Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wren57
Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure I touched on the techincal issues. Even if I didn't touch on them to the extent that would've shut you up, quite a few posts back I linked to a paper written by a physics
professor at BYU who is, I'm sorry to say, largely better equipped to draw a conclusion than any of you or myself for that matter.
I'm also pretty sure I never insisted that explosives were placed at the level of the impact. Actually, if you'd read more carefully, you'd notice that was the argument Rob was making. I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. I really need to find the first photos I saw of cutter charges...they were a lot better than what I found in a 5 minute google search since they're very clear and nowhere near the impact zone.
And again Wren...reading comprehension. The only reason I touched back on motive is because...you guessed it...it was a direct reply to what Rob posted. We can all talk motive, means, and opportunity until we're blue in the face. I can think of half a dozen viable motives off the topof my head, but that doesn't really matter.
What I find ridiculously amusing about all of this is that you're both so hell bent on proving me wrong (which you can't because these are just theories and no member of the public will ever really know one way or another) that you're scowering the internet for sites with points that counterpoint what I've posted. That in and of itself is sort of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory. Ironic, huh? "0h n0z! What we're posting is logical!!1! LOLZ!" Wrong...you're just as "crazy" as me.
That, and the fact that you constantly (and mockingly) chanted "if it's on the internet it must be true". Yet all of the information posted is from
INTERNET sites just as biased in opinion as anything I could pull up. That's some wicked circular logic right there. It must be bullshit...unless it supports your views, huh? Way to be a hypocrit. Oh...and please, don't ever reference Wikipedia. You know they fail people in college if they site Wikipedia as a source of information on a paper? If that doesn't tell you something about the reputation the site has in the academic community, I don't know what does.