I’m Building a Skyscraper.

[BuyingThyme]

Nothing like this has ever been done in the middle of an existing metropolitan area.

We’re very cognizant of the fact that buildings simply don’t last forever, and our investors want assurances that the project will pay off for at least fifty years. They also want to know what kind of liabilities will be realized once the structure becomes obsolete.

Our insurance company is very interested in the construction timeline, but, more than that, they too are worried about what happens once the structure reaches the end of its life, or otherwise becomes undesirable.

I guess you just can’t build something this big without simultaneously planning for a way to bring it down, particularly when the project is smack-dab in the economic center of one of the largest cities in the world.

We mulled over this thing again and again, about how the property would eventually be compromised, perhaps for decades, while being renovated or dismantled.

That was before the government stepped in. They’re the ones who solved the problem. They explained that there was no way in hell we would be permitted to erect our monster of a skyscraper in the middle of their city unless we could somehow guard against the fallout from any scenarios -- from earthquakes to structural defects -- which could arguably shut down the heart of their existence for years at a time.

That’s when I learned how things really work. That’s when we started building the demolition mechanisms right into the buildings.

Now all we have to do is clear out, pull a switch, and all of our problems fall into manageable little piles.

It’s a big secret, you know. It has to be. But it’s also a no-brainer.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. oooh....

a sneaky 9/11 thread!

So you really believe sky-scrapers are built with explosives already in place for the destruction of the building decades later?

That's pretty silly.

[BuyingThyme]

3. I don't know if they put explosives in place, but I do know

that they're not stupid enough to build a ridiculously huge building in the center of a metropolitan area without also planning for bringing it down.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. And you think

what happened to the WTC was the "planned" way to bring it down?

[BuyingThyme]

7. I have no idea.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. ah

just "askin' questions"?

[BuyingThyme]

11. Just looking for answers.

[Contrite]

58. Do you guys all really think you're clever repeating this?

"just askin' questions?" Oh, har-de-har.

[vincent_vega_lives]

140. Gee

I wonder where that came from? Ironic.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Obviously.

[ixion]

10. I tell you what... you go build a skyscraper and then punch a hole at the top

and you tell me if it collapses at near gravity speed into it's own footprint.

And you mock people for being conspiracy theorists. That really cracks me up. :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

12. why?

What would that show?

The WTC didn't just have a "hole punched in at the top", it didn't collapse at near-gravity speed, and it didn't collapse directly into its own footprint.

Yes, we mock you because you make it so easy.

[ixion]

14. uh, yes, ALL THREE did

I sat there and watched it, so don't try and tell me what I didn't see.

[Blue-Jay]

20. You saw what you saw, no doubt.

Perhaps, you didn't fully understand what you saw, however.

[ixion]

25. I can tell you this:

jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt insulated commercial grade steel; and, the physics involved don't add up. According to the 'official' story, the floors pancaked. But where was the inertia that would nave to be overcome at each floor? Why was the fall so uniform when that is not the nature of a structure losing integrity.

Nope, sorry. The official story defies the laws of physics and chemistry, and as such I cannot accept it.

[Blue-Jay]

27. So....you're either an physicist or a chemist, right?

[ixion]

33. no, but I've got a solid understanding of both...

there is such a thing called a library, you know. ;-)

[Blue-Jay]

46. REALLY?!? I've never been to a LI-BARRY before!

:eyes:

[AZCat]

52. No you don't.

Your posts have already shown that your understanding of physics is on shaky ground.

[Esra Star]

53. It didn't have to melt the steel, it just had to compromise the

welded joints.
This appears to be the problem.
All the concrete floors were just resting on welded angle sections.
These were more than adequate to support the floor, but when one floor
collapsed on to the next the combined force and weight was too much, and so on
all the way down.
The next time they build that way, they will bolt every angle on.

[TheWraith]

131. You're mistaken.

"jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt insulated commercial grade steel;"

Melting is unneccessary. Jet fuel burns at about 1400 degrees; steel loses its loadbearing capability at 600 degrees.

"But where was the inertia that would nave to be overcome at each floor?"

The dynamic load of the upper floors would have vastly outpaced the load-bearing capability of each floor below them. The lower floors would only have marginally slowed it down, never stopped it.

And no, the towers emphatically did not collapse into their own footprint. They destroyed or irreparably damaged every other building around them due to falling debris and other effects, and even buildings which were clear across streets.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. if you saw it

did you notice the fire?

Did you notice the debris falling FASTER than the collapsing building?

Did you notice the debris that fell far away from the building's footprint, damaging other buildings nearby?


Sorry, your eye-witness observations don't impress me.

[ixion]

26. and your ignorace of the basic laws that govern our universe is laughable

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Interesting

how few engineers, physicists and people who actually STUDY this stuff disagree with you.

[ixion]

30. yep, it is interesting... only a few disagree

which helps prove my point. thanks!

[MonkeyFunk]

32. ah, you caught my error

sorry. I'll leave it as it is so you can feel superior.

Of course, I meant how few agree with you - I re-worded my sentence while composing it and messed up.

However, the fact remains that very few people who study these things agree with you.

[ixion]

36. geez... it's not about feeling superior... I'm only concerned about the truth

and what I hear in the official story is not the truth. And I have heard numerous academics put forth arguments similar to mine, so I know I am not alone in my beliefs.

Here is the reality: Neither you, nor I, know precisely what happened on that day. And when the official story does not make sense, when the government seemingly tries to squelch debate, when the official story requires a suspension of the laws of probabilities, then yes, my curiosity kicks in.

This is what I don't understand. You folks who follow the official line want to accept it for wrote, and when someone even makes the suggestion that it make not be as that narrative ran, you immediately start in with personal attacks.

It's too bad, really. I'm just trying to get questions answered, and others are as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Sorry

but the academics you believe are numerous who support your beliefs are in fact very rare, and usually have no expertise in the subject at hand.

The overwhelming majority of engineers and physicists accept that the buildings could collapse from the damage incurred by the planes and the subsequent fires.

It's like creationists who take the occasional physicist who doesn't believe in evolution and tout that "many scientists agree with us!". It simply isn't true. There are quacks, nutjobs and malcontents in all fields - luckily they're few and far between, and their inane ideas are easily disproven by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about.

[Blue-Jay]

45. Please don't insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you.

That's not very nice, OK?

[tenseconds]

54. but...

If they don't have any intelligence how can you insult it?

[BuyingThyme]

31. What if you were to accept the premise that you don't

build something like this without planning for bringing it down.

Could you understand why the existence of such a plan would be kept secret?

And could you imagine a scenario where the process of bringing it down might be initiated by uncontrollable variables?

[MonkeyFunk]

34. I don't accept your premise

that destruction plans are built into the building plans.

Modern large-scale structures are essentially infinitely-lived - provided regular maintenance is conducted.

Or... a building could simply be dismantled in an almost reverse-process to that of building it.

The largest steel-frame structure ever destroyed by controlled demolition was 420 feet high. You think the WTC was built 3x higher than that with an untested and never-before done plan to implode it 30 years later?

[BuyingThyme]

38. I have no doubt that they made plans for bringing it down.

Imagine if there was some kind of earth movement, causing it to lean, or sink, or split. They might not have much time to fix it, or dismantle it before it became a permanent source of danger.

You'd think they'd plan ahead for something like that, wouldn't you?

And, yes, there were definitely never-before done plans for all kinds of things. There was no choice, was there?

[Blue-Jay]

13. So you're saying that WTC was a controlled demolition?

[ixion]

17. that's my opinion, yes...

[Blue-Jay]

23. OK.

I'm not an engineer, so I won't try to convince you otherwise.

[NovaNardis]

2. 9/11 Conspiracies

are straight insane. And this one is REALLY quite up there.

[BuyingThyme]

4. I'm about to prove you are insane. Get ready:

The attacks of 9/11 were a conspiracy. You are the only person on earth who believes otherwise.

[CJCRANE]

18. Nice comeback.

I think you're onto something. We can all agree that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Some of us just want more information.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. What? You don't subscribe to the "lone pilot" theory? n/t

[ixion]

6. they could have avoided this if they just said they were going to pull the WTC

buildings, instead of lying about it.

Just my two cents.

[Gin]

16. How would they bring down buildings the size of the towers when

they became obsolete? Just asking.

I have wondered about that since 9/11.

[ixion]

19. with a controlled demolition....just like we all saw on CNN

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. I saw a motherfucking plane hit the motherfucking building on CNN.

I think you're mixing up CNN and "World's Biggest Kabooms" or whatever it is on Fox.

[WindRavenX]

15. lol

:rofl:

[sniffa]

21. i'LL have you know

that the fLag industry was behind 9-11.

after tanking saLes every independence day, they reaLized they had to do something drastic to save their business. hence, 9-11.

in a post 9-11 worLd, fLag making is big business.

[WindRavenX]

22. ahah!

:thumbsup:

[YDogg]

29. Heh!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. If you ever do design a skyscraper...

...please let me know which one it is so I can stay the fuck away from it, because you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, haven't done any research on the subject, and seem to have wandered from the "ridiculous gibberish" forum into GD by mistake.

[BuyingThyme]

41. If you can be specific, please be.

But I'm pretty sure you're just talking out of your ass, so you can't.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Woohoo! Gotta love it when the tinfoil crowd escapes from their rubber rooms.

[BuyingThyme]

43. Explain what you're talking about,

or admit what you are.

[Buzz Clik]

56. You posted this ridiculous piece of ca-ca in GD.

Now, it's properly located in la-la land.

[BuyingThyme]

63. And the reason you can't back up your words is what?

[Buzz Clik]

67. Back up what words? That you originally posted this in GD?

You left skid marks, dude.

[BuyingThyme]

69. Explain why you're compelled to post little sheepie comments

without even trying to explain what you're referring to.

What is it that you have a problem with? Do you know, or do you just reflexively do your sheep thing?

[Buzz Clik]

115. You want it? You've got it:

I don't buy this conspiracy bullshit around 9/11. I'm an engineer, and I'm married to one. I live and breathe engineering. I was sitting with engineers when the towers fell. The construction boys predicted their fall. The companies who build the skyscrapers in NYC can give you the EXACT reasons why those buildings collapsed, and it doesn't have a thing to do with ridiculous theories. Bare facts, sound science, simple engineering.

Clear enough?

[BuyingThyme]

117. You don't even know what the word CONSPIRACY means.

Do you really thing people will believe you're qualified to discuss them?

[Buzz Clik]

118. I don't give a flying fuck one way or another.

You fucking begged me for an answer, and I gave it.

Now, go away.

P.S. Please, please report this to the mods! Nothing would please me more than to have this subthread yanked.

[BuyingThyme]

119. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation,

why join it?

Do you just need the attention?

[Buzz Clik]

120. Next time try keeping this crap in La-La Land.

When you put this asylum blather in GD, this is what happens.

[BuyingThyme]

121. Are you ready to say what you're referring to?

Or just refilling the attention tank?

[petgoat]

127. If the construction boys predicted the fall, why didn't anybody

tell FDNY?

And why won't they come forward and say so?

The companies who build the skyscrapers in NYC can give you the EXACT reasons
why those buildings collapsed

Then how come when FEMA's absurd zipper/pancake theory was what passed for conventional
wisdom, they didn't say squat aboout it?

And if they supported FEMA's theory, why didn't they defend it when NIST came along and
repudiated it?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

129. "I'm an engineer" ..and?

[vincent_vega_lives]

141. Welcome to la-la land

Nice to see some new faces.

[WindRavenX]

44. no shit

this is hillarious

[BuyingThyme]

47. If there is something you disagree with, let us know what is it.

Why be a sniveling little coward all you life?

[Uben]

48. I can see the need for forward planning .......

.....for the destruction of a building. I can even accept the fact that maybe such a plan was in effect for the WTC buildings. But, tell me, why in the hell wouldn't they wait till all the people were out? Do you think someone pulled the trigger knowing there were people still inside?
Those buildings fell waaaay too convenietly. And, how can you explain WTC 7? It didn't get hit, yet it collapsed, also.

When the answers come out, and they will someday, we'll know.

[BuyingThyme]

50. I don't know what happened, but what if

the mechanism for causing the building to implode was inadvertantly activated by impact, or fire, or both?

The building just might fall unexpectedly. But, more tellingly, the people responsible for guarding the vulnerabilities of the building would have to make up a ridiculous explanation to explain what happened. (Particularly if they had employed similar methods in constructing other buildings, and there was a "war on terra" looming.)

[tenseconds]

55. re: answers

The answers are there...you just have to take the time to see the videos and do the research.

[LARED]

49. That’s when I learned how things really work

No, you didn't. Really you've no clue what your talking about.

[BuyingThyme]

51. Can you be specific? Or are you just talking out of your butt,

like the others?

[piobair]

124. If I didn't know better

I could swear that Buying Thyme was channeling Nebula. The same adamant denials in the face of overwhelming reality. The short bus must be very full.

[sabbat hunter]

57. explosives

have a shelf life. they dont last forever, are sensitive to temp, humidity changes.

over time they would have a chance of going off accidentily due to the above.

also since they degrade if they tried to use them, chances are they would fail or not work the way they were supposed to.

