You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #62: You know.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
62. You know....
I'd warm up a bit more to this "controlled demolition" theory if there were other examples of "controlled demolitions" for the proposed purposes of what the WTC were destroyed for. As soon as someone shows me pre-placed demolition charges in the Sears Tower or the Empire State Bldg or the Chrysler Building or the Transamerica building or some other major landmark building that contains a) important gov't papers/financial records or some other government or private cache of information or b) provides a gargantuan insurance windfall for the BFEE or c) some other reason for a controlled demolition. Until that happens, the WTC collape was nothing more than an engineering failure due to the impact of airliners.

If the WTC were indeed brought down by "controlled demolitions", said demolitions were in place before the impacts. I have yet to see any evidence of the significant effort needed to pre-position enough explosive demolition charges to bring down those buildings. Simply sayign there was a power outage the week before or that Neil Bush (or whichever brother) was involved in the security or the renewed insurance policies shortly before the attacks doesn't hack the program. The floors where the supposed "demolition charges" were placed were occupied with hundreds if not thousands of people daily and unless I have missed something I haven't seen/read/heard anyone from those floors or the companies that occupied those floors mention anything untoward or out of the ordinary.

Wishing it so is *not* an evidence set. So-called "squibs" that are called so based on nothing more than they "look" like squibs is *not* evidence. The pancaking of floors with an end result of the buildings falling into their footprint is *not* evidence of a controlled demolition. Non-engineers, latter-day Google Rangers, laymen in the field of conspiracy saying there is no *way* this could have happened because no steel-core-based building has ever fallen before because of fire should show me another steel-based-core building that was hit by an airline full of jet fuel and *did not fall* before they enter into the world of absolutes.

Show me the money - hard, cold evidence - and I'll move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC