9/11 documentary now

[Dubai Blue]

Who said those particular explosions are initiating a demolition?

There is countless eyewitness testimony of explosions and flashes just before the building collapsed:



A demolition expert says these reports are consistent with controlled demolition:

You want to be asking yourself why EVERY demolition "expert" hasn't come out and said the same. There's so much footage available that the entire industry would be speaking out about this if there was anything dodgy. The silence of thousands says a lot more to me than the voice of one.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

So the experts they wheeled out were an explosives loader (a guy who places explosives where he's told)

How many explosives have YOU loaded?

Here's another expert for you to dismiss owing to your superior knowledge:

a fire fighter (from Seattle)

Where is it claimed he's an "expert"? He's simply making a point about explosions. Is that so hard for you to comprehend without trying to twist the context?

and a Maths teacher (with a grey beard to add credibility).

See above.

Of course there were loads of explosions from when the aircraft hit to the start of the collapse. Obviously nothing to do with aviation fuel gushing down liftshafts, electrical substations shorting out, steel beams snapping etc. etc. Clearly they were all part of a controlled demolition!

And how does any of that disprove the possibility of explosives?

 

[west didsblue]

How many explosives have YOU loaded?



Where is it claimed he's an "expert"? He's simply making a point about explosions. Is that so hard for you to comprehend without trying to twist the context?



See above.



And how does any of that disprove the possibility of explosives?

The start of the video says "experts speak out" and you referred to experts in your last post. Why would you post about someone who wasn't supposed to be an expert anyway? Although actually you did.
I've already previously posted why the likelihood of explosives being involved would be almost impossible due to the logistics of setting it up as well as there being no plausible motive. I'd say it's more incumbent on those who say there were explosives to prove it. From what I've seen, no-one's come up with anything that can't easily be explained away. No-one with any real credibility has said anything that would suggest a controlled demolition.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I've already previously posted why the likelihood of explosives being involved would be almost impossible due to the logistics of setting it up

You've given an opinion.

as well as there being no plausible motive.

There's no doubt the attacks brought benefits. Several members of the Bush administration publicly said so. Bush himself declared that the attacks provide “a great opportunity.” Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” Condoleeza Rice had said the same kind of thing, telling senior members of the National Security Council to “think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities’ to fundamentally change…the shape of the world.” The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: “The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities.”

No motive? Suppose you believe the 'weapons of mass destruction' scandal was just an honest mistake.

No-one with any real credibility has said anything that would suggest a controlled demolition.

 

[west didsblue]

How many explosives have YOU loaded?

Here's another expert for you to dismiss owing to your superior knowledge:

I don't really need to. He changed his mind.

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/inde...=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:

1. the WTC collapse goes from top to bottom: no controlled collapse ever has been done like that: explosives are always put at the bottom so the building collapses from its own inertia.
2. Since both towers collapse from top to bottom this means there had to be explosives at all floors, top to bottom, that would have been detonated in order (starting at top working down to bottom). This is not possible because there was a fire on the floors hit; if there were any explosives in the building, they would have just burned. And, more important: every explosive uses a detonator. Those detonators would have exploded way before because they go off at a temperature of 320 degrees celsius; hence no explosives could have used.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I don't really need to. He changed his mind.

Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. He never changed his mind about Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition. Your quote is of him talking about the Twin Towers.

 

[west didsblue]

Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. He never changed his mind about Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition. Your quote is of him talking about the Twin Towers.

So we're in agreement that the collapse of the twin towers wasn't a controlled demolition?

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

So we're in agreement that the collapse of the twin towers wasn't a controlled demolition?

So we're in agreement that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

 

[Manchester_lalala]

So we're in agreement that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

Are you saying the towers collapse wasn't a controlled demolition but wtc 7 was?

 

[west didsblue]

So we're in agreement that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

Of course not. You've put up a video of a single expert saying it visually looked like one whereas the experts who conducted the actual investigation said the opposite. I'll go with the majority who actually know all the details.
Do you agree the twin towers collapse was not a controlled demolition?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Are you saying the towers collapse wasn't a controlled demolition but wtc 7 was?

And they say the official story has too many holes in it!

 

[west didsblue]

I'm guessing @Jim Tolmie's Underpants is trying to work out how he can say the twin towers was a controlled demolition without discrediting the only credible expert he could come up with. Either that or he'll change the subject or we won't see him for a while.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

And they say the official story has too many holes in it!

The people claiming an inside job rely on a handful of experts knowledge and witnesses stating there was loud bangs at the scene of the towers. Not one person has came out admitting the truth, how many people would it take to organise something like this?

The more I think about it, the more I question why I even debate an inside job.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Of course not. You've put up a video of a single expert saying it visually looked like one whereas the experts who conducted the actual investigation said the opposite. I'll go with the majority who actually know all the details.

So you believe that - for the first time in human history - office fires brought down a steel structured building? You believe this building fell at free-fall speed straight down into the path of most resitence? You believe the symmetrical collapse due to asymmetrical damage isn't at odds with the principles of structural mechanics? You believe "“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses," despite this:



And this:



And this:



Well, you carry on blindly believing the word of these so-called "experts", then. I'll continue to think for myself.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I'm guessing @Jim Tolmie's Underpants is trying to work out how he can say the twin towers was a controlled demolition without discrediting the only credible expert he could come up with. Either that or he'll change the subject or we won't see him for a while.

Lol, keep guessing. You think I didn't know Danny Jowenko said the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition? He said that in the same interview I posted earlier. The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were top down, which are rare in the demolition industry. Building 7 was a classic demolition job - bottom up - the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko was qualified to give his professional opinion on.

I rebutted your misinformed claim that "No-one with any real credibility has said anything that would suggest a controlled demolition." How about you explain how one of the leading experts in controlled demolition got is so completely wrong about Building 7?

 

[west didsblue]

So you believe that - for the first time in human history - office fires brought down a steel structured building? You believe this building fell at free-fall speed straight down into the path of most resitence? You believe the symmetrical collapse due to asymmetrical damage isn't at odds with the principles of structural mechanics? You believe "“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses," despite this:



And this:



And this:



Well, you carry on blindly believing the word of these so-called "experts", then. I'll continue to think for myself.

I see you're going for the change the subject and not answer the question about the twin towers option.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I see you're going for the change the subject and not answer the question about the twin towers option.

You can't see very well, can you?

 

[worsleyweb]

Carry on you two - enjoying this!

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

And they say the official story has too many holes in it!

More holes than Swiss cheese, mate. Here's a thing: Why were people saying the building was gonna blow up?



Time-travelling conspiracy theorists?

 

[Manchester_lalala]

More holes than Swiss cheese, mate. Here's a thing: Why did people know they were going to blow up the building?

I'm starting to think that your on a wind up. Them videos twist words and make out the people features in them know it's an inside job, or something along them lines. Just like that Larry Silverstein comment about pulling wtc 7, the conspiracy theory crackpots love that one.