Solid Article in the NY Times
This article is excellent; while it presents the story factually there does not seem to be any doubt the writer recognizes the woo:
The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.
Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.
All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other.
Great article!
posted by Pat @ 10:21 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
The one publication in north america that arguably allows Bush hatred to determine what is printed more than any other actually followed the voice of sanity for once.
I'm almost impressed.
I mean, like where is my name in there?
Like hey, how can you do an article and not mention Loose Change?
I mean, where is camp freedom.
I'm like, just asking questions, but the Times was in on it.
Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings,
Debunked. In the hour or so leading up to the main demolition, the buildings were systematically undermined from the basements. White smoke is clearly seen billowing from the bottom floors of the towers continuously though the whole ordeal and eyewitnesses say they heard multiple explosions emanating from the basement levels.
Also, these facts can be verified by careful observation of the 911eyewitness video. As usual, the New York Times only shows you the "News that fit to print" and omits what it doesn't want you to see.
You guys may also want to give Hoffman's rebuttal to the NIST FAQ's here.
the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes...
Stupid Times. What makes them think there were planes?
(Note for new visitors. I'm kidding)
Debunked.
No, it hasn't been debunked, dumbass. Buildings destroyed in controlled demolitions fall bottom first, not top-down.
He really is a "special" child....
Jaezus H Coriast NESSIE:
I don't give a shaite if there was flame and brimstone at the bottom. Look at a controlled demolition, and tell me where does the building start to collapse.
Now look at the towers. Where do they start to collapse?
ANd please if you are going to say it was a "special" type of CD, where they planted the explosives in all the floors, then detonated the ones at the floors of impact, then back it up with (1) evidence of one single other occurance where anyone has done it, and (2) an explanation for how they would be able to set of the explosives at the exact floors, given the inexacts of a plane flying at high speed into the tower. I mean one breath of wind undere the plane, and it might have hit 5 floors higher.
It is so idiotic, it almost, ALMOST, defies words.
In the hour or so leading up to the main demolition, the buildings were systematically undermined from the basements.
The proof for which is a handful of people hearing explosions. Hardly a debunking.
The fact is the towers still collapsed from the top, and both cores were still standing momentarily afterwards. So what exactly was the effect of "systematically undermining" the basements?
Dylan,
Is that you?
What about my name?
I'm a veteran.
Didn't they see that cool shot we posed for?
If we're the 3 stooges, am I Curley or Shemp?
Buildings destroyed in controlled demolitions fall bottom first, not top-down.
That's exactly what I wrote, dumbass.
you gotta be pretty fuckin dumb to think that undermining the basement supports would result in a collapse from the point of jet impact.
You've got to be pretty fuckin' dumb if you think concrete pulverizes itself in mid air too.
Nazinyc also continues to ignore the fact that if CD charges went off everyone within miles of the WTC would have heard them.
They did indeed hear them, look at the 911eyewitness video. It's all there.
Now look at the towers. Where do they start to collapse?
Are the constructions the same? Come on, I know you can use your noodle, it's not that hard.
How is it possible to be that stupid, yet still be capable of speaking?
How is it possible to be that stupid, yet still be capable of speaking?
Perplexing isn't it (the subject matter I mean)? Take a step back, breath deeply and realize YOU'VE been lied to. It's not your fault; you are not a bad person for believing the lies as they are designed to fool people such as yourself. Let it sink in for a bit and then get angry.
Take a step back, breath deeply and realize YOU'VE been lied to.
Funny the guy who's always wrong telling us the truth is a lie.
It's really kind of fascinating in a sick way to see someone so detached from reality.
Nesync, how did teams of mysteriously unobserved explosives experts prepare the columns, place explosives, and wire them without anybody noticing? How come no one noticed this crack team of mysterious explosives experts removing sheetrock and conduit and stuff to get at the columns? How come no one noticed them?
Was it telekinesis? Mass hypnosis? Inquiring minds want to know.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How come no one noticed this crack team of mysterious explosives experts removing sheetrock and conduit and stuff to get at the columns? How come no one noticed them?
Was it telekinesis? Mass hypnosis? Inquiring minds want to know.
How many times have you stopped your HVACR maintenance man and asked him what he was up to and to show you the proof? Or what about your cleaning people? The WTC employed thousands of such workers and could have provided very easy cover for the whole operation. Why is that so hard to consider or for you to conceptualize? Can you really be that shortsighted?
Translation: "I have no idea how to answer any questions so I hope that's enough."
Translation: "I don't know how to respond to your well thought out responses, my bad guess I'll have to make something up real quick."
If I saw several hundred mantanance men simultaneously drilling holes in every concrete column on every wall in my building you can bet your ass I'd start asking questions about it. Or, at the very least I'd report it after my place of work collapsed. 3,000 people died on 9/11. While that number is huge, it's not even close to the number of people who worked in the WTC complex. Don't you think that, if they had seen such activity, at least a few of them would have reported it after the fact? Yet we don't have a sinlge witness who can testify to having seen suspicious behaviour by "maintanance staff" prior to 9/11.
Face it nessie, you're just pulling ideas out of your ass again.
How many times have you stopped your HVACR maintenance man and asked him what he was up to and to show you the proof? Or what about your cleaning people? The WTC employed thousands of such workers and could have provided very easy cover for the whole operation. Why is that so hard to consider or for you to conceptualize? Can you really be that shortsighted?
Ummm... if the HVAC guy or cleaning lady in my office were removing sheet rock and wires and fuses were spilling out of the walls? You're damn right I'd question them.
And right there, you've added a couple hundred people who are "in on it". I'd like to know you're final tally of conspirators.
Oh... and when they actually did all this would be nice too. Concrete evidence please. And don't bother using the 36 hour power down of only 50 floors in Tower 1. Even you're not retarded enough to believe this size job could've been completed in 36 hours.
They are conveniently leaving out that after the 1993 bombings the WTC were some of the most secure buildings in the world, with over 300 security guards, cameras, bomb sniffing dogs, Port Authority Police etc. Oh wait, Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company that contracted for electronic security over a year before 9/11, he must have disabled the whole thing! (insert maniacal laugh here)
whaaahaaahaaaahaaa!!!(complete with reverb and echo...)
Hmmm... well, maybe the crack team of zombie demolition experts were invisible. Funny how no one smelled the vaporized metal when they pre-burned the columns with acetylene torches, though. They must have used air freshener.
Post a Comment
<< Home