[Big Pappa]

59. Bingo

But I,m sure Explosives used were of Archon technology hence a 500 yr shelf life.

[BuyingThyme]

62. So?

[AZCat]

65. That means you need to explain how...

you are going to build explosives into your skyscraper without having them degrade over time.






Of course, you could just drop this ridiculous line of reasoning and accept that nobody would do this.

[BuyingThyme]

66. I didn't say anything about building explosives into my skyscraper.

[AZCat]

68. Then perhaps you can explain...

what you mean by "building the demolition mechanisms right into the buildings." (from your OP)

[BuyingThyme]

70. I'm saying there's no way in hell they would be allowed to build

something like that without planning for a way to bring it down if it started to sink, or lean, or was bombarded in war.

[AZCat]

71. And you know this because...? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

73. It would be like sending a man to the moon without a plan

for getting him back.

There's absolutely no way this wasn't addressed.

[AZCat]

75. So the only thing you are basing this on...

is your own opinion. Perhaps you have some relevant experience you'd like to let us know about that might have led you to this belief?

[BuyingThyme]

76. Yes. I was in a large building today and saw a sign that said

"EMERGENCY EXIT."

It's as if they were planning ahead.

[AZCat]

77. So let me get this straight...

You are claiming that the WTC towers were constructed with built-in "demolition mechanisms" because you saw an emergency exit in another large building?

[BuyingThyme]

78. Yes, some things are that obvious.

To think that an experimentally tall structure could be erected in the middle of a metropolitan area without plans for bringing it down is ridiculous. Just like erecting large public buildings without fire exits is ridiculous.

[AZCat]

86. Uh-huh.

Ridiculous, according to you. No evidence of "building deconstruction" documents, no plans showing how this would be accomplished - just your opinion.

[BuyingThyme]

89. Well, they might have published that information with all of the

information they published about the security vaults.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. And yet

you have nothing other than your "feeling" about this to back up your belief.

Can you cite ANY architect, builder, contractor, etc. who confirms that large buildings are built with demolition plans already in place?

The problem is a large building could be seriously compromised in myriad ways, each one requiring a DIFFERENT method of dealing with it. There can't possibly be ONE comprehensive plan for the demolition of a building that would work in all possible situations.

[BuyingThyme]

81. Imploding a building into it's footprint is a pretty standard

objective.

[MonkeyFunk]

84. That's one way

of course, it's never been done on a building even half the height of the WTC.

How about dismantling the building piece by piece? Why wouldn't that be an adequate plan?

[BuyingThyme]

85. If the earth begins to shift underneath a building that large,

dismantling it will not likely be a valid option, given time and safety considerations.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. right

that's my point - there's no one single plan that would accommodate all the possible reasons why a building might need to be brought down.

Can you point us to any law or regulation that requires the existence of a demolition plan before approval is granted for a building?

[BuyingThyme]

93. I haven't said anything about any laws or regulations.

But I understand why you had to pretend otherwise.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. you're funny

so you're saying the architects and builders do this expensive work, without being required to do so by any regulatory body?

Just for shits and giggles? Out of good will? Why do they do it?

[BuyingThyme]

98. Your deep into your pretending now.

But thanks for stopping by.

[MonkeyFunk]

103. Why not answer

the simple questions I pose?

How many people are involved in the preparation and approval of these plans?

If they're not required by law, who DOES require them?

[BuyingThyme]

106. When projects like this are undertaken,

all sorts of government agencies get involved. They don't write laws and regulations; they make decisions. Does that surprise you too?

It boggles the mind.

[MonkeyFunk]

108. oh

SOMETHING here is mind-boggling, but I don't think it's me.

So admit it - you can't provide a single lick of evidence to back up your idea. You can't find a law, a regulation, nor an architect or builder who confirms what you "feel".

[BuyingThyme]

111. I think for myself. You let others think for you.

That's all this is about.

[MonkeyFunk]

112. Yes

you think for yourself.

Now instead of telling us you THINK buildings are built with demolition mechanisms in place, why not show us some evidence of it?

[petgoat]

128. Dismantling piece by piece would be inadequate if the tower

was "bent" by a hurricane. Too dangerous for deconstructo crews
and workers in adjacent buildings.

[AZCat]

130. "Bent"?

I don't have a good picture in my head of what you mean. Could you please elaborate?

[petgoat]

132. I mean wind-loaded beyond its elastic limit so that perimeter

and core columns are buckled.

[AZCat]

133. Core columns don't handle wind load.

They're for dead load only.

You'd need to do an analysis to see what would be the result of the overloading before concluding that buckling would occur in the perimeter columns rather than elongation. I look forward to reviewing your results.

[petgoat]

134. You're missing the point.

The discussion is about damage to the towers that would necessitate
explosive demolition rather than deconstruction.

Elongation damage could I believe be compensated for by providing
temporary tensile restraints while deconstructing.

What I am talking about is buckling damage extending to the core
because the load exceeded that for which the structure was designed.
A 1000-year hurricane, for instance.

[AZCat]

135. Why don't you do the analysis for a millenial hurricane...

and get back to me with your report on the projected damage?

Otherwise I might have to think you're making unwarranted assumptions about the behavior of a system under abnormal conditions.

[petgoat]

136. Assuming the tower has the capacity to get bent, providing for

its expeditious removal seems a reasonable plan.

I'll leave it to you to prove the tower was designed
not to get bent in a 1000-year storm.

[AZCat]

137. That's what I like to see!

Make a claim and expect the other poster to do the work proving or disproving it - I call that brilliant!

That's what I'll tell the plan reviewers the next time they question one of my designs - that it isn't up to me to prove it will work but instead is up to them to prove it won't (I'm sure they'll love that).

More importantly, you base your need for said "expeditious removal" plan on this unfounded claim, meaning you can continue to make the claim until the other poster gets frustrated and does the work to disprove your assumption. By then though, you've moved on to a new assumption that, curiously, you expect the other poster to do the work proving or disproving also!

[petgoat]

138. You're still missing the point.

For a proposition to be reasonable, it need not be proven.

Failure to provide proof does not make a proposition unreasonable.

[AZCat]

139. You have yet to prove your proposition reasonable.

This is the same issue that all of your "propositions" have - what you deem to be reasonable is, after examination, not so.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. So every building in Manhattan constructed after the towers has this same failsafe?

If not, why not?

Does the newly constructed WTC 7 have this failsafe? If not, why not?

[BuyingThyme]

74. Not every building built is a potential threat.

Some are obvious.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. So which buildings in downtown Manhattan are potential threats...

...and are therefore already packed with the explosives to bring them down?

Any buildings retroactively put on this must-pack-with-explosives list, like the Empire State Building?

Of course you don't have access to the actual list. Tell me your best guess. WTC 7 would have to be on that list, correct?

You say they are obvious - humor us. State some specific buildings you believe are already rigged with explosives, that people work in and sneak cigarettes in all day long. Go on, tell us.

Or concede the fact that prepacking any high-rise building in a dense urban area like Manhattan is an idiotic, silly assumption.

[BuyingThyme]

99. I haven't said anything about explosives.

Why are you making things up?

[Bolo Boffin]

123. Oh, really? In the OP, you said "demolition mechanisms."

What would that be besides explosives?

Be brief, because you need to then show evidence of these "demolition mechanisms" in other buildings. Now would be a good time to provide this evidence.

[William Seger]

60. Good luck. When your building accidentally explodes

... you'll be facing several thousand counts of second degree murder. On the other hand, you'll have the best insanity plea I ever heard.

[trotsky]

61. "you'll have the best insanity plea I ever heard"

:spray: :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

64. So you would send astronauts to the moon without

planning for bringing them back?

Pretty weird.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. silly

Bringing the astronauts back was always part of the plan - not something that was decided once they got there.

Surely, you can find a law on the books somewhere that requires the filing of a plan to demolish such buildings? And surely you can find the public hearings that were held on the demolition plan, and surely you can identify the relevant public officials who review and approve such demolition plans, right?

[BuyingThyme]

87. Look, what I'm saying here is obvious.

Think about it. There's no way those towers were built without a plan with bringing them down. Would they publish information about this? Of course not. I'm sure there are plenty of things of this sort that are classified, don't you?

[AZCat]

90. You keep saying this is obvious, yet...

you never seem to consider how it would be implemented. If it isn't feasible, then no matter how "obvious" it may be it isn't going to be done.

[BuyingThyme]

96. What isn't feasible?

[AZCat]

100. I don't know, because you won't tell me what "it" is.

You can talk about a built-in building demolition mechanism all you want, but until you begin to describe how this proposed mechanism supposedly works it's all just hot air.

[BuyingThyme]

104. I don't know how it would work, but don't you think it would

be interesting to find out?

[AZCat]

107. If such a thing is feasible, then - yes - it would be.

But I have yet to see anything to convince me that such a mechanism exists either on paper or in product, nor have I seen anything to convince me that such a mechanism is possible in the first place.

Perhaps you have brainstormed this before and have a couple of interesting ideas about how to accomplish this?

[MonkeyFunk]

92. sorry

it's only obvious to you.

You FEEL that should be the case. it wouldn't be hard to point to a law, a regulation, a regulatory body, a specific public officer responsible for this, OR a contractor, architect or builder who confirms what you say.

Or is it a huge secret that every architect knows but never mentions? And there are secret government bodies that review and approve these plans, but they don't tell anybody?

Sorry, your belief is just that - a belief with absolutely no evidence behind it.

[BuyingThyme]

94. There are secret security stipulations in ALL

buildings of this sort, from power sub-stations to surveillance equipment.

[MonkeyFunk]

97. so all

architects, builders, contractors, government regulatory agents, insurance agents and construction workers know about this, and manage to keep it all hush-hush?

[Kingshakabobo]

101. Add another several thousand people to the list of people "in on it."

Hey, maybe the building was built with a giant rocket engine in the basement so it could fly itself to the dump? Maybe the rocket fuel ignited and brought the building down? Ya never know???? Just sayin.

[BuyingThyme]

102. Okay, now I understand. You don't know that there

is classified architectural information used in building structures of this sort. Case solved.

[MonkeyFunk]

105. I've never said that

I'm asking you to tell me (since you seem to be aware of this previously-unknown requirement) WHO is involved? How many people?

Is there a secret class in architecture school where it's taught? Are there secret laws that require this?

And oddly, there's not ONE person out of all the hundreds or thousands of people who would've been involved in this for the WTC who has since come forward and said either "Yes, it fell according to the plan we had" or "Gee, that didn't follow our demolition plan!"?

[BuyingThyme]

109. I don't know why people would not come out and discuss

the vulnerabilities of buildings during a "war on terror," but your ignorance about how projects like this are undertaken pretty much explains your confusion.

[MonkeyFunk]

110. LOL

how about prior to the war on terror?

Can you find, perhaps, an architecture textbook that discusses the importance of this?

Or maybe you can find some articles about it in architecture journals - surely it would be a topic of interest, and developments in science and technology would surely be of interest to those involved.

Or are there secret journals that discuss this? Do they self-destruct after they're read?

Ahh... now we have to figure out who designs, plans and approves the secret Journal self-destruction mechanism!

You've certainly opened up a wormhole!

[BuyingThyme]

113. Look, it's fun having you as my stalker,

but if you keep pretending, I can't help to quench your thirst.

[MonkeyFunk]

114. let's see

for every post I make, you respond.

And that makes me a stalker?

LOL... you ARE funny.

Well, I followed this thread here from GD - I try not to play in this cesspool, because it's full of irrational people who couldn't present an argument if their lives depended on it.

It's been made abundantly clear that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim beyond what you "feel".

Buh bye.

[BuyingThyme]

116. Well, thanks for exposing yourself.

:hi:

[William Seger]

125. I worked as a structural draftsman for 5 years

... so I certainly know the details of the construction blueprints that I worked on, and I got to watch 2 of the tall buildings I worked on go up locally -- one concrete and one steel. As inconceivable as you seem to find it, during those 5 years of working directly with architects and structural engineers, I don't believe I heard a single sentence uttered about how the buildings we were working on would be demolished. Your hypothesis is absurd.

[MonkeyFunk]

126. Thank you!

The OP never once responded to multiple requests to provide just ONE person working in the field who could confirm his "feeling" about this.

[vincent_vega_lives]

143. Classified by whom?

from whom????? WTF are you talking about? Or did you just learn a new-fangled fancy word?

[vincent_vega_lives]

142. How does my going on a business trip and returning home

somehow equate to building my home with a fucking self destruct button?

[Kingshakabobo]

80. While you were on your acid trip, did you happen to consider.....

......the fire department, building inspectors and insurance company's opinion on building a skyscraper packed with explosives?


The comments above, from the non-regulars, are a real hoot. See what happens when you leave the rubber room? .....and you thought the regulars where mean.:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

82. Well if I had said anything at all about packing anything with explosives,

your post might be something other a reflection of your capacity for intellectual thought.

[vincent_vega_lives]

144. Ohhh it didn't have 'hexplosives"

It had "demolition mechanisms". Classified of course. :eyes:

[jberryhill]

122. Okay, but

...use lots of chicken wire.

[BuyingThyme]

145. kcik