How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis

[Kyle Burnett]

In both cases, there is no mushroom cloud at the top or the collapse of the building from the top down but from the bottom up.

Yet in this case, which I presented previousl, there is a mushroom cloud of sorts at the top and the collapse of the structure is from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Do you not comprehend how that example exposes your if it doesn't look like a traditional controlled demolition then it isn't a controlled demolition argument as fallacious?

There's a few other reasons why it wasn't a controlled demo, including the fact that the guys who do that professionally are a small number who all know each other and it would have been planned well in advance and coordinated with the plane hijackings.

How do you figure this proves anything? Also, do you not realize that and a possibility for how the "would have been planned well in advance" happened is what this thread is about?

In addition, John O'Neill, an Atlantic City guy and ex-FBI agent was on the job as head of security at WTC and it would have been impossible for such demolition charges to have been planted in advance without his knowledge or without anyone else seeing them.

You're confusing impossibility with improbability, and in my first post in this thread I provided a possible explanation how people could have known about the buildings being rigged but see no reason to come forward with that information. Heck, it's possible that aliens or time travelers rigged the buildings using technology far beyond our own to go undetected. Granted, that's highly improbable given the available evidence, but that doesn't make it impossible.

In addition, Josiah Thompson worked on the insurance study of the WTC and 7 collapse and they concluded the buildings came down because of the fires caused by the planes crashing into them.

I don't suppose he produced any sort of experimental confirmation to derive that conclusion, did he? If he did, please present it. If not, you're just engaging in the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Edited by Charles Drago, August 16. Ladies and Gentlemen: Please refer to this post as a template for efficient quoting. THANKS! -- CD