found

I find his "miraculous" change of heart quite rational. So what, are you calling Van Romero a liar, in addition to the list of those you slander? Or do you actually have some evidence?

 

[The Demon's Head]

The problem with submitting evidence to the proper authorities is you have to actually HAVE evidence first. CTs are still trying to figure out how to work around that problem.

I don't know exactly when the conspiracy theories began about the 9/11 attacks, but it seems if those who are pushing the idea that it was an inside job that they would have given the evidence to the authorities for a investigation. But no, it is much more convincing to post '9/11 was an inside job!' on the internet forums.

Apparently twoofers don't mind sitting on evidence proving an inside job. They have this "proof" but won't pass it on to those who matter.

Hey, doesn't that make them complicit in the crime?

They have theories, no proof.