I could do better, but I gotta go to bed.
Quote:
I said first and foremost that the witnesses are in error. There is no way they can have observed both the explosions at the tower base and the impact of the plane. Therefore, their claimed sequence is pure speculation.
What is the point of this crap that I quoted? Did people need to see the planes to know that planes hit the tower? If such a person afterwards, at the base of the towers, hears an explosion, does that not count or something? Where is the confusion and incompatibility?
Quote:
And again, I ask you to think. What do you imagine caused those explosions?
I'm going to guess explosives. His guess is debris falling in the building? Or does he not acknowledge the explosion in any form?
Quote:
What purpose would they have served, given that the towers would not come down for more than another hour?
A more important question is, why were there explosions an hour before the towers went down. There are videos of people standing at the base of the tower when explosions happened. There are fire fighters describing explosions. I believe the burden is on this guy to explain what caused those explosions if explosives don't explain it.
Quote:
Again, there is no evidence of any molten steel. Only molten metal.
So because there are no video or pictures of molten steel, there was no molten steel? The claims of molten steel are all based on eye witness accounts of workers and inspectors. And if the planes hadn't been filmed hitting the towers, there would be no evidence of planes hitting towers. Because the evidence has been scrapped. Except for the eye witness accounts.
Quote:
1) The time it took for the buildings to collapse is completely consistent with a catastrophic failue, no demolitions needed.
He is veering from the point. The point was that the building fell in 6 seconds. Not how long it sat there till it collapsed. ANY amount of time between a building taking damage and collapsing, is consistent with a catastrophic failure. Saying "this is consistent with a catastrophic failure" is just misleading and tries to give invalid relevance to his argument.
Quote:
2) There should be testimonies of explosions. After all, there were many explosions. But there is no evidence of there having been any explosives.
There are testimonies of explosions. And by "evidence" he is clearly entering into a semantics argument. Without being able to fully examine the site, which was clearly suppressed, there is no evidence for anything except that two of the buildings were hit by planes, and 3 buildings fell.
Quote:
3) The theory of controlled demolitions is only seriously entertained by people with no experience in controlled demolitions.
My girlfriend was the photographer for a demolitionist. The main guy refused to discuss it with her, as in, got upset and said "don't question your government." His team members that we asked said it did look like a controlled demolition. We didn't get to ask all of them before she quit that job. The old guy was too creepy and she couldn't take it. So anyhow my point is that this jackass is suggesting that demolitionists immediately say it looks nothing like a CD when every CD I've talked to so far say it looks a CD.
Quote:
---a. It would have taken large teams of people several months to plant the thousands of explosive squibs necessary to bring these buildings down. They would have had to do so in the presence of tens of thousands of office workers, and not one of them ever noticed?
There were teams of people very active in that building more than months before the event. People were evacuated from the building. Bomb sniffing dogs were decomissioned. Security was changed. And if the building is so weak that it can't even resist the top falling strongly enough to prevent a freefall speed collapse ( which I know his dumbass refuses to acknowledge ), then it wouldn't take much to demolish it now would it?
Quote:
---b. The timing mechanisms for such a demolition are very sensitive. They often cannot survive a heavy wind storm. You think it could've survived the impact of a jumbo jet? Especially a jet that (luckily) managed to impact the exact point where detonation was set to begin? Highly unlikely.
Yeah I forgot that the only way to set off bombs is with a plunger or by lighting a fuse.
Quote:
---c. The collapses started at the impact areas and commenced downward. What demolitions expert in their right minds would use such an unnecessarily complex detonation sequence? That's a rhetorical question. The actual answer is none.
You might as well have said "what demolitionist would crash an airplane into a building first." Another pointless statement. How about I use your tactic: You would have to use such a complex demolition sequence to demolish a building of this size. Just as pointless and misleading as the statement you made about a building of this size inevitably crashing into its footprints.
Quote:
---d. How do you suppose the demolitions experts knew exactly what floors would be impacted ahead of time? Especially since they were different in each tower?
Personally, I don't see this as a problem. Remotely detonated devices wouldn't require exact positioning based on the airplanes impact. I really wanted to avoid the speculation part of this discussion because it's not necessary with the other issues to discuss, such as WTC 7 falling also straight into it's footprint and looking just like a CD also, yet did not get hit by a plane. But if you've just got to have speculation, remote detonated devices could easily have had signatures based on what floor they were on. Ah yes slippery speculation is so nasty and invites such easy argumentation.
Quote:
4. If it was a controlled demolition, why bother with the hijackings and suicide missions? What possible purpose (other than adding additional complexity, risk and points of failure) would airplanes flying into these buildings serve if they were already rigged for demolitions?
Did you happen to see that part where we attacked Afghanistan following this? Then Iraq? The oppressive legistlation such as the USA PATRIOT Act? The Insurance policy payoffs from the towers that had just finished signing before the event? The put options? The warnings of attack? The dancing Israelis? The still living hijackers? The mint condition passport which was clearly planted? You missed all of this? Because what we have been saying is that the crashes were a diversion to sell the story that got this machine going. And what we're also saying is that the airplanes wouldn't bring the towers down by themselves and that is why there were demolitions. And it doesn't necessarily give a huge insurance payoff if the buildings aren't completely destroyed according to the outlines of the insurance policy.
So basically you missed the entire point of us bringing up 9/11? At least I see you are sincerely not participating in the discussion now. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:
No my friend. The "controlled demolition" theory borders on the psychotically idiotic.
No my friend. Saying the that WTC towers falling, especially WTC7, looks nothing like a controlled demolition borders on the pschotically idiotic.
He isn't talking fact. He is trying not to lose. Unfortunately no matter how much garbage he makes up, he has still lost.
