WTC Not a Demolition

This is the place for secular issues.Discuss society and Politics, social action, the Christian identity and chruch's place in the world. We can also discuss science.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am
Re: WTC Not a Demolition

Post by URBILD » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:33 pm

fleetmouse wrote: We hammered that out in the other thread. I asked if these disguised materials (ceiling tiles and smoke detectors, but feel free to adhoc up something else) were placed directly on the steel and you said no.
Hold on. :!: You're trying to make it look like I'm saying that no explosive materials were ever placed directly on any of the columns. That would be false.
I'm still waiting to hear how your unwitting stooges situated them and wired them for detonation without realizing what was up.
That wasn't my point either. It would be possible that witting operatives were working on the demolition in conjunction with those who were working unwittingly. :geek:
I was asking a question.
More like, you were trying to steer the conversation to some prefigured 'debunking' point... :ugeek:
Nano-thermite exists. But I have grave doubts about the existence of nanothermite ceiling tiles that can bring down a building virtually silently
My point was that the percussive effect would be different from what one would expect from conventional explosives. IOW, the Not a Demolition film is comparing apples to oranges.
That’s not the same as saying the WTC demolition was virtually silent. In fact there is much evidence that the film distorts that would prove otherwise.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: WTC Not a Demolition

Post by fleetmouse » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:27 am

Conspiracy theorists hold to the theory of controlled demolition, in the words of David Ray Griffin, "in spite of its scientific absurdity". [1]

They refuse to accept that "a steel-frame high-rise building was brought down by fire". [ibid]

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: WTC Not a Demolition

Post by URBILD » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:28 pm

fleetmouse wrote:Conspiracy theorists hold to the theory of controlled demolition, in the words of David Ray Griffin, "in spite of its scientific absurdity". [1]

They refuse to accept that "a steel-frame high-rise building was brought down by fire". [ibid]
:lol: Yeah, I get the attempted humor.

But (seriously) you got nutt'n,....

Nutt'n! :P

Post Reply