tooltime9901 wrong AGAIN

Self-appointed 9/11 'debunker' tooltime9901 has made another sketchy claim about the facts supporting skeptics of the official government-approved conspiracy theory.

He claims that controlled demolition proceeds from the BOTTOM UP [argument from CAPS LOCK in original].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9z08ml230

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=13231374...

30 seconds of research would have shown this tired OCT canard is false - why does he repeat these long-debunked talking points?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• tooltime9901
• wrong
• again
• controlled
• demolition
• can
• be
• top
• down
• false
• debunker
• oct
• liars
• fools
• idiots
• morons
• drooling
• inbreds
• truther
• good
• true
• scientific
• great
• moral
• upstanding
• citizens

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

On the thing you said about the number of results while searching for demolition. That sounds like an appeal to popularity... like you are saying that because it has alot of results, therefore that is the most common technique, ignoring the possibility of it being caused by 911 truthers/skeptics.

Just a thought ;)

[proudfootz]

@ctcole77

Yes, and how many highrise steel-framed skyscrapers have you built?

[proudfootz]

@ollywatkins

US war crimes during the Korean War recently came to light - so there was the US military which is a rather large organization that committed the mass murder of civilians and probably some civilian organizations (like the press) which also kept this under wraps for several decades.

I'd guess any hijackers actually on the planes were probably tricked into participating. The behavior of the accused prior to 9/11 doesn't indicate they were religiously devout.

[ollywatkins]

@proudfootz How many people do you think would need to be in on a conspiracy that wires up 3 skyscrapers? OK I can reduce my estiamte to 100-200. Maintenance pple alone would be around 20 per building. "Conspirators can keep quiet".. can you give me an example of a large conspiracy that was busted (ie. proof that it existed)? I can only think of watergate, but that was maybe 20 pple or so. Do you believe that the hijackers were tricked into doing the terrorist attack? Or are they fictituous?

[proudfootz]

@ollywatkins

If buildings were rigged for demolition it would require a number of persons - but conspirators can keep quiet as history has shown.

I suspect that WTC7 was a target of the planes: 4 planes hijacked, 4 buildings destroyed.

If Thermitic materials used they require higher temps to ignite than kerosene can generate. So no 'chain reaction'.

Flashes are not required for demolition.

Blowing up top of skyscraper wouldn't necessarily cause building to collapse to the ground.

[ollywatkins]

@proudfootz maybe i made the numbers up. But to wire up the buildings would require a conspiracy a level of magnitude larger. Why would they wire up WTC7? Was that an intended target of one of the planes? If they were controlled demolished why didn't the chain raction start as soon as a plane with 3000 gallons of kerosine hit the building? Why were no flashes seen through the windows as the floors were blown up? Wouldn't flying a plane with 10 tonnes of nitroglycerine to the job just as well?

[proudfootz]

@ollywatkins

The psychological impact of the buildings hit by planes would be far less if they weren't annihilated in the spectacular fashion they were. So I'd guess it was important for the success of launching several wars and getting the public to turn off their critical faculties.

Risk assessment is a tricky thing - as it is no one was punished for their alleged incompetence (some even got medals for their failures). No one was held responsible for lying to investigators either.

[proudfootz]

@ollywatkins

These are nuimbers you just made up.

Your assumption that members of a conspiracy could not resist confessing are belied by the many successful conspiracies which have been kept from the public for many years.

There's little risk if the conspirators are able to control investigating bodies.

For example the CIA is an ongoing conspiratorial body responsible for all kinds of murder and mayhem - do you really think you know *all* the stuff they've done?

[ollywatkins]

@proudfootz for just the planes you could have a conspiracy of maybe 50 people. But to wire up 3 massive skyscrapers you would need a conspiracy of 1000s of people. The chance of one of them telling is so high.. that the risk wouldnt be worth it. Far less risky, if it were a conspiracy, would be to wire up some explosives to the plane. Hell... even if its small nuke or something.

[ollywatkins]

@proudfootz my credentials have nothing to do with tooltime. Besides the science, i don't understand the logic of the conspiracy. What exactly were they thinking? "OK we will fly these planes into the buildings. The planes probably won't destroy them, so lets wire up explosives through the whole building". So, yes, blowing them up would kill more people(had they not collapsed maybe only 1000 people would have died). But don't the risks far outweigh the gains?

[proudfootz]

@ollywatkins

I'll bet dollars to donuts the accomplished professionals you're calling 'crackpots' have better credentials than you do.

...and how do your alleged 'credentials' make tooltime's foolishness any less foolish?

[ollywatkins]

@proudfootz Bachelor Science with Honours majoring in Chemistry, Materials Science, and Pharmacology. I did physics and engineering up to 2nd year. Anything that doesnt cover i'd go to experts for an opinion (not these 1500 crackpots... i mean like the science and engineering community in general)