Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I just googled controlled demolition companies and that was among the top few links to come up. I appreciate building 7 was twice as tall, and no doubt wider too but not by a factor of thousands, which is the difference between 70kg and hundreds of Tons. Forgetting the technical side of setting charges and thinking in terms of putting that into a building without being noticed, 1 man could physically handle that weight in easily less than a working day, it's less than 4 bags of cement. A good lad would have that up before tea break.
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Yea that didn't make sense either, I'm gonna try to find that interview and post a link here.
Do you have a link to that? I'm trying to find this particular event. Was it a controlled demo or just destruction?100s of tonnes? really? Queens Court in Glasgow, to just pluck one example from the air was a 22 storey building and was brought down with less than 70 kilos of explosive. The system used was non-electric ie wireless, so nobody was laying out well concealed fuse wiring neatly, there was none.
That's how the professionals do it, quite unlike our perceptions.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
100s of tonnes? really? Queens Court in Glasgow, to just pluck one example from the air was a 22 storey building and was brought down with less than 70 kilos of explosive. The system used was non-electric ie wireless, so nobody was laying out well concealed fuse wiring neatly, there was none.
That's how the professionals do it, quite unlike our perceptions.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I saw another video of an architect who said that they would need 10s of tons of explosive (if not 100s) to pull of Tower 7 and possibly in the several 100s for the Twin Towers and to have that much explosive secretly snuck into the secure buildings by a few individuals without getting noticed, all of whom would be drilling holes into the load-bearing pillars, laying out the timed charges, laying out well concealed fuse-wiring so neatly over what could only be described as a several month / year(s?) long project and still not be noticed by a single individual working in those buildings - would be nearly (downright) impossible.Leave a comment:
-
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
^Even if it was a controlled demo, doesn't mean Bush was behind it, which is ultimately what conspiracy theorists are saying.Leave a comment:
-
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Just saw this and thought of you Jenksie
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Yes, in of itself, it's not grammatically correct, but that's because you're isolating the "statement" (be it poorly worded) from the context it's sarcastically putting forth as a question. English may not be my first language, but excellent grammar isn't going to help me separate the forest from the trees.
Let's agree to disagree and stick with the 911 topic
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Why doesn't this building fall by fire? - This is a question.
Building doesn't fall by fire??? - This is not a question. It's barely even a sentence, although i'll be lenient and throw you a bone since the statement at least contains a subject and a verb. Sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with the proper use of a question mark or the proper formation of a question.
Feel free to review the rules for question marks- http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/gramm...s/question.htm
If you would like to get into a discussion about linguistics, prepare to get schooled.
Linguistics > 9/11 talkLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: