WTC news anchor is interupted when speaking of demolitions

Listen as Peter Jennings is interupted when his subject talks about demolitions. "that should be it"?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• WTC
• demolitions
• conspiracy

[boerinbeton]

Do you honestly believe Bush runs the country? Come on, really...

[wilsonpwt]

"Nothing has done more damage to America's place in the world than the revelation that this nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[CBR11X]

@sorcerykid That's a definite possibility mate. What type of explosive can pulverise 200 000 tonnes of concrete and steel into dust within a few seconds?

[sorcerykid]

@Xendrius Also for the record consider that "ground zero" in every dictionary prior to 2001 meant only one thing: "place at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes". Feel free to look it up at your local library archives :) It is absolutely no coincidence the term was officially chosen for the disaster site of the WTC.

[sorcerykid]

@Xendrius Please explain how and why they would go through the enormous effort required to demolish a building using "top down demolition" when even back in the 1970s standard demolition was known not to be economically feasible for 1300ft+ skyscrapers and hence why the towers were fitted with thermonuclear charges purpose-built for their demolition as is on-record per the USA-USSR peacible underground nuclear testing treaty. That sounds even more complicated that the "no planes theory".

[Xendrius]

@sorcerykid Doubt nuclear tech was used, it was simply a top down demolition, a scripted detonation with milliseconds apart between each floor detonation. The contents were forcefully blown outwards, some pieces flying faster than freefall, and pyroclastic dust being formed, thermite incendiaries together with RDX is what probably took it down.

[sorcerykid]

@CBR11X Look up the definition of "ground zero" in any dictionary dated pre-2001 for a clue about how the buildings actually collapsed ;)

[sorcerykid]

@Xendrius Consider that an underground nuclear device planted below these high-rise buildings would be capable of performing just such a demolition. It would also be virtually silent and it would pulverize the entire structure (up to about 1000 feet) almost instantaneously and turn it into a fine dust allowing for the in-tact top floors to fall down onto itself at almost free fall speed. Hmmm, sound familiar?

[flipgangsta17]

@negativeindustrial your a engineer? what company do you work for? name the buildings you helped build and the head architech that helped build it

[Xendrius]

@chadley6916 Honetsly you really are stupid but it isnt a suprise for anyone who believes something impossible such as buildings collapsing to dust from fire, do you have any idea what I was trying to say there? What is more devestating and more likely causing "collapse", a plane hitting it and then somehow floors slowly buckeling and causing the upper weight to crush the rest or simply "wishing 2-3" floors away with explosives letting it fall down as if you removed all the impact floors?

[chadley6916]

@Xendrius

Wow, I guess u really are a special brand of stupid. You are not accounting for the impact of the JET! Nobody said you could just blow up the upper floors to create collapse. This is obviously above you, and I'm sure you haze ZERO engineering knowledge in your background. I can't debate with someone who is ignorant about the subject.

[Xendrius]

@chadley6916 If demolition companies could make skycrapers collapse in onthemselves smoothly at freefall speed they would save alot of explosives and just blow up the upper floors to let the upper weight crush the rest, you idiot.