WW3 On The Way - Sensationalist Alert!

[Rincewind]

Yes, that may be correct but my query has always been that to make a controlled explosion work the building has to be in the same condition as when the explosives are placed not to have gaping big holes in it or else the controlled explosion would not look like a controlled explosion.

Over to a construction engineer to clarify or poo poo my theory.

[Zingari]

Yes, that may be correct but my query has always been that to make a controlled explosion work the building has to be in the same condition as when the explosives are placed not to have gaping big holes in it or else the controlled explosion would not look like a controlled explosion.

Over to a construction engineer to clarify or poo poo my theory.

No it doesn’t, a controlled demolition requires that all “supporting columns” be made to give way simultaneously and not remain standing or they will force the building to collapse asymmetrically

Therefore if some columns have already been removed it won’t make any difference at all. because they are no longer supporting columns as their weight has now been shifted to the others .

I’ve already explained this in the other thread

Think of it like this. You can stand on either 2 legs or each of the others OK ?

If you quickly remove just one or the other you can still stand but if you eventually collapse it will be to one side .

If however the second leg is taken away just as quickly as the first a few seconds later , total and global collapse straight down will ensue immediately

Removing a support column prior to a controlled demolition can make no difference whatsoever .

[Rincewind]

A controlled demolition is totally reliant on expertly placed charges doing their job in a very carefully and expertly planned sequence, and any haphazard use of charges will have the effect of an unknown result

I'm confused. If the building structure has changed the position of the charges may have changed so which of the above quotes is correct.

[Zingari]

I'm confused. If the building structure has changed the position of the charges may have changed so which of the above quotes is correct.

Nigthy the charges are put there to remove the “supporting columns”.

If they’ve already been removed they can’t affect anything either way

It’s a good job I’m very patient

Imagine a paving slab supported on 6 standing tubes, with 6 men removing each tube simultaneously at a given signal, and I’m sure you can imagine that the slab will fall into the place where it once stood on the tubes (ie a controlled demolition )

Now imagine doing the same but this time taking away one of the tubes (thus creating a gaping hole).

The slab is still supported on the remaining 5 quite comfortably

Now repeat the previous exercise with just 5 columns being removed simultaneously and you will see the result is exactly the same even if the man who no longer has a tube to remove goes through the same procedure

ie a gaping hole is no longer a "supporting structure"

[Rincewind]

OK. You win. The President called together his top armr brass, the FBI CIA demolition experts and said 'Right, I think we should have a war with Iraq but we need a reason so here's what we'll do. First we'll hire someone to steal a jet airliner and crash it into the Twin Towers without warning anyone. Then we'll blow up WT7 and make it look like a controlled explosion but we will say it collapsed on its own, The public will buy that. All we have to do is pay off all the people that are going to be involved to keep it a secret and if they talk we'll just get rid of them. Who's going to believe a story like this anyway. Then we'll blame it all o0n Quaida.'

Air Force, Army, CIA FBI 'OH what a great idea Mr President, we'll organize it right away.'

[Zingari]

OK. You win. The President called together his top armr brass, the FBI CIA demolition experts and said 'Right, I think we should have a war with Iraq but we need a reason so here's what we'll do. First we'll hire someone to steal a jet airliner and crash it into the Twin Towers without warning anyone. Then we'll blow up WT7 and make it look like a controlled explosion but we will say it collapsed on its own, The public will buy that. All we have to do is pay off all the people that are going to be involved to keep it a secret and if they talk we'll just get rid of them. Who's going to believe a story like this anyway. Then we'll blame it all o0n Quaida.'

Air Force, Army, CIA FBI 'OH what a great idea Mr President, we'll organize it right away.'

this is a typical response , i'm afraid

If you ain’t gonna like the answers , don’t ask the questions .

[Rincewind]

I'/m agreeing with you. You have convinced me that it was a conspiracy. I have put forward the scenario as to how it came about, a little exaggerated maybe, but that is my imagination on overload.

[BoneDog]

Much of the trading related to wider strategies that would actually have lost money or broke even.

Lars Schall is interviewed here by Keiser on the subject and is far more sensible than anything on the 911myths website. There is information on the 'reputable' firm that placed the put options and Keiser has actually worked for them (ABS), although he doesn't mention that in this interview.

There is also mention of the German gold in the US, which I said Germany won't get back.

The 2.3 trillion was announced months earlier.

Rumsfeld announced on Sep 10th 2001 that the missing $2.3 trillion "is a matter of life and death". The very next day, the exact office where the investigation into the missing money was going on was directly hit and 35 investigators were killed. All of the files regarding trillions of dollars of stolen taxpayer money were destroyed.

That is no coincidence.

[BoneDog]

Seeing as you knew about 'Nufff' Empty

Have you checked out this Youtube channel ?

http://www.youtube.c...feature=g-all-u

I've never seen that channel before. There are some interesting looking video series I'd definitely watch on there.