| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Our friends at implosionworld have created a WTC FAQ pag |
 |
|
A recurring thought I've had recently since reading the King paper is the weakness of the CD argument.
While it is natural to compare with previously known similar events - which is how the CD tag has stuck - as a methodology in itself, it has notable divergance from what happened on 911, with the possible exception of WTC7.
Perhaps we should desist from using the CD terminology and instead call it what it was:
Absolute, Total, Blown To Smithereens, Powderised and Bone Grinding Destruction.
That should eliminate any mistaken semantics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Chek you have now dropped the controlled demolition theory in if favour of the "Absolute, Total, Blown to Smithereens, Powderised and Bone Grinding Destruction" theory?
Wow I can hardly wait for the trooths to back you on this one.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | So Chek you have now dropped the controlled demolition theory in if favour of the "Absolute, Total, Blown to Smithereens, Powderised and Bone Grinding Destruction" theory?
Wow I can hardly wait for the trooths to back you on this one.
 |
I'm considering it. It's accuracy is more direct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: Re: Our friends at implosionworld have created a WTC FAQ pag |
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the copy you refer to created 5 years ago? Much of the assumptive and 'factual' detail is way out of date and consequently void.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Our friends at implosionworld have created a WTC FAQ pag |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the copy you refer to created 5 years ago? Much of the assumptive and 'factual' detail is way out of date and consequently void. |
I didn't see anything related to the possible controlled demolition of the towers that was out of date. No new evidence, for example, has arisen to suggest that the surrounding buildings were NOT heavily damaged (unlike with a controlled demolition, where they are carefully protected), and there is still no evidence that bombs were used, unless you count Dr. Jones' thermite hypothesis as evidence of explosives.
The only thing I could find that was out of date was the ban on transportation of explosives -- I think that's been lifted, but I could be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
