15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[JollyMon]

 

[JollyMon]

 

[JollyMon]

 

[KJQ6945]

https://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

 

[ATM]

https://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

I wonder why they went to all that trouble?

Probably didn't know back then that they could just set it on fire and walk away to achieve the exact same result.

 

[KJQ6945]

The controlled demolition of the Hudson building only took 3 months to plan, 4 months to execute and set three world records. It was only 439'.

Yep, bungling George Bush blowing two 1300' buildings before lunch, then finishing off with a 600 footer at dinner time. Obviously the only plausible explanation. Seems legit to me.

 

[churchmouse]

The controlled demolition of the Hudson building only took 3 months to plan, 4 months to execute and set three world records. It was only 439'.

Yep, bungling George Bush blowing two 1300' buildings before lunch, then finishing off with a 600 footer at dinner time. Obviously the only plausible explanation. Seems legit to me.

 

[KJQ6945]

I wonder why they went to all that trouble?

Probably didn't know back then that they could just set it on fire and walk away to achieve the exact same result.

Or they could just hit it with 180,000 pound plane with 10,000 gallons of fuel, you know, normal, "simple office fire stuff.

 

[KJQ6945]

Please tell me you are here to close down this idiotic thread.

 

[ATM]

The controlled demolition of the Hudson building only took 3 months to plan, 4 months to execute and set three world records. It was only 439'.

Yep, bungling George Bush blowing two 1300' buildings before lunch, then finishing off with a 600 footer at dinner time. Obviously the only plausible explanation. Seems legit to me.

You must have missed my comment, then, you're making my case.

Why didn't they believe it was as easy as you believe?

Why did they go to all that trouble if it wasn't necessary?

Why didn't they just light it on fire and wait a bit for it to demolish itself?

Were they just dumber than you to believe that explosives would be required?

I'm with them, for the record. I think explosive would be required.

You're up.

 

[ATM]

Or they could just hit it with 180,000 pound plane with 10,000 gallons of fuel, you know, normal, "simple office fire stuff.

Not even required, we've all seen what happened to WTC7 and blamed on "normal office fires".

But, you could duplicate plane hits with just a few charges and dump that much fuel on it if you want, on any side, at any floor, and it will still completely destroy itself later just like the towers, right?

Shouldn't have taken take all that planning and precise placement they bothered with, should it? It just seems so much easier now that we claim fires will do that.

 

[ATM]

Please tell me you are here to close down this idiotic thread.

He can't save you from yourself.

 

[KJQ6945]

This is truly priceless.

You really do believe this ****.

 

[ATM]

This is truly priceless.

You really do believe this ****.

I can't be the only one that finds it amusing when a guy who believes the buildings were completely destroyed ...without any explosives ...goes on to claim that it would have taken weeks or months of planning, careful placement, and lots of explosives to merely help it along.

If it didn't need any, it didn't need many.

If it didn't need any, it wouldn't matter where they were placed.

You are killing yourself, I'm simply allowing it. Please continue with your illogical digging, sir. This is pure gold.

 

[KJQ6945]

I can't be the only one that finds it amusing when a guy who believes the buildings were completely destroyed ...without any explosives ...goes on to claim that it would have taken weeks or months of planning, careful placement, and lots of explosives to merely help it along.

If it didn't need any, it didn't need many.

If it didn't need any, it wouldn't matter where they were placed.

You are killing yourself, I'm simply allowing it. Please continue with your illogical digging, sir. This is pure gold.

The key point of controlled demolition, is the controlled part.

Uncontrolled fire, and crashing $180mil planes, although obviously effective might be a tough sell when your talking to a client. But hell, give it a shot.

ATM's demolition company. "I know **** about physics and stuff"

 

[ATM]

The key point of controlled demolition, is the controlled part.

Uncontrolled fire, and crashing $180mil planes, although obviously effective might be a tough sell when your talking to a client. But hell, give it a shot.

ATM's demolition company. "I know **** about physics and stuff"

Why did you bother to quote my post if you were going to skip all of it? Just so people who ignore my posts can read it?

Respond to it, it's an exposed logical flaw in your position which you need to reconcile or retract.

 

[jamil]

I can't be the only one that finds it amusing when a guy who believes the buildings were completely destroyed ...without any explosives ...goes on to claim that it would have taken weeks or months of planning, careful placement, and lots of explosives to merely help it along.

If it didn't need any, it didn't need many.

If it didn't need any, it wouldn't matter where they were placed.

You are killing yourself, I'm simply allowing it. Please continue with your illogical digging, sir. This is pure gold.

There's the classic facile ATMism. You know, your argument works both ways.

 

[KJQ6945]

There's the classic facile ATMism. You know, your argument works both ways.

He doesn't get that part of it.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[ATM]

There's the classic facile ATMism. You know, your argument works both ways.

He doesn't get that part of it.

If either of you can reconcile the illogical proposition KJQ and others have attempted, I'd love to see it.

Those who believe in the incredibly simplistic claim of fire causing all that destruction, can't also propose that fire and a few bombs would be incredibly complex or unbelievable.

The latter would much more reasonably account for all that was witnessed if we don't just assume their absence.

Go ahead. I'll wait